Deleted31005User Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Jeez, people telling to "move on" or to "leave the Nexus" just because we share our opinion seriously need to take a good look in the mirror themselves.I also almost never get on LL, my mods are uploaded on Nexus, but that does not mean I agree with everything that happens on Nexus, after all I'm an individual with my own mind and not some drone and I seriously hope the same counts for everyone else here on the forums. Edited May 24, 2015 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokkiMoon Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Because some things can't be unseen. :tongue: Edit: But in all honesty, I find that the best stuff almost always makes it to Nexus for me to download and only very rarely do I look elsewhere for mods. I'm always worried something is going to mess up my Skyrim install (it is so shaky right now) that I tend to really be careful where I pick them up and what I put into my game. Edited May 24, 2015 by TokkiMoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurah Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) http://page.crystalcomments.com/1/576365227e60cec97a.jpg To the moderators: sory but I couldn't resist :sad: Edited May 25, 2015 by Shurah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lofgren Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I don't think anybody has invoked freedom of speech or civil rights. This is again a strawman. The closest thing I have come to raising an objection to the policy is to state that it is petty and emotional, but also, as I said, quite human and understandable. Nobody likes people to talk trash about their friends and coworkers. And as I have said multiple times now, I really don't give a s#*! precisely because it IS so petty. It's a tiny, meaningless thing, more funny than good or bad to any degree. What I do object to is the notion that some parents seem to have that other people should take on the responsibility of protecting their children from exposure to ideas that the parents find objectionable. We live in a complex world that is not designed for 5-year-olds and part of your job as a parent is to teach them that. I would estimate that my child is exposed to at least one idea that I find objectionable on a roughly daily basis, usually from advertising. But sometimes the ideas even come from stories that I am reading to her. We talk afterward about the ideas expressed in the story and whether or not she agrees with them or not, and whether I agree with them and why, which is also how my parents raised me. Again, this is an objection only to the notion that any site (let alone the links that random users post to a site) should be safe for a 5-year-old that isn't specifically advertised as a site for 5-year-olds. (Which wasn't even the argument that Lily'sDad2009 was making, but rather the argument that others made for him trying to rationalize a strawman of his original argument.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lofgren Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 As for whether or not this thread should remain open, it seems to me there is no reason not to provide one place where discussion of this topic can be corralled. There seem to be some people who are convinced that this thread is some kind of problem but it doesn't seem that way to me. Most of the discussion has not been unhinged, personal, insulting, or irresponsible. The closest we came to any of that was micalov's comment early on and my own disucssion with Lily'sDad2009 which was more about to what degree you should be relying on forum censorship to determine what your child sees on the internet (not at all) and appears to be over now. I can't be the only one who found the LL ban perplexing and it is good to have an explanation and also a place for commenters to voice their objection or support of the ban. Even if there is no intention of ever changing the policy, it's still good to keep the communication channel open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeofaTsavo Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 No thread like this is complete until people start tossing logical fallacy arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillysdad2009 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) :thumbsup: Edited May 30, 2015 by Lillysdad2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillysdad2009 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) :thumbsup: Edited May 30, 2015 by Lillysdad2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillysdad2009 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) :thumbsup: Edited May 30, 2015 by Lillysdad2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noortje Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) To summarize I think this would be the suggestion for Dark0ne to consider as far as policy goes: LLab is attempting to get rid of the anti-nexus stigma and is closing any threads that bash on nexus staff.I would say that shows there is no animosity from the LLab staff and therefor the site name should be allowed to be mentioned, remove the filter and allow *site not allowed*. LLab has pornographic adds, since you do not want to link to websites that have them I suggest leaving the no-link policy in tact. People can instead give the thread title on *site not allowed* so that people can easily google/search the thread for themselves. That way links will not be needed. ----------------- I'm leaving the child raising subject out since that is irrelevant to website policy. Edited May 25, 2015 by Noortje Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts