Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



logovo ([info]logovo) wrote in [info]6a_cornfield,
@ 2007-08-11 10:24:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
No nothing under 18, please.
More of the unfunny, for those who might have missed it.

rachel, a LJ employee, had a phone conversation with shay-renoylds

shay-renoylds reports that things might be more clear-cut now.

This is from rachel. I called 6A today to discuss fandom related issues in lj_biz and the recent boldening of users.

So the first issues, with regard to the TOS is simply this: do not include anything sexual in relation to those under 18. This is the policy, in simple concepts. Thus -- just don't do it in relation to fandom. [link]


Well, at least this might stop the evaluating "artistic merit" stuff, that only managed to complicate things.

rachel says "Bottom line is this.. we can't host child porn at all. I said in the post previous, I'm working on something. Give me until monday afternoon."

Since she is saying that Underage fic = Child porn, I don't see things coming up roses for fandom.


EDIT:
Mods, should I take this down? Just noticed this was brought up in comments to the previous post.


EDIT The 2nd: Monday afternoon has come and gone. Unless she posted in a super sekrit LJ place, rachel didn't follow through.

EDIT Numero 3: She is now saying tomorrow, to be announced at lj_biz


(Post a new comment)


[info]tunxeh
2007-08-11 07:46 pm UTC (link)
So we can't discuss canon romantic pairings in Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, or Romeo and Juliet on livejournal at all on LJ now, right? Because romance of any sort has a sexual component (no matter how understated and inexplicit), the characters in canon in those books are under 18, and it is "in relation to fandom". That should cut down on opportunities for wank...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]limyaael
2007-08-11 07:58 pm UTC (link)
Don't be silly! If you want to discuss Romeo and Juliet, or Harry and Ginny, you are obviously a pervert.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]logovo
2007-08-11 08:18 pm UTC (link)
Well, if you piss someone off and they can point to an entry of yours that has some descriptive sex in there, yeah, I'd say you could be in trouble :/

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tunxeh
2007-08-11 08:52 pm UTC (link)
To me "anything sexual" is a lot vaguer than "descriptive sex". But I certainly have plenty of links to descriptive sex, and we've seen elsewhere that links are enough to get banninated.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-12 08:28 pm UTC (link)
It is pretty vague.

- A Good Name

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]napalmnacey
2007-08-12 02:58 am UTC (link)
Or Dune! Remember, Muad'Dib was a fresh little fifteen year old at the beginning of the novel. And he takes part in an orgy! Oh noes, Frank Herbert is a pervert!

...

hehehe that rhymes!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]logovo
2007-08-12 03:08 am UTC (link)
Oh yeah... and the twins! Wait, no sex there, but the fic, the fic that might not get posted! Woe!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]napalmnacey
2007-08-12 04:09 am UTC (link)
Damn it. I'm going to have to get my Shirtless!James McAvoy porn some way else. :T

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]_ladyshalott_
2007-08-12 06:54 am UTC (link)
icon!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]napalmnacey
2007-08-12 10:03 am UTC (link)
:D

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kuromitsu
2007-08-11 10:47 pm UTC (link)
I hope she means "do not include anything sexually explicit in relation to those under 18."

I really hope.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]logovo
2007-08-12 02:59 am UTC (link)
I can't quite see how they can make it work otherwise. I guess if they're using the 7 or 9 or whatever is the magical number for dirty words? Wait, that makes no sense .... I mean... yeah, it could get hilarious, but more on the stupid than funny way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mistressrenet
2007-08-14 01:51 am UTC (link)
I'm still kind of fucked. Good thing I was taking that journal down anyway I suppose....

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]utahraptor
2007-08-11 11:11 pm UTC (link)
So, anything sexual between fictional characters under 18 = child porn? Good to know!

Ban talking of the Harry/Ginny 'intimate moment' in Deathly Hallows, for they are under 18 and therefore children.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]napalmnacey
2007-08-12 02:59 am UTC (link)
Oh JKR, that dirty old whore.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

From the mod: it's fine
[info]sushi
2007-08-12 12:28 am UTC (link)
Nah, it's fine. It can stay.

Good to know that any in-school pairing in...a hell of a lot of fandoms, not to mention teens talking about their own sex lives, is kiddie porn! This won't go over well.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: From the mod: it's fine
[info]logovo
2007-08-12 03:06 am UTC (link)
Thanks!

