Resident poster
so just to be clear i can only use img(flickrlink)/img and delete the urls ???
Yes, if your Flickr gallery features nudity. If not, you can still use the complete link with the opening and closing URL BBS tag.
EDIT: As I wrote in the first post, you should make sure if hotlinking (i.e. without including a clickable link back to the hoster) is acceptable under their terms.
Game of thrones nutjob
so just to be clear i can only use img(flickrlink)/img and delete the urls ???
Yes, if your Flickr gallery features nudity. If not, you can still use the complete link with the opening and closing URL BBS tag.
oh ok thanks for clearing it up 
Old hand
Does it really make any difference if a nude image is uploaded directly or you need to click on a link to get to it?
We disapprove of piracy, and for this reason we do not permit links to sites that host pirated content. We do not approve of using content without permission (e.g. ripped content) and for this reason we do not permit download links to ripped content or links to sites that host ripped content. By the same analogy, if we do not permit nudity in public Image Share then common sense dictates that we will not approve of links to such content in public Image Share.
excuse me for this But This case can not be Compared with with piracy because the link I'm putting it´s on my property, it's like I put my phone number or my personal address, is something that is totally mine, therefore can not be applied the same analogy.
and truth .. Is it so delicate to put a link to an image "undue" when published mods which understand fully pornographic content, available for ALL the public? ... These are the things I do not understand in this policy of censorship ...
Edited by wonkonuba, 14 August 2013 - 11:44 pm.
Resident poster
Does it really make any difference if a nude image is uploaded directly or you need to click on a link to get to it?
We disapprove of piracy, and for this reason we do not permit links to sites that host pirated content. We do not approve of using content without permission (e.g. ripped content) and for this reason we do not permit download links to ripped content or links to sites that host ripped content. By the same analogy, if we do not permit nudity in public Image Share then common sense dictates that we will not approve of links to such content in public Image Share.excuse me for this But This case can not be Compared with with piracy because the link I'm putting it´s on my property, it's like I put my phone number or my personal address, is something that is totally mine, therefore can not be applied the same analogy.
and truth .. Is it so delicate to put a link to an image "undue" when published mods which understand fully pornographic content, available for ALL the public? ... These are the things I do not understand in this policy of censorship ...
It can be compared because you linked to content that we do not wish to see in a certain section of the site. Whether or not it is your 'property' is irrelevant. The Image Share gallery is visible to all visitors, even unregistered ones, including minors, while adult mods are only visible to registered members who do not block such content.
There's someone watching me, I can tell.
Thanks for providing some clarity on this, there is a conflict with Flickrs rules here though, you must link back to the page on Flickr, Flickr states....
Do link back to Flickr when you post your Flickr content elsewhere.
Flickr makes it possible to post content hosted on Flickr to other web sites. However, pages on other web sites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr. This provides a way to get more information about the content and the photographer.
http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/
The following Community Guidelines are here to help you understand what it means to be a member of Flickr. Don't forget that your use of Flickr is subject to these Guidelines and our Terms of Service.
The only way to get around this is not to have nudity in your Flickr Gallery in the first place (or set them to private) because Flickr links back to the user and all of their images, not individual sets.
Let me show you who you're trying to scare...
It's simple enough, our image upload page already has the following:
NO NUDITY ALLOWED
Do not post any images of nudity including breasts, genitalia, buttocks or characters that are wearing so little that they might as well be naked (like 1 pixel wide thongs that cover nothing up).
If you do not heed this warning it is very likely you will be banned.
There is also a link to the site terms of service on that page - there's no excuse for posting something that violates those terms, only to have it removed. You (users in general) were already told not to do it.
Simply put: If it appears on the page, it is subject to site regulations.
because the link I'm putting it´s on my property, it's like I put my phone number or my personal address, is something that is totally mine, therefore can not be applied the same analogy.
The flickr account might be your property - the imageshare pages are ours, and if you want to use them - you go by the rules we set down.
You also missed the point - we don't want people linking to any offsite item or content that we wouldn't allow here by our own rules.
The only way to get around this is not to have nudity in your Flickr Gallery in the first place (or set them to private) because Flickr links back to the user and all of their images, not individual sets.
Then perhaps that is what people will have to do for the time being. We'll see how things are setup when the remodel of the imageshare is complete and redefine the regulations on the posting/linking abilities available. Because if there is a rise in the abuse of the linking ability, then it might just come down to blocking that as well I'm afraid. Making the description areas purely text only - now I definitely don't want to see that happening, as I know a fair amount of people do like to link the mods they have used in the images within the descriptions.
If people are so determined to post nudes (full or partial) here, throw a coin in the box and get access to the supporters section. It's better than risking your account by doing something you know will get you in trouble.
There's someone watching me, I can tell.
Then perhaps that is what people will have to do for the time being. We'll see how things are setup when the remodel of the imageshare is complete and redefine the regulations on the posting/linking abilities available. Because if there is a rise in the abuse of the linking ability, then it might just come down to blocking that as well I'm afraid. Making the description areas purely text only - now I definitely don't want to see that happening, as I know a fair amount of people do like to link the mods they have used in the images within the descriptions.
If people are so determined to post nudes (full or partial) here, throw a coin in the box and get access to the supporters section. It's better than risking your account by doing something you know will get you in trouble.
It's what I've done, the few NSFW images I had are now private. It's easy to do, permissions can be changed in batches so it's a five minute job. Is there something going to be put on the sites telling people about this? not everyone uses the forum and even those that do could easily miss this.
Let me show you who you're trying to scare...
I actually made mention of a point about an "onsite" reference to the guidelines and regulations being in place at the top of the main imageshare gallery page with the other staff, but again, nothing for now until we have any reworking of the imageshare in place, at which point I'm hoping at least that any method of informing users of the regulations will be visible, and always available to all users so that everyone understands the rules and can reference them at a moments notice.
I think it would save everyone a lot of trouble.
Resident poster
The only way to get around this is not to have nudity in your Flickr Gallery in the first place (or set them to private) because Flickr links back to the user and all of their images, not individual sets.
What about setting the flickr content filter for such images to moderate ? It still allows you to link them, but if someone wants to view them on your flickr photostream then they need a flickr account. It's not that much different than the adult setting of the nexus accounts.
Edited by Worminator, 15 August 2013 - 04:34 pm.
Fan
i personally try not to produce NSFW liberal or strict in interpretation. Mainly i showcase them on my facebook fallout community page. and even with a 17+ restriction setting, i have yet to post edited images with slight "NYPD prime time tv drama show okay" 'buttocks' or side view of breast.
i have made a from a distance of the shower/lavatory room in underground hideout FONV a showering [back turned] pic image with "Al Chest Breach" EZ companion mod follower obstructing most of the view as a "guard" any which showed some "nudity" even a side view of breast, i took liberty in using paint.net to "pixilate" them in blocky blurred pixils ..
i mentioned this for scenario situation of moderation rules concerning said my approach, at this moment my situation and thoughts concerning my images is under my own moderation and decision to withhold to any site uploading and use in public of "PG-13/R" edited imagery.
p.s. my latest post utilizes my old "tinypic" account which provides img bb coded urls for forums
Edited by yahmart, 15 August 2013 - 09:10 pm.
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: Nexus Mods
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top