113586
? ? ? ??
? ? ? ??
Just a specific minimum amount of standards, I would guess.How well behaved everybody is here, warms my heart
Ah, hello Charley!.. and now I'm here to make everyone misbehave.
113592Ah, @Mare Lover 1975 , a question came up: If there's a forum rule which forbids links / embedding / whatever from a specific four-letter page with two-letter number (you know which I mean, I'm sure), which unfortunately has / allows very much abusive stuff, as it doesn't get moderated / removed quite enough ..
.. but in the media upload rules there's no disallowing of a specific site as watermark mentioned, while the rules regarding abuse are clear ..
.. is it then following the rules if users (not me, but I saw them quite often) re-upload stuff which got watermarked by that site, even if it's non-abusive?
Or does the first rule exclude it for the idea that there should not be unrelated advertisement for a site which hosts a lot of abusing stuff?
This couldn't get answered clear by reading the rules even three times.. I'm still not sure if it falls under the "links"-disallowing.
Edit: If @FloofyNewfie reads it, I'm interested in your opinion as well.![]()
Thank you very much, @Mare Lover 1975 ! That clears up a lot.Content with watermarks from a black listed site is currently allowed so long as it follows all posting rules, aka no abuse ect.
That is absolutely true. But as long as I can't see it, I won't misbehave by it. As such it doesn't matter - at least for me.You just can't see what I'm doing under the table.
113615You like strong coffee by the way?
Then don't order coffee if you ever visit Sweden. They have coffee strong enough to kill a small animal.113615
Nope, mild to medium roast. Strong coffee is too bitter lol.