*

gonZo

  • pain in the ass moderator
  • 9724
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2009, 08:18:15 AM »
Quote:

G_Wille said:
If you were correct I would agree with you.



  The filename of the picture you posted is exactly the same as the filename of a matching image in a certain gallery on a prohibited site.  That particular site automatically renames every picture that is uploaded to it, so the only place your copy of the picture could have gotten that filename is from the prohibited site.

Maybe you got the picture from another site that downloaded it from the prohibited site, but that doesn't matter, because sites that harvest or host pictures from prohibited sites are also categorically prohibited.  

When you registered in this forum, you agreed not to post pictures from prohibited sites.  All we ask is that you uphold your end of the agreement.

*

G_Wille

  • Banned User
  • 337
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2009, 09:33:56 PM »
And I think most people here do best to abide by that.  but I certainly don't peruse those various social prohibited sites looking up every models page, when typically all of their photos are found elsewhere.  And there's no need for me to scan pages that don't even allow any sort of nudity.

Anyways - the questionable pic was simply removed off this forum and that's all that matters here.  I'm not fighting to have the pic put back up - it's the resulting ban and accusation that the pic was pulled from a prohibited site that was misplaced.

*

gonZo

  • pain in the ass moderator
  • 9724
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2009, 08:22:45 AM »
Quote:

 And I think most people here do best to abide by that.  


That's true, and those people don't commit as many rule violations in years of membership as you have in your first three months.

Quote:

 but I certainly don't peruse those various social prohibited sites looking up every models page, when typically all of their photos are found elsewhere. And there's no need for me to scan pages that don't even allow any sort of nudity.


But that's what you need to do to make sure your posts are safe. You obviously haven't been doing that, and you've been posting prohibited content on a fairly regular basis.

Quote:

 I'm not fighting to have the pic put back up - it's the resulting ban and accusation that the pic was pulled from a prohibited site that was misplaced.


You posted a file that was self-evidently obtained from a prohibited site, and we're sure you've been around long enough to understand how we deal with that. If you want to gripe some more about being penalized for your own negligence, then feel free to PM me.  In the meantime, let's stop boring everybody with this conversation.

*

DJPFC

  • Z Cup
  • 7571
    • http://www.pinupfiles.com
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2009, 10:30:30 AM »
Quote:

Palomine said:
Quote:

DJPFC said:
This is obviously the biggest flaw in the "prohibited sites" rule here at the BEA.  If a photo is put on a model's official website it's allowed, but then if the model turns around and places that exact same photo on her My$pace page, suddenly it's not allowed.

Totally ridiculous.  I'm a huge fan of the Owner and I appreciate everything he does for us all here by hosting the BEA, but I've been saying for years that if he's really interested in protecting the BEA with a proper set of rules, then he needs to hire a real lawyer to advise him on such matters, because some parts of the current sets of rules only give the illusion of protection, while others are completely unnecessary.




DJ, your opinion clearly differs with that of the Owner and that's all there is to it. We know FULL well that some images found on my$pace wouldn't violate any BEA policy (other than the no-my$space rule itself)... HOWEVER, since SO much OTHER problematic content DOES come from my$space, the Owner has determined that it's simply more practical to prohibit ALL my$space-sourced content completely. This has been explained before.  






I understand the rules, as I've heard your explanation time and time and time again, and I understand it. But what also happens time and time again is that you always fail to see my point. My point is that the rules in here are designed to protect the BEA in a LEGAL way, but a lot of them don't really do that, so I've advised that consulting a lawyer might be a prudent thing to do, so that a set of rules that truly does provide real legal protection (which is the point of the rules in the first place) can be instituted.

I realize that you say the Owner disagrees with me, but I don't see how telling someone to get legal advice from someone who is a legal expert, i.e. a lawyer, is a matter of opinion. That more seems like a matter of common sense and basic logic.

Clearly some of the rules in here were written without much thought or consideration as to whether they actually provide any true legal protection for the BEA, which is why I thought it would be prudent to actually consult a lawyer who is an expert on such matters, rather than have someone who is not an expert on such legal matters just make up rules as he goes along.

The Owner may disagree with that assessment and he has the right to disagree, but that doesn't make it any less foolish. When you need medical advice, you see a doctor. When you need tax advice, you see a CPA. Why, when dealing with legal matters, would someone just say "nah, I can do it myself"?

