Terms & Conditions of the forum

[Dave_Q]

  On 27/06/2017 at 14:59, Eddie Honda said:

Sack off Tapatalk or get them to fix the issue.

 

 

I agree with the content point you're making, but it is clearly signposted. My only grumble about it is when it goes OT and there isn't an identifiable vehicle (car or bike) in shot that "ATCNBE" can be attributed, rather than any big hairy fannies showing. I suppose Pillock has the right compromise of covering up any potentially offensive growlers with comedy overlays.

 

Not too sure how that one will go?

 

"Hi Tapatalk, I'm browsing a forum with a thread full of pics of naked women, and the preview pic for the thread is a naked woman, PLS FIX"

 

 

Anyway I suppose I don't expect anything to change, it's the internet innit, so people have a RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH which probably extends to posting potentially* stolen pictures of naked women and if I don't like it I shouldn't click on it, or something.

[pompei]

Why has BV72 been banned?

[Twiggy]

Excellent Sir ! It is necessary to remind folk that there are rules to be followed, what those rules are, and the consequences of transgressing them. 99.9% of contributors never exceed the bounds of decency, but there is always the odd one who needs to be brought into line or banned, as has recently happened with one regular member. Thank you to the mods and admins for doing such a good job here, caringly and tactfully - it makes this place feel like home.

[Dick Cheeseburger]

Standard practice for a set of rules to be tucked away somewhere on forums, and certainly not unreasonable to have a basic outline. As some others have said, main rule of thumb should be something to the effect of, 'Don't be a total knob.'

Much as I totally understand the uppage of admins, I hope things don't become too draconian. Forums are dying on their arses, and this place is an exception. Things seem to be settling down reasonably well since the wobbly period - let's not change things further.

[stripped fred]

Those last two posts said what i wanted to say only better.

[UltraWomble]

  On 27/06/2017 at 21:56, AngusToledo said:

Standard practice for a set of rules to be tucked away somewhere on forums, and certainly not unreasonable to have a basic outline. As some others have said, main rule of thumb should be something to the effect of, 'Don't be a total knob.

My trouble is every morning when Im half asleep I get into the car and push one of these buttons to start the day...

 

Its so easy to get it wrong...

[Slartibartfast]

There's a minimum level of arse-covering legalese that you have to undertake when you're running a forum. The other mods will hopefully back me up when I say I personally prefer a "moderation-lite" very light touch approach. I wasn't going to take any sort of admin/moderation role at all but the existing mods were struggling with some issues and I offered to assist and here we are. Basically it turns out there are some bare minimum things you need keep a handle on. From a legal perspective we have a few responsibilities we have to undertake to keep on the right side of those funny fellers in the powdered wigs. We haven't changed those T&Cs, they've been part of the sign up process for a long while, but now it's become clear we need to make sure to the best of our ability that people know what they are and are prepared to stick to them.

[SiC]

  On 28/06/2017 at 10:37, Slartibartfast said:

There's a minimum level of arse-covering legalese that you have to undertake when you're running a forum.

^^ This. Nothing wrong having the people running this forum covering their arses. Especially as they're the ones that would get it first if the authorities came in for whatever reason.

 

Also most hosting providers, be it shared hosting/vps/dedicated server/co-located/etc, would have similar terms in their T&Cs. So if someone had a vendetta against the forum, they could complain to the hosting provider and if there isn't adequate T&Cs and/or enforcement, they could take it down in a quick foul swoop.

[richardthestag]

  On 27/06/2017 at 21:29, pompei said:

Why has BV72 been banned?

 

he whom should not be named?

 

shame, controversial but on the whole entertaining for me. Accept that not all may share this view.

 

Long live Autoshite

[The Moog]

Totally agree with SBF 

 

This is the most important part. 

  On 28/06/2017 at 10:37, Slartibartfast said:

 From a legal perspective we have a few responsibilities we have to undertake to keep on the right side of those funny fellers in the powdered wigs. We haven't changed those T&Cs, they've been part of the sign up process for a long while, but now it's become clear we need to make sure to the best of our ability that people know what they are and are prepared to stick to them.

[BorniteIdentity]

Sorry to say it, but you can't have a set of rules - remind people to abide by them - and then knowingly let them be broken each and every single day.  The "cars and girls" thread clearly and knowingly breaches the rules, yet it's allowed to continue with new contributions.  It's hypocritical, and you are complicit in the breaking of the rules by allowing it to continue.  Nobody can deny its existence, or claim ignorance.  It's five hundred and twenty nine pages long.  Most pages include very explicit images.

 

I'm no Mary Whitehouse.  Some of the pictures are artistic, some are very 'period' and some are just funny.  I even contributed some nice B+W shots from my own industry just last night.

 

But three or four women showing their hairy growlers out the back of a MK1 Mondeo has no real artistic merit.  

 

I think you have to change the rules, or drop them.  Personally.