I'm thinking HP is going to be a pretty weird fandom to be posting fic, if at any moment grudge reporting starts to break out. I've seen people saying "I'm not going anywhere! I'm not locking my fic!" -- but wait until the next wank in the fandom, I think people my settle scores with the shinny new button.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: From the mod: it's fine
(Anonymous)
2007-08-12 09:37 pm UTC (link)
There's going to be a hell of a lot of annoyed Shoebox fans, that's for sure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: From the mod: it's fine
(Anonymous)
2007-08-13 07:35 pm UTC (link)
OMG i didn't even think about shoebox!

if that gets the boot? i'm done.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cheshyre
2007-08-12 01:28 am UTC (link)
Gaaah! For a fic exchange with a rapidly-approaching deadline, I've got a story where one character is 17 and the other 18.

Maybe I'll authors' note some kind of spell that magically aged everyone by one year...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jujubee
2007-08-12 01:31 am UTC (link)
I have a feeling that that's what a lot of people are going to have to do now. Though it didn't work so great for the banned Snarry pr0n, did it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]demonessjo
2007-08-12 02:51 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I doubt that if it didn't work for the Snarry porn it would work for others. I would probably just keep posting the porn anyway until it's ganked, since I have a severe lack of faith in the staff's enforcing abilities. Plus, it seems the staff are more nervous about going after written minors, it's just the drawn ones they feel the need to protect. And hey, if you get banned you'll just serve to extend the wank... oh... that's not supposed to be a good thing is it?

I'm just waiting for the lulz that will come when 6A's forced to make a policy on fiction involving incest. xD

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mistressrenet
2007-08-14 01:53 am UTC (link)
::gets her icon ready::

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tunxeh
2007-08-12 01:42 am UTC (link)
I'm just going to keep on doing as I have been, hope they don't banninate me, and lump it if they do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]demonessjo
2007-08-12 02:45 am UTC (link)
I'm glad this got it's own post. Heh.

My mind still boggles at the idea of 6A enforcing this. Just... how exactly? Same with the banning links.
And I'm loving/hating how the staff keeps talking out of their asses randomly.

And to reiterate what's been brought up in the previous post:
6A would have gotten so much less wank if they had just said "don't host porn on here" in the first place, but no... they decided to drag this out. I'm not even sure what they really want anymore. Oy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]logovo
2007-08-12 03:03 am UTC (link)
The EBIL part of me is hoping they get innundated with stupid reports. All those crazy kids talking about their sex life...

If they get strict enough I'm seeing wank to last for more than a few days, until the reported people start getting banned.

And the staff... oy, oy, OY! But at least rachel is the first one to say something in a clear way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]demonessjo
2007-08-12 03:12 am UTC (link)
Ha. I wonder if they'll have enough people to actually read the reports. I'm somewhat expecting a form of protest where wankas report everything they see to flood them...

Yes, at least she said something that was clear. Don't agree with it, but at least it's CLEAR.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]pyratejenni
2007-08-12 02:42 pm UTC (link)
Things are going to get even unfunnier.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]logovo
2007-08-12 04:01 pm UTC (link)
Ack! At the very least it will produce another wave of wank.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


timian
2007-08-12 11:00 pm UTC (link)
Oh. Dear. God.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]msilverstar
2007-08-12 05:18 pm UTC (link)
What blithering fools. *hauls out explicit Romeo and Juliet WIP*

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]tunxeh
2007-08-12 08:49 pm UTC (link)
Somewhat-explicit Romeo/Juliet from an earlier round of this mess.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-08-12 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Anything sexual? Does that mean now you can get banned for even saying the words "child porn"? I mean, porn is sexual, and when combined with the word child, that should count as "anything sexual in relation to those under 18"...

- A Good Name

(Reply to this)


[info]amorettea
2007-08-12 09:08 pm UTC (link)
The chief reason I left LiveJournal is not the "porn" ban--their site, their rules--but the sheer breathtaking incompetence of their adminstration was driving me nuts. Do they have to hire stupid people? Are you required to prove on your resume you have an IQ of 12?

I wish this would all settle down so we can all get back to writing SMUT!!!!!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mythicdove
2007-08-12 11:55 pm UTC (link)
I agree. This is the reason I left as well. The sheer incompetence of LJ/SA was just too much.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mistressrenet
2007-08-14 01:54 am UTC (link)
Don't forget the staffer who said the pro-anorexia communities were like support groups.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ballseyboo
2007-08-13 11:43 pm UTC (link)
I keep thinking what about those characters who aren't under eighteen but look under eighteen? *cough* Edogawa Conan *cough* Haibara Ai from Detective Conan, I mean they look about eight but they're at least eighteen. xD

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mistressrenet
2007-08-14 01:55 am UTC (link)
What about the ones that are physically trapped under 18-- any number of vampires and soul reapers come to mind-- do we judge their bodies or their minds?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map