If you want to make any comments or ask any questions about the new EC Code of Conduct, please use this thread, so we can keep it all in one place.
I'm happy to see that EC finally has a Code of Conduct. However, after reading it, I found a couple things which are, in my opinion, too restrictive. Those regard the linking to external sites. Number one is impossible to apply in some cases. For example, if I link to Wikipedia (run by Wikimedia Foundation, a not-for-profit organization), I can't link back to EC on every article I link to, because that'd violate Wikipedia's policies. So, I could only link to two articles on Wikipedia - the one on "coming out" and the one on "##########", which link to EC. In the same way, if in the technology forum I post a link to the website of a program licensed under the GNU GPL (free software like, say, Linux), I can't link back to EC either. Part two severely limits the possibility of linking to other web sites. It says "any commercial website", which implies that, if for example I want to link to a news article on CNN's website, or to an article on Microsoft's knowledge base, or even to something funny such as the "Simpsonize Me" website (run by Fox and Burger King), I can't, because they are commercial sites. That probably includes YouTube. Some members aren't going to be happy. So, in my opinion the Code of Conduct is OK - except for those bits. That effectively limits links to personal pages, personal blogs and the magazine's website (which links to EC four times as of now, in prominent places, and has a full page dedicated to this forum) I don't know whether this was the desired effect of the new rules or it was just a try to prevent people linking to their own commercial sites as propaganda. Anyway, I'd like the Mods and Admins to review those bits, and if possible come up with a less restrictive policy which allows us to link to commercial sites, as long as the link is not a way of advertising the sites. (Seriously, taking one of my previous examples, do you think I'd advertise Microsoft?) Fred.
Oh, it's all very confusing to me, the linking stuff. I can't link anything, like youtube.com or myspace.com, even in a place like the chatroom? Because if that's the case, well, I definately think it's too restrictive.
To clear something up, I believe the Code of Conduct is supposed to read: 2. You may not link to any website for commercial purposes unless you have prior written permission from us. Please use the Contact Us link to request such permission. You tube is a resource that is technically policed for illegal content. It is not a resource with the intent of providing illegal content to others. So it is ok.
Thanks for your comments, Fred. I have revised point 2 in line with Dave's rewording above. I have also reworded point 1 to ask for links back where possible. Clearly you can only add links to sites you have control over, and in some cases (such as sites that people who don't know about you will see) you may prefer not to have a back link. The point of these rules is to prevent people posting links to commercial sites that they have some involvement with, and to encourage back links where possible to improve search engine rankings. It is not intended to restrict linking to sites and pages of interest, as we do now. The purpose of this is to prevent the sharing of downloadable high quality pirated movies, MP3 files, software etc. It does not include things like the short low quality clips that can be viewed (but not downloaded) from YouTube etc. So it should have no impact on the occasional links to videos on sites like YouTube. I will reword it as above, which should clarify that. (Yes, I know YouTube videos CAN be downloaded via other sites or suitably constructed URLs, but downloading is not an option within YouTube itself. Attempts to misuse YouTube in this way are outside the scope of the EC CofC.)
I wonder if 18) should extend to "..or link to a website where your real name is posted" You probably want to make sure all bases are covered
- Please do not post or link to erotic discussions, pictures, movies, or stories. Do not request such materials from others. More info please, is that just 18+ material. what about shirtless guys just standing there not doing erotic poses? It's a little vague, please elaborate
It is difficult to be precise about this because people will then try to push the limits. Because we have so few problems it is easier to deal with them on a case-by-case basis (which is normally a PM to the member asking them to remove the images from their galleries etc). As a general guide of how we handle this (and not as definitive limits): - Anything that would be covered by swimwear should not be shown on the site (either directly or as bulges, groping, hands over etc). - Pubic hair showing above a low waistline is not acceptable (that is covered by the above point but is probably the most common problem area so I am stating it separately). - Anything intended as an erotic pose is not acceptable. - Photos of people in galleries may be of yourself, friends (with their permission), celebs etc. They may not be of random people (such as taken from FaceBook, MySpace etc) that you happen to think are hot. Shirtless guys as you suggested are fine, and there are a number of these (mostly self-pics) in the galleries already.
