crazy
I Blame the Dutch mpoetess
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Oh, for [insert here]'s sake.
This is not the latest LJ update to their policies on adult-content in journals. It's the policy that has existed since 2004. Someone in fandom just finally stumbled upon it for some reason (or got reported under it) and again with the sky falling.

ETA: And it's not. Falling. What this policy says: IF you are reported for having someone under 18 on your friendslist AND you post primarily stuff that LJ deems pornographic, THEN you will be warned by LJ staff, AND you will have 72 hours to lock the porn and remove any stated minors and/or people who don't list a full birthdate from your friendslist.

Yes, LJ/6A have handled things incredibly badly and seem likely to continue to do so, but can fandom please try looking at the things we read so when we argue with idiots, we don't come off looking like idiots ourselves?

(ETA again - I'm not saying that pointing these policies out and encouraging people to be aware of them is idiotic - far from it. But it's not new, and it's seriously not a bad policy - it is in fact hugely better than the strikethrough related ones because it gives very very detailed descriptions of what will happen and the several chances a user will have to correct the problem. So please, fandom, to be actually reading them, rather than just reacting to their existence.)

This cranky PSA brought to you by dealing with the tech support moron who is failing to fix my Photoshop problem in spectacularly moronic ways, up to and including not letting me go to lunch yet because she keeps calling back to take over my computer again and try something else I have already tried and could tell her I've already tried it if she'd kasjdhlaksjdhka listen.

miggy

2007-10-09 06:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

...I haven't seen anyone freaking over that, but really?

Wow. I'm so used to seeing the "if your birthday isn't in your profile, we won't approve your membership" rule for photography, etc. communities that it hadn't processed the rule hadn't filtered out long ago.

mpoetess

2007-10-09 06:26 pm (UTC) (Link)

I've seen about 3 links to it today, two of them unrelated to each other, and I've met fandom, so while I'd be pleased if I were extrapolating badly, I'd also be surprised.

And yeah, for especially smutty or kinky comms, I've seen it before too, but I guess people just twigged to the fact that there's a similar rule for personal journals. But it's been in place for years, and it's seriously not a draconian rule or anything that just happened because of strikethroughgate.

miggy

2007-10-09 06:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

while I'd be pleased if I were extrapolating badly, I'd also be surprised.

Hahaha.

ladycat777

2007-10-09 06:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.

*sends people over to read your post*

mpoetess

2007-10-09 08:27 pm (UTC) (Link)

*dives on you for random smooches*

gem225

2007-10-09 06:41 pm (UTC) (Link)

Very true, and thank you. I'll edit my post to show that it's not a new policy.

mpoetess

2007-10-09 06:44 pm (UTC) (Link)

Yours wasn't one of the ones that looked sky-is-falling, FWIW; you didn't say it was a new policy in the first place, and your attitude towards LJ is a pretty sane one.

gem225

2007-10-09 06:49 pm (UTC) (Link)

That's good to know. Thanks. :-) Still better to spell it out - I wouldn't want to contribute to any sky-is-falling attitudes.

shurimon

2007-10-09 06:53 pm (UTC) (Link)

Dude, the warning before bahleetion is a -LOT- better than delete first, ask questions later. Why are people bitching about it, especially if it's an old rule?

Well, nevermind, fandom's never happy...

mpoetess

2007-10-09 08:26 pm (UTC) (Link)

Yeah, if they'd followed a procedure similar to this one with the Strikethrough stuff? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts nobody in fandom would recognise the term "Strikethrough" because there'd never have been any fuss.

timjr

2007-10-09 06:55 pm (UTC) (Link)

*smites your tech support moron*

...unless you'd rather do it yourself? *grinds the axe for you, then*

mpoetess

2007-10-09 06:56 pm (UTC) (Link)

OMFG plz?

timjr

2007-10-09 08:49 pm (UTC) (Link)

Here. One freshly ground axe, ready for eviscerating. *presents it*

omphalos

2007-10-09 08:12 pm (UTC) (Link)

Hehe, I was going to post a WTF post in response to the spreading sky-is-falling last night, but got struck by a bad case of can't be arsed. You said it better anyway.

Sorry to hear your PS issues are continuing.

mpoetess

2007-10-09 08:23 pm (UTC) (Link)

At this point I've reached "Eh, shrug, whatever" levels with them, as I don't edit files directly off my hard drive (as opposed to stuff on the flash drive, which is working just fine) all that often, so while it's obnoxious, I can live with it. Which is of course the day that tech services decides to finally respond to my request for help, and waste hours of my time doing things I've already tried. And openly admitting she's not remotely familiar with Photoshop so WHY DID THEY ASSIGN THE PROBLEM TO HER?

loreleif

2007-10-09 08:12 pm (UTC) (Link)

If it's any consolation, I apparently got your tech's karma, and just spent four hours on the phone and computer-link with one customer, working on his PowerPoint presentation.

And that reminds me I wanted to ask our PhotoShop folks if they could think of any other reasons for your problem; shall do so shortly!

mpoetess

2007-10-09 08:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

Noooo, for you and all other SMRT tech support people do not deserve her karma!

havocthecat

2007-10-10 03:09 am (UTC) (Link)

You know, I hadn't known about that rule, but it's a reasonable one. And anyone that was in high school when we friended each other has managed to reach the legal age in their and my country of residence by now, so all is well.

Thanks!