Are Pictures Banned Now?

Please don't post pictures off of other people's Facebook profiles without their permission

I didn't post a picture of a member of this forum.

I posted a picture found on Facebook, readily available.

If it's not acceptable, then there are a hell of a lot of pictures on here that are not acceptable.

Please restore my post.

 

Posting a picture of my girlfriend that's on her private Facebook is not appreciated. I'm sure you can understand that...

 

It isn't private. Do you understand Facebook at all?

 

Yes, her Facebook profile is set to private, and your post of her picture had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Nothing. You chose to post it and then started commenting on her when she's not a member of these forums, purely to incite a reaction from me. I am done with that thread and done with posting further thoughts in it about anything. Please, let it go, and move on. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that you not post pictures of my girlfriend on a Star Wars forum haha.

 

That picture was public... not private. He mentioned nothing about it being your girlfriend, either--you did that. He did nothing against the tos. That pic could have been anybody, and would have remained that way, had you not said anything. Glad to see you're done with the thread, though.

Bowen if you look, you'll see that the picture is set to be viewed publicly (I highlighted the setting in red and pointed to it with an arrow) ... anybody in the world can see it. Nobody's privacy was invaded... nobody (but you) revealed the woman's identity. No rules were broken here.

 

Sorry i'm late, the popcorn line was long.

 

You individually have already broken the TOS at least 5 times in that thread alone. You're frankly lucky the moderators look the other way and you're not banned. You repeatedly launched into personal attacks and when this picture was posted, it was obviously done so in inflammatory fashion. Whether or not THAT picture is public makes no difference, her Facebook is private and it didn't belong in the thread. It literally had nothing to do with the discussion at hand whatsoever.

What is your problem? If every Star Wars fan was as big of a troll as you are, we would seriously have some pretty terrible discussions on TFN. You certainly haven't contributed anything meaningful to any thread I've ever seen.

 

Nobody was trolling. You took over the thread with your discussion about women wearing clothes that made them look like "hos" (your word, not mine). You talked about how your girlfriend, after you had a talk with her mother about it, now wears "classier" (again, your word, not mine) clothing. The honest question you were asked had everything to do with the discussion you instigated. The post was very respectfully worded, and nobody made the woman's identity known (again, except you). Here's the post.

There was no flame in this post, at all. You brought your girlfriend into the discussion. You talked about her clothing,.the topic was yours, not anybody else's. The thread is about misogyny, entitlement, and nerds... with your posts, you displayed both misogyny and entitlement. The reactions you got were in response to that. Senate threads get heated... they just do. There were no personal attacks made. People just responded to your posts, and you didn't like that they said.

The picture posted could have been any image off of google... people frequently post random images off of google, all day every day. Until you made her identity known (actually you didn't even do that... you claimed ownership of her), she was pretty much anonymous.

 

as a strict TOStitutionalist, i believe the letter of the law is clear and the post should be restored. after all if his freedom of posting is violated here to appease the PC police, pretty soon you wont be able to post pictures of people's pets and before you know it incest will be mandatory-what where am i?

 

in all serious though posting a picture of the man's daughter is just out of line. she's a minor for godssake

 

Regardless, doesn't this:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/policy-on-sexist-comments.50028096/

apply everywhere in the forum?

 

There was no need to report it. The discussion is about misogyny, entitlement, and nerds.. Reporting conflicting viewpoints is pretty pointless in discussions like that. Like I said, senate threads get heated... they're hot button discussions--opposing viewpoints are expected. When one posts an opposing viewpoint to a hot button issue, things tend to get heated. That's the point of senate threads. The thread has been going on for a good while, now. We've had several heated debates... that's what those threads are for.

 

So... are we no longer allowed to post this picture, now?



I mean, that's a minor, after all.

If you're suggesting that there is anything sexual about the woman's picture, you're being part of the problem. The point is that clothing like that is not "slutty" (Bowen's word, not mine). In Diggy's post, he said he doesn't see anything whorish, etc, in that picture (because there isn't anything whorish about that picture). He just sees a female who looks happy and comfortable. If you or Bowen are sexualizing that picture, that's not helpful. The whole point of posting that, I think, was to show that way of thinking to be ridiculous.

So, has there been a change in the picture policy, or is ms making it up as they go, now?

 

I have posted pictures of my three children. I got tons of likes and no edits. Can you explain this discrepancy?

 

Okay, I apologize for offending you, but the way your post was worded, it came across like this minor was wronged in some way, like her image was obscene, or something.. Nobody, but Bowen, even said who this person is. If somebody said, "this is a picture of Bowen's girlfriend," or whatever, yeah, that would be ****ed up. That didn't happen, though. Like I said, I think the whole reason it was posted was to illustrate how ridiculous it is to judge somebody based on what they're wearing... that assigning the labels "slut" or "ho" to a woman in shorts is ridiculous. I'm quite positive there was no malicious intent, at all.

 

So pictures are not allowed unless they're of yourself of family. You're getting caught up in the Facebook thing, like it's some obscure preserve rather than one of the biggest websites in the world.

Edit: Let me ask you. If you had not received a complaint about that picture, would you have edited it?

 

It's also pretty safe to assume that nobody knew that the person in the picture was a minor.

 

Just as a blanket rule, I don't post anything about myself or anyone else that I wouldn't want anyone to see. There is no such thing as privacy on the internet. I don't care what your Facebook "settings" are. If you want to take pictures of yourself, but don't want others to see it....make a scrapbook. If you don't want people to take Facebook posts you offer about your personal life to be used against you or criticize, get a journal to write in and put it by your bed. I'm tired of people using Facebook as a personal journal about their lives, then having the audacity to cry foul when that information is shared. Facebook, or the internet in general, is not a place to post anything that you don't want made public. Again, you can make the "privacy setting" all you want. If it is on the internet, somebody will figure out a way to access it.

 

Oh, ffs... no children were exploited here. The woman in question is an adult. Apparently, the pic of her was when she was younger. Don't turn this into something it's not.