Judy, Since it seems Alex is going to ignore my question, I'll put it to you: why should FFLers care if we're dumped into an adult rating?
Are we recruiting new members and thus are adopting the wearing of a Yahoo mask to cover our randy parts? Seems that's the intent of Rick. His party, his rules, but what's your POV on it? I understand the Yahoo agenda and agree with it to some extent. They're trying offer a "pre-sorted for adult material" service to those looking for a Yahoo group to join. I get it. But why not open up FFL to all sorts of crappola? We already have The War Monger laughing it up that 1,000,000 women and children died in Iraq -- what's more obscene then that? If sexy material gets FFL "punished," what's that compared to "allowing some Yahoo Pope to speak ex cathedra from on high" and abiding with an extortion? Seems to me we posters here, when we are not bothered by war mongering, should have the integrity to admit that we are not bothered by sexual material either. If this is to be called a family site, then we'd have to dump swear words etc. This is not a family site, right? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Indeed, the fact that you have wrongly represented my > > > > post AND removed it has now left the readers of this > > > > forum with the impression that I did, in fact, do what > > > > you said I did BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE NO WAY OF > > > > CONFIRMING THAT I DIDN'T BECAUSE YOU'VE REMOVED THE POST!!!!! > > > > > > I saw it before it was deleted, and I'll confirm that > > > all Shemp did was post a link. > > > > > > I'd also be interested to hear the explanation of why > > > Shemp's post was deleted but Edg's explicitly sexual > > > post of a couple of weeks ago was allowed to remain. > > > > I have in the past requested that links to pornographic imagery not be > > posted to FFL (IIRC, it was cardemaister who posted a link.) This is a > > touchy issue because it was pornographic imagery uploaded to the FFL > > files/photos that got FFL listed as an adult group. It was because of that > > situation that Rick asked me to be a moderator in the first place. If > > memory serves me, during the most recent argument over racist language, the > > person who had uploaded the porn said that he would still like to have FFL > > shut down. > > > > Here is what the FFL guidelines actually state: > > > > "8) Posting of "adult" material, either text or photos, is prohibited. > > Violation of this guideline may result in expulsion from the group." > > > > It is possible that in being extremely protective of FFL's existence I've > > overstepped my bounds. Personally, I think the guidelines should include a > > ban on links to pornography, but I leave that up to Rick's judgment. > > > > As for Edg's post, I didn't read it. My ADD wiring doesn't allow me to > > focus on stuff that doesn't interest me, so I don't see a lot of what gets > > posted here. My primary focus as moderator is on managing subscriptions and > > keeping an eye on the files/photos section, and I leave it up to the other > > moderators to catch the stuff that I miss in FFL traffic. > > OK. Seems to me if inappropriate posts threaten FFL's > existence as a group for general readers, somebody, or > a team of somebodies, needs to be monitoring *all* the > posts. When spotty monitoring results in one person > being publicly sanctioned while others equally or more > "guilty" are not, that's not fair; but more importantly, > it doesn't work very well to protect the group. >
