Content linked in image descriptions in our Image Share sections

[Dazaster]

So I guess if I want to continue posting images with links I'll have to set up two seperate flickr accounts with different usernames, one clean for normal shots, one set to adult for er, adult stuff. A pity I didn't know this before I went and got myself a formal warning, but, ya lives and learns I guess :(

[ZeroKing]

@ Dazaster

Better solution: just set the "Safety Level" of the NSFW images in your original Flickr account to Restricted, so that it won't automatically show your NSFW images as icons for preview or display them in the img tags.

[JimboUK]

@ Dazaster

Better solution: just set the "Safety Level" of the NSFW images in your original Flickr account to Restricted, so that it won't automatically show your NSFW images as icons for preview or display them in the img tags.

 

I would double check with staff before going that route, the NSFW content is still there and available to anyone signed in the Flickr. I would imagine the majority of people have that sort of thing set to restricted anyway, not doing so can lead to your whole Flickr account being set to restricted.

[ZeroKing]

@ jim_uk

Agreed.

[Brigand231]

I was waiting for a response to Worminator's post since I thought that, logically, images rated appropriately would be treated the same as adult flagged or supporter material on the Nexus and that if people see it, it's because they deliberately set themselves up to see it. Rereading some of the wording in the official position though, gave me the impression that the fact that the image exists in the gallery at all regardless of how it's moderated or restricted makes it unsuitable for linking to so I had to go and "break" the only story entry I posted to the supporter's section by marking any "questionable" images private and posted the images to DeviantArt with links to them there, thus rendering my flickr gallery "safe" by Nexus standards again.

 

Knowing what I know now, yeah, I might have considered a second flickr account to host that stuff. I considered embedding from MediaFire, but their ToS suggests it would not be welcome content.

 

What still puzzles me is that this brings us back to the same "bad" situation for the Nexus as the discussion on disallowing embedded images in the first place. It makes it more attractive to host the questionable images as "hidden" uploads in the supporter's section then embed from there which puts more of a strain on the Nexus servers and resources. The other logical and permitted option would be to simply upload multiple images without making them hidden or embedded which brings up another another interesting debate...

 

The Nexus position on multiple posting in succession is that the only limit or restriction is 5 or 10 images each day depending on membership and it's that simple. It feels like (I'm being very specific with how I worded that) the administration is turning a deaf ear to the community disapproval of the practice of "flooding" the image section with dumping a user's allowed number of images in succession as it pushes other users' work further down the list and less likely to be seen.

 

There's currently no limit to how many mods a user can upload, but I suspect that if I were to post umpteen mod files with very subtle variations as separate file uploads instead of on one mod page action would be taken.

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to criticize the Nexus or its administration in any way as we're guests in their home and it's kind of them to invite us in. What I'm trying to do is encourage clear and honest discussion and dialog that addresses the concerns of all involved instead of just giving things a stamp of approval or disapproval. Dark0ne does an amazing job of laying things out for us in his announcements that explain how and why things are the way they are, but we're not seeing that here; just a statement that change is coming. People get frustrated when they believe their concerns and points of view are brushed aside or ignored when they have no way of knowing if they're even understood or considered.

[Dark0ne]

I'm on holiday this month so don't have time to spend on the issue. I will say that this current ruling seems pretty simple to follow and I don't quite understand how it's become a struggle. If you can't post it in the Nexus image share you can't link to it in the Nexus image share either. It's not a tough one!

 

 

 

So I guess if I want to continue posting images with links I'll have to set up two seperate flickr accounts with different usernames, one clean for normal shots, one set to adult for er, adult stuff. A pity I didn't know this before I went and got myself a formal warning, but, ya lives and learns I guess

 

I checked your warning yesterday to ensure this wasn't the case. It wasn't. You received an informal warning telling you specifically not to do it. You have to read the warning, tick a box saying you understand it and that you've read our ToS before you're allowed to use the site again. The fact you ignored the informal warning and then went and did it again is very much your fault and I resent the implication to the contrary. You did know it. You received an informal warning telling you as such. You did it again.

 

I would hope staff will continue to hand out informal warnings first on this matter before any stronger action is taken as this has yet to be written in to the ToS proper. I've yet to see this not being the case.

[Dazaster]

 

 

I checked your warning yesterday to ensure this wasn't the case. It wasn't. You received an informal warning telling you specifically not to do it. You have to read the warning, tick a box saying you understand it and that you've read our ToS before you're allowed to use the site again. The fact you ignored the informal warning and then went and did it again is very much your fault and I resent the implication to the contrary. You did know it. You received an informal warning telling you as such. You did it again.

 

Perhaps further explanation is neccessary. Yes, I recieved an informal warning, with a notice to re-read the ToS. I presumed (wrongly) that it as because the image in question had scene where my character was wearing skimpy armor, even though no nipples etc. were visible. That particular image was pulled, but another one on the same post remained. I have had images pulled in the past where somebody has said things were visible when they weren't, so, I decided to let it slide and carry on. Then, yesterday the whole image post was pulled, even though both images were just head shots. That's when I realised there was more going on than I first thought. Again I reiterate: I was told to re-read the ToS, which I did, but this does not say anything about having an image where users can link to my offsite account and access nudity. Only by further investigation, and a helpful link from The Vampire Dante, was I able to confirm exactly what the problem was.

 

I have not, nor have I ever, implied that I had not commited the offence. And again, I feel that the link supplied by T.V.D in my post about the ToS should be made available within the ToS to help others understand better.

A case in point : http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/1080993-caelrya-formal-warning-issued/

Same issue, the very next day!!!

 

So no, I didn't set out to deliberately flout the rules, I simply didn't understand correctly at the time.

[LadyMilla]

Usually, we do not do this but it seems in this case it is necessary to post the informal warning (which is, by default, not published in our 'Forum rules and strikes' section):

 

 

 

 

Informal warning issued at 19:08, 11 Aug 2013 by LadyMilla (read by the user)

Reason Image: Keeping An Eye On You
The last picture embedded into the image description was not acceptable for public Image Share. Also, please note that if your Flickr gallery features nude images then you may not add links to your gallery to the descriptions of your images in public Image Share.

 

I have highlighted the relevant parts. This warning was issued on 11 August. Then you posted an image entitled 'Firelight' with an embedded image from your Flickr gallery and a direct link to the same gallery in the image description. This is why you received a formal warning.

[Dark0ne]

Thanks LadyMilla. No problem showing the warning publicly in these instances. As you can see you were informally warned adequately not to do it, you did it again, so another warning was issued, this time formally.