No Pictures to be posted!

[Paul Stevens]

As of now pictures will not be permitted to be posted in this forum. Please provide a link to the source. Any post with pictures is subject to being edited/deleted at our discretion.
Example: This link contains graphic photos.
Thank you for you cooperation.

[Badriprasad Bumbabol]

About Time.
Well Done.

[Jason Menard]

That's silly.

[Paul Stevens]

Not my call but will enforce the policy. You can still post the links.

[Angela Poynton]

It's not at all silly if you consider the following.
1. Technical reason : Pictures and long news articles are hogging our diskspace!
2. Moral Reason : When news broadcasts show images which may be disturbing or offensive viewers are usually wanred beforehand. People make a choice to look with at least some knowledge of what they might see.
When people come to Meaningless Drivel, the link to the thread probably has little baring on the content and before they've had a chance to realise what they've done they are subjected to images they wouldn't have chosen to look at otherwise.
Believe me this was a good compromise considering some of the other options on the table. All we ask is that rather than putting these things directly here just put a link to them with a brief description and let people choose for themselves.

[Greg Harris]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
1. Technical reason : Pictures and long news articles are hogging our diskspace!

i agree that the pictures should not be posted directly... but if we use the img tag, the image is not on the JR disks... it is just the same as a link because the image is still hosted on the poster's server, only the tag loads the picture in the forum... right? of course, it does slow-down load time for those without a high-speed connection.

[Angela Poynton]

OK I used the wrong term there completely. It was late here when I posted I was half asleep. You are of course right about diskspace Greg.
I MEANT (honestly) that adding picutres directly clogs up bandwidth. And for those of us with mere 56k modems it makes the page take far too long to load. A link is much quicker.

[Paul Stevens]

The fact is this was the policy decided upon. No reasons, no excuses, and no exceptions. Some of the other options where much less pleasant.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
The fact is this was the policy decided upon. No reasons, no excuses, and no exceptions. Some of the other options where much less pleasant.

Oh I'm sorry, has this become a place where the people who make up the site's community are not able to discuss or comment on policy changes?
Now while I do not happen to agree with the policy since I think it's close to censorship (even though I hated the pictures in question), I do recognize the right of the site owners to run the site how they see fit. As such I have no problem abiding with their decision. Your above comment seems unecessary and heavy-handed, particularly since nobody was really offering any opposition. Heavens forbid that anybody have any comments on the subject I guess.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 23, 2001).]

[Angela Poynton]

Chill out Jason, Pauls only just learning this moderating gig! I'm sure he didn't mean to come across in that way!
I think what he was trying to say was that there were many options discussed, most of which would have involved much more in the way of censorship. This was a compromise.
It's not censorship, since you can still post a link to such images so we are not removing your right to make people aware of them.

[Gregg Bolinger]

This is becoming a JAVA Ranch forum discussion now. (gripe gripe, whine, whine)

------------------
Happy Coding,
Gregg Bolinger

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
Chill out Jason, Pauls only just learning this moderating gig! I'm sure he didn't mean to come across in that way!
I think what he was trying to say was that there were many options discussed, most of which would have involved much more in the way of censorship. This was a compromise.
It's not censorship, since you can still post a link to such images so we are not removing your right to make people aware of them.

First let me say that I fully respect the rights of the site owners to run things how they feel best, and that I support the excellent work done by the fine staff of Java Ranch.
That being said, let me expand on my previous statement. I see requiring the posting of a link to "all pictures" with "no exceptions" censorship particularly if the image is being posted to convey some sort of message. It would be analagous to being required to post a link to our comments. For example, if we had to post messages like:

I disagree with the link you gave expressing your views, here is the link to my opinion.

Now if someobody posts text that is offensive, it is edited, in accordance with the standards set by the site. Similarly if I posted an X-rated image of a midget and a minature donkey, I would expect that to be removed. However the X-rated image of the midget and minature donkey is not the same thing as posting a picture to a politcal cartoon, for example, that illustrates a point you are trying to make.
The comment was made that anybody who views a thread with a picture in it is subject to it whether the like it or not. I think it is also true that anybody who views a thread is subject to the opinions posted therein whether they like it or not.
Again, even if it is censorship, it is perfectly within the rights if this site. This site should feel free to enforce whatever standards it sees fit. I cannot stress enough that I support that. That doesn't mean that I agree however, and in the spirit of Meaninless Drivel I thought I would take the opportunity to explain my two cents. Link to offsite smilie which I cannot post because it is an image

[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 23, 2001).]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Jason, I think part of the reason is that when you enter a discussion and there is an image, your eyes retrieve that image. Whereas if you begin to read someone's opinion and it seems to go a way that is offending to you, you are able to stop reading it. There is no way to do that with an image. Once you see it, you see the whole thing.

------------------
Happy Coding,
Gregg Bolinger

[Angela Poynton]

addition to above declaration.
The posting of smilies which are retrieved using IMG tags are allowed.
See we make rules and then listen to the opinions of our valued regular visitors and adjust accordingly. I'm glad you appreiciate our rights in this too. I in turn respect your right to disagree. So the question is whose right is right This could get very silly very quickly.
I take your point about being subjected to an opinion. Here's my view on this.
When you read text, you have the option to stop reading at any point if you feel the text is offensive or disurbing. When you look at a picture it only takes on glance and you've seen the whole thing. I realise it's a pretty weak argument but we had to chose somewhere to draw the line and i think we chose a good place, believe me, we could have been much more dramatic. Ultimately we don't like having to impose rules in this forum and when someone feels that it may be necessary it always promotes a lot of discussion among the moderators.
We won't differentiate between distressing images such as have been posted in one thread or political cartoons that have been posted in others. If we do this we need to do it fairly.
I'm hoping that in a month or so things will have calmed a little and we may be able to review the situation.

[This message has been edited by Angela Poynton (edited October 23, 2001).]

[Jason Menard]

Woohoo! Long live the smilie!

[Tony Alicea]

I deleted the one I placed about 10 hours ago. In fact I deleted the whole topic that *I* started (as any poster can do).
Sorry; I've been too busy with work and didn't notice the notice.