My pictures thread. How does it fall into the category of posting w/o permission? I censored her face. We had permission when we posted them back in August. This is bullshit.

i'm sorry.

I don't get it either, I think that since the pictures were censored, that they do not count, for that rule.

Because I think, since Elba was the one that posted the thread, they fall under her pictures, and something like this has 3 people, so I think that it would need a majority vote of the people in the pictures.

If Trish didn't want the pictures on cB, like Elba said, she had no problem having them posted back in august, and I don't think that either Christine, nor Elba have a problem with the posters.

All-in-all, they're not trish's pictures, their Elba's and Christine's so, the rule doesn't apply. imo

Her face is censored, although it is with a trashcan. But why should it matter? So if I put like, a naruto face on it, would that have made a difference? Probably not.

This wouldn't have been a problem is a certain someone didn't delete the original thread in the first place. Oh and as for permission - yea we did have permission back in August. Oh, and if it's without her permission, maybe she should've made that clear, instead of deleting the thread, then hiding behind invisible mode so much.

I'd have to agree that she's censored. Can I ask why pictures aren't deleted when people post up pictures with their friends? You don't have permission there. Just because the person is a member, yeah? Ridiculous. Her face is covered. If she wouldn't have deleted the thread in the first place, they wouldn't have had to do it.

Hmm this is very interesting. I'm not siding with anybody just yet until I hear from both sides of this argument.

Tung, you know you're on my side.

Where can I find the rule about not posting pictures w/o permission?

Well since I am only hearing your side thus far, and the other person has yet to speak out, yes I'm leaning towards you right now on this case as you have many good reasons. Just waiting to hear the other side.

Here are the guidelines Elba.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...nity+guidelines

It's not in there.

Elba:

It should be in there, this is making it look like we have two copies of community guidelines, but more recent stuff is added to this thread, and it's right here,

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...amp;pid=2786130

is it under the pictures subforum?

Well darn. Either the guidelines haven't been updated, or the Posting pictures of other people without their consent is a phantom rule.

edit. nvrm.
And in that rule it says other "memebers" not "members" so technically you could post pictures of other members, but just not other memebers.

Thomas, do I have to read through all that to find it?

I still don't see it.

this was all I saw:

Yanlin, you're right.

The mods have kind of used some elastic clause on that rule. lmao

You know on television when they don't have someone's permission to put them on TV, they censor their face. How is this any different. Those are not Trish's pictures, they're our pictures. She deleted the original topic (although she wont admit to it, just like she wont admit to making up the story about having a twin), so why can't we make another topic of our pictures from our first meeting? Since I didn't have her permission THIS time to post the pictures AGAIN, I should just be able to censor out her fat face, right?

Correct. Moved to Resolved Feedback.

Come on Tung, when was the last time you even heard from Trish (besides the topic that she claims as "resolved") when things like this are brought up?

Only shit I've see her do lately is delete and close shit that has to do with her.

"Oh someone is posing as my fake twin. Gotta ban them and delete all posts!"

Exactly. So I don't think we're going to see this "other side" anytime soon, but that's fine because it just makes us more right, I guess.

Let's just make another topic then.

even though it was hilarious as ever, trashcan was a lil` demeaning, maybe you could make it like a walmart face or something. idk

Sorry, Thomas, but that took me so long that I am not even going to do it again. Anyone else want to make a nicer censor?

Topic resolved elba's a bitch moved to resolved feedback

not

lol, I could do it for you, do you have them in a photobucket or anything?

Christina has them in her photobucket. I could email them to you.

Someone un-closed your topic in pictures.

Topic Resolved... Yes

I don't think a walmart smiley would make a difference. That's what I'm trying to say.

EDIT - no, Elba just made another topic.

Well she is Head Staff. She should be a little more active and interact with the community like the rest of staff, but you're right on how she isn't doing much on staff other than "hiding" and going through the queue and only post when she is called out. But that's your case and not mines, so maybe you should post in Mod Performance if you feel like it, but I'll still be neutral on this case, since the other side has yet to speak out. But as right now, looks like Elba is making a very strong case, since it's been all one-sided thus far.

