Thread: Spoilers?

PLEASE NOTE:

This doesn't mean that we now condone embedded pornographic images or videos. Staff will be reviewing this particular issue as I know that's what many folks were eluding to with regards to this modification.

Cliff, we've allowed the embedding of a large subset of pornographic images since the beginning. It is nudity (pornographic or not) that can't be embedded. Just to clarify. The two are distinctly different.

Maybe that's not how the rules have been written, but that's how they've been enforced.

And we could go even further and say nudity has been fine too, as long as "nothing shows".

I guess I should specify (hardcore vs. softcore) embedding of images/videos.

Pretty sure areola is cool in softcore.

Yerp. No need to see the roast beef embedded. I've created a thread in the moderator's section for review of what we consider truly un-embeddable (if that's a word?) and what we permit as a whole. I'm all for a democrazy.

There's obviously the solution of (don't be afraid to click, nothing nsfw shows, just an example)NSFW but no comments from anyone else in the staff section as of yet whether we'll allow embedded material to be hidden in the tagging or not.

Nice!!!!! Now we can fun with these

Oh cool, I've contributed something to these forums. My life is complete. Lololol.

Also, Vadim.....
Spoiler

Ok guys there is one issue though. The images hidden under "spoilers" are still downloaded automatically by your browser as if you were looking through them. That's the nature of the embedded beast I guess.

What this means is, if a nude picture is posted from a bad site (porn site), then to the network admins it will show up as your traffic going to that bad site.

This means still no nudes pictures embedded even in spoilers...

Cool cool.

Ill do some research on a mod that hides the image and doesn't prefetch until the requester clicks on the show link.

Sent from my SGH-I727 using Tapatalk