FL - Somer Thompson, 7, Orange Park, 19 Oct 2009 #14

[Noway]

I do see that I've been violating the TOS every time I forget to uncheck the Show your signature option.


The posting of a link or links below your signature so they show up each time you post is prohibited. The posting of any link that is of a personal nature or has nothing directly to do with the discussion is prohibited.

 

[concentric]

Emma, say something funny. LOL

Isn't humor protected by slander/defamation laws?

 

[Noway]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. :banghead:


(regarding my post #601 above)

 

[Dr.Fessel]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. :banghead:

So you can not post your links anymore Noway?

 

[not_my_kids]

Noway, I think your siggy might slide, since it was actually a save on bandwidth.

I'd believe some of the TOS are up for executive decision.

ETA: Carp, I'm in the same boat.

 

[doggies]

Posters are doing exactly what we have been in trouble for on another site .

But wait! See, I'm not on another site. :waitasec:

 

[lillygator]

getting scared to post but I fail how posting a RSO's name on a website is harrassment. It's the truth plain and simple.

 

[Noway]

So you can not post your links anymore Noway?

I think this is my loophole: :woohoo:

The posting of a link or links below your signature so they show up each time you post is prohibited. The posting of any link that is of a personal nature or has nothing directly to do with the discussion is prohibited.


I just have to remember to uncheck the Show your signature option now and then. I try to remember to do it when one of my posts is on a page but sometimes I forget (and I get so annoyed by my long signature).

But I figured out to go back and edit so I can add/delete the signature.

 

[doggies]

I'm going shopping.

 

[Noway]

getting scared to post but I fail how posting a RSO's name on a website is harrassment. It's the truth plain and simple.

I think the problem was with all the info related to the RSO that was being posted ... addresses where he had lived, family members' names, etc.

And I for one do not want some registered sexual predator or offender whining that "NoWay on Websleuths is harassing me" so links and first name, last initial with a bit of description for flavor is enough for me.

 

[MommaD]

I think the problem was with all the info related to the RSO that was being posted ... addresses where he had lived, family members' names, etc.

And I for one do not want some registered sexual predator or offender whining that "NoWay on Websleuths is harassing me" so links and first name, last initial with a bit of description for flavor is enough for me.

I think the TOS for no links in the siggy area has been close to 2 yrs or so.. Last winter a special was going on before xmas ... we could pay to have approved links in our siggies.. maybe we will have that again this winter and you can have your siggy links...

 

[not_my_kids]

I agree with NoWay, it's partially crappy laws, and partially that we are putting people at the risk of harm and embarassment, people that haven't done anything wrong, ecxept to born in the same family as a person that committed a crime.

A lot of people know that my father is a registered sex offender. He will be released from prison in 2011. I have publicly posted the link to him, several times. I am not worried about being found through him. (I have 27 siblings on his side, try figuring out which one I am, good luck.)
But imagine that I were closer with my family, so that my name came up in connection with my parents everytime someone looked into one of them. I would have done nothing wrong, no convictions for anything, but my father happens to be a sick SOB, so my address, which is also the address of innocent very young children, ends up on the net. On a public forum that happens to be the very first result on Google, when running a search for most of these cases.

I appreciate it. It really is for the good of everyone.

 

[Emma Peel]

Emma, say something funny. LOL

On the bright side, I'm glad I'm too old to remember being a newbie.

 

[jokie7348]

You're not the only one confused, cath. I can't recall any previous threads/forums on Websleuths where a RSO's privacy was protected in any way. :waitasec:

If they'd just keep the POSs in jail where they belong, it would sure cut back the list POIs in so many cases.

I understand everyone's confusion. I was posting, but I have decided to be just a lurker/reader. It's too hard to delineate where the line is.....:waitasec:

 

[Noway]

I thought that people knew this ... but you can right-click on any of the links in my signature and bookmark the link.

I have them all saved in my Bookmarks under a folder for Somer.

That way you don't have to look for a post from me.


ETA
LMAO ... thanks, Adnoid ... there was NO WAY I was going to pay to have this siggy!

 

[not_my_kids]

A good way not to get sued, learn the big words and what they mean. I literally am fighting the war over my father (the sick SOB) as we speak. All the way across the board, notification, DNA collection, supervision and tier ranking. He has threatened to sue me three times, started legal action once. Law questions on this one, you really can ask me, I know them backwards and forwards.

It's one thing to say, "Look at this guy, in 1996 he was convicted of raping a little girl and then he got a plea bargain for doing it again in 1999. He probably attacked 50 kids before they caught him." That is emotional and can be seen as misleading.
"Look at this guy, a 1996 conviction for Criminal Sexual Conduct w a person under 13. It appears that he also pleaded guilty to indecent liberties with a child in 1999. LE states that he is a suspect in over 50 other attacks on children." Not emotional, it states fact, as a fact it does not defame anyone's character.

ETA: As long as the information that we post is limited to the initials and the area, that should be alright, especially if the person we were to be talking about really was named, publicly, by LE as a suspect in other cases.

 

[doggies]

The rule is for links in your signature advertising your business, which Tricia needs to approve.

Folks, don't get hung up on minutia of the rules. Think about the big picture, not whether something you perceive as a minor violation of a rule will result in problems.

Seriously, if you have a question just ask, don't get paranoid!

Adnoid,
If I might suggest that that rule be clarified in the TOS? Lord knows noway didn't have a clue what was meant, either.
Either we have to go by them all, or we have to be confused.
I have emailed Animal with some very sincere questions.

 

[doggies]

A good way not to get sued, learn the big words and what they mean. I literally am fighting the war over my father (the sick SOB) as we speak. All the way across the board, notification, DNA collection, supervision and tier ranking. He has threatened to sue me three times, started legal action once. Law questions on this one, you really can ask me, I know them backwards and forwards.

It's one thing to say, "Look at this guy, in 1996 he was convicted of raping a little girl and then he got a plea bargain for doing it again in 1999. He probably attacked 50 kids before they caught him." That is emotional and can be seen as misleading.
"Look at this guy, a 1996 conviction for Criminal Sexual Conduct w a person under 13. It appears that he also pleaded guilty to indecent liberties with a child in 1999. LE states that he is a suspect in over 50 other attacks on children." Not emotional, it states fact, as a fact it does not defame anyone's character.

I'm so sorry you've had to go through this. Thank you for your help and for being able to educate the rest of us if, God forbid, we ever need it. Prayers for you.

 

[Noway]

NMK, I cannot thank you enough for putting this all into a real-world situation for us and perhaps opening a few eyes at the same time.

For me, I was so blinded by the registered sex offender part that I didn't stop to consider that his victims extend far beyond those he violated.

You ROCK!

 

[cathdawg]

I am going to ask this question, even though I am scared to, Why are they waiting to go to court tomorrow in regards to WK, is there a shortage of Judges? I would have thought it would be a rather short process considering he has been charged with failure to provide his new address. Thx