Also, why did Dani closed your topic, and not remove the pictures? I mean the pictures are still there.....Usually by the rule she stated when she closed the topic, the pictures are supposed to be removed as well..so it was useless to close the topic in the firsts place imo.

You made me spit out my sip of Dr. Pepper.

lol. yay for new topics :)

I completely understand where you're coming from here, but I just really wanted to point out that most likely you will not hear from the other side, that's all.

The rule about posting without consent is at the top of every page in the pictures forum.

I can just see why she'd be offended, is all I'm saying. She's still in the pictures, but her face is covered up by a trash can. You might as well have drawn on horns and a mustache or something.

That would have been much more work.

Her face is censored, though.

wait, why would you guys censor her anyways?

^because she deleted the original topic that the pictures were in. and because they don't like her.

^ LOL ok

Not necessarily that they don't like her, it's just the fact that they had all taken the pictures together. Trish deleted the thread. Elba and Christina wanted the pictures up so they just put up a censor. Who f**king cares what it is? Her face isn't in it; that's what she wants. Dani said something like she's still going to be offended because she's in the picture...ok, and? They're not going to sit there and edit her out. Like it's been said, she wasn't offended last time. If it's been posted before, it should be allowed to be posted now.

It's not because she's in the picture that she should be offended, it's because of the way they censored her. Why should we allow that and how is that NOT member bashing?

How is her randomly deleting the thread that ANOTHER MEMBER made not against the rules? There was absolutely nothing wrong with the thread the first time.

not to mention deleting it from the trash can.

You're reason for closing it was that it was considered posting another member's picture without their permission. You didn't say anything about member bashing. If we had censored her with something else, would it have been okay? You made it seem like those pictures couldn't be posted at all because Trish was originally in them.

Believe me, I'm not saying that's okay (deleting the topic).

When I closed the first topic (which obviously was pointless) you guys gave the reasoning that she wasn't in the pictures. She WAS in the pictures (just not her face); and in my opinion what you did to the pictures was worse than leaving them intact. If you were going to take her out of the picture, I don't see why you couldn't just use a normal censor. In fact, it would probably be easier and take less effort to scratch her out with the brush tool than to put the trash can over her face.

I'm sorry for not being more clear when I posted my response in that thread, but my reasoning was a combination of the two. If you had just taken her out of the picture using any normal means I would have no problem with the pictures being posted. However, as I would do with any member, I am looking out for the fact that the pictures were edited in a way that was disrespectful - you didn't just take her out of the picture, you made it a point to insult her in the process.

It was a TRASH CAN. Trash can because she deleted topics from the trash can. It wasn't intended to insult her. Just poke fun at the deletion of things--like the deletion of the original topic.

That's fine, I just don't think she took it that way and all I'm saying is that I can see why.

it kind of sounds like we're throwing around elastic clauses right now, with our elastic clause being that the pictures are demeaning, and yours that you're just poking fun.

how do you expect someone to decipher what anything actually really means, especially on the internet?

theinternetisseriousbusiness

Closed again?

Why doesn't that bitch bitch about things in public instead of hiding backstage.

Baibai

That's not just a one sided question...

true story. but i'm pretty sure that if we had kids roaming around the school with "white pride" shirts, they'd probably get in trouble.

i think the question here (there and everywhere) is if whatever it is you wanna discuss is offensive. we could be tama and report absolutely everything, or take on a completely lackadaisical attitude towards everything that goes on here, which would most likely drive away any new potentially active members. i personally feel that we have a decent median that isn't all that intimidating to the nubs, and that if said nubs went on and visited the 2/3/4/bitches(+trashcan)topic, they'd find a humorously hostile environment. not universally appealing.

(all right, nothing's universally appealing. catch my drift somewhat, though?)

Well, start removing every picture that has someone else in it besides the poster. You don't have their friend/whoever else is in the picture's permission. That's what you're getting at, so get started.