[loserone]

^ it's an insta-fail policy; the policy says one thing, procedure is another thing, so the whole policy is ignored.

 

Guess who has inherited a structure* of 30+ policies which no-one follows.

[Cavcraft]

I have to say that complete nudity or showing genitalia isn't really something I'm comfortable with.

[dollywobbler]

Likewise. I have raised objections about it before. Barratt started with a great thread idea, but it sadly seems to have turned into a grotty wank bank for some folk. We're a car forum. 

[Heidel_Kakao]

Yeah I have to agree, it can't be good for browsing while at work too as I always catch up by clicking next unread topic and I always get paranoid I will be accused of looking at NSFW material.

[Slartibartfast]

  On 28/06/2017 at 14:34, loserone said:

^ it's an insta-fail policy; the policy says one thing, procedure is another thing, so the whole policy is ignored.

 

Guess who has inherited a structure* of 30+ policies which no-one follows.

 

Yes, my job is similar.

 

I agree with all of the above objections. I just didn't want to be some autocrat coming in and decreeing there be no more growlers in the cars-and-girls thread.

 

If we're all in agreement that we should get rid of the explicit pics, can we "crowd-source" the effort? PM me or use the report button and we'll delete them as we're made aware of them.

 

This applies to any other thread where genitals are on display. The Communal Women thread is another offender I think.

 

If anyone has a huge objection to this, then now's the time to voice it and propose another way we can handle it.

[Eddie Honda]

  On 28/06/2017 at 13:37, BorniteIdentity said:

But three or four women showing their hairy growlers out the back of a MK1 Mondeo has no real artistic merit.

Four. 

 

As times and tastes change, the above might be the height of artist merit one day, or mibbie not.

 

And the image in this case carried a warning and was a link without img tags. But will forgive the shonkiness of Tapatalk (big pile of wank though it is).

 

I'm happy to carry on with the thread with the following rules.

 

• "NSFW" added to the title
• No "jack 'n' danny" policy (unless covered up), but breasts fine.
• No repetition (of the same 2CV girl or summat every third page).
• No matter how well covered up the woman in question is, if there isn't an identifiable car/motorcycle in it, it gets the chop.

Opinions?

 

 

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think the rule should be if you can't make a good ATCNBE caption for it, then it's not worth posting

[Eddie Honda]

The trouble with "good" is how do you define it? When does something fall short of the required goodness?

[tinribs]

Cars & girls etc, how about "if you wouldn't see it in public, don't post it here?"

 

Nudity etc isn't really on-topic on a car forum.

[alf892]

Can't we just have a no growler rule.......maybe no nipples? Oh.....and no muffin tops. And no women without discernible waists. Oh ......and wait a mo I think there is more......

 

As a keen student of the female form (dirty old man) I enjoy the thread mainly for the retro look that many of the pics have........clothed is much nicer IMO

[dollywobbler]

For me, nudity is out, whether top or bottom. It's a car forum. I'm happily for someone to catch me getting all excited about a Mk1 Mondeo with non-gaffer bumpers on this forum, but any form of nudity seems best avoided. 

[junkyarddog]

I dunno we're all grown ups(allegedly)

 

A bit of muff now and again is acceptable i think,

so long as it's not overdone.

[For Fiats Sake]

Is it not a bit pointless asking the members to be aware of the sites terms and conditions yet allow breaches in policy willy nilly across the site?

[DeeJay]

I think a good rule of thumb would be if Readers Wives would print it don't post it.

[AlabamaShrimp]

I'm a bit of both on the girls threads. A bit is OK and I don't mind of its only showing a small bit of car but this isn't a porn site and recently it has been taken too far by one person.

 

Rename the thread, use the rule 'don't like it, don't click it' and see how we go or just ditch the lot your choice.

[UltraWomble]

  On 28/06/2017 at 14:36, Cavcraft said:

I have to say that complete nudity or showing genitalia isn't really something I'm comfortable with.

Thank feck for that, seeing you naked makes me squirm too now put some clothes on.

[Pillock]

 

 

  On 27/06/2017 at 14:59, Eddie Honda said:

I suppose Pillock has the right compromise of covering up any potentially offensive growlers with comedy overlays.

I tried, maybe I went too far with the boobicles / not far enough with the covering. In my defense I waded through about 200 pics (it was a tough job) and pulled out 4 or 5 with shite-friendly motors, the rest were just crap. I always thought we had a no-growlers rule hence the coverings.

 

However - apologies if I offended anyone, I felt I was matching the high (low?) bar other posters had set. Consider me educated.

 

By the way, the easily offended should not search for the original image of my one remaining recent post, the Renner 5 woman. That mug covers a multitude of sins.

[Junkman]

Those revolting tattoos put me off much more than the bits that nature provided.

[Pillock]

  On 29/06/2017 at 00:08, Junkman said:

Those revolting tattoos put me off much more than the bits that nature provided.

Thankfully they're not banned, so guess what all my photos are going to feature now?