Reply from Pal: where did I say that the BEA Owner has never consulted an attorney? ...I know for a fact that he has. Is an attorney consulted every single time he receives a cease-and-desist letter and subsequently has the rules modified? I don't know, though I doubt it... I'd expect that at some point, prior experiences can be incorporated into the Owner's decision-making process w/o re-consulting again and again for similar issues.

The fact remains (as I've said) that SOME rules exist to make enforcement possible AS WELL AS to provide protection for the site. The no-my$pace rule is like that: ALL my$pace content is prohibited even though SOME of it wouldn't necessarily create liability. But since a LOT of it does, and since we don't have the resources to vet every image before it becomes publicly accessible in the forums, it's simply necessary and expedient to prohibit ALL content from my$space.

DJ, the BEA Owner operates the paysite and free areas of the BEA as he feels best for his own interests and the interests of the community that visits here. You might do it differently if you were in charge... I don't know. But it's moot, since that's not the case.

Like gonZo, I'll continue to discuss this with you if you insist, but I'd rather do so via PM so as not to quash the thread, OK?
Check out our brand new, fully re-booted mega-site, PinupFiles/PinupGlam!  Featuring the best and hottest big boobed pinup gals on the web!



*

G_Wille

  • Banned User
  • 337
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2009, 01:31:35 PM »
 
Quote:

   G_Willie:  but I certainly don't peruse those various social prohibited sites looking up every models page...

Gonzo: But that's what you need to do to make sure your posts are safe.

Palomine: "...and since we don't have the resources to vet every image before it becomes publicly accessible in the forums".





Neither do I.  So expecting that is asking a lot.  I'm only asking that you should make an effort to know the situation before knee-jerk banning people.  Simply taking the pic down errs on the side of caution and protects the forum, and is all that is necessary to maintain that protection - The End

On the brighter side - a picture!


 

*

gonZo

  • pain in the ass moderator
  • 9724
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2009, 04:06:09 PM »
  The forum rules state...
    2. CONTENT RESTRICTIONS
    You are responsible for making sure that everything you post, link, or attach conforms to the following rules:
    (etc.)
When you registered in this forum, you affirmed to the forum's owner that you would make sure that your posts follow the forum rules.  Today alone, you've given us several reasons to believe that you made that affirmation in bad faith (including a couple of Score posts and your written refusal to vet your posts).  

Since you've stated and demonstrated your intention to ignore the restrictions of your user agreement, we're permanently revoking your membership in this forum.

*

be_love

  • F Cup
  • 594
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2009, 07:50:49 AM »
Hai all,

I want to continue this discussion.

First: I appreciate the work of the forum owners and thank them to give us this opportunity to indulge our passion for big breasts. And I try to follow the rules like the most of us.

ohh my english. How to express....

What I want to say is, this forum lives with the pictures everbody stumbled over in the www. And it is often not obviously, from which source a picture is. But together there is enough knowledge to get a hint. So is it really a serious problem to have a picture which is removed within 24 hours? I mean, that the owner of the forum and every user shows in this way, that he is willing to only show legal pictures and that potential picture-owners can't rise regress to the forum-owners?

I'm not talking about the obvisious breaking of rules like there is i.e. the score logo on a picture, or other users who tried to post the same thing again after getting the hint that it is forbidden.

Or if 24 hours not acceptable, maybe it is possible to find a technical solution, based on the community knowledge to protect the forum? Like a button to use for everybody which makes a post invisible, so the moderators don't have all the work. I often found comments from other users which told that this was a forbidden post.

rgs
be_love

*

gonZo

  • pain in the ass moderator
  • 9724
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2009, 09:51:12 AM »
 Yes, it IS a serious problem when prohibited content is posted in the forum, even if it is removed within 24 hours.  The models, copyright-holders, and websites listed in the Content Restrictions section of the Forum Rules have informed the BEA's management that they may take action against BEArchive if their content appears here AT ALL.

We temporarily ban chronic rule-violators because we HOPE it will convince them to research pictures and links more carefully before posting them.  And as far as we can tell, it works: the people who become more careful to avoid getting banned again usually stop violating the rules, and the people who continue to post carelessly earn additional bans and aren't able to post as often.

*

ROUNDandHEAVY

  • Rookie of the Year
  • 7613
  • My name is Bob, Round is just my favorite shape. ;
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2009, 09:57:39 AM »
I will chime in here. I notice that the mods first action when they make a decision that material is against the rules is to just delete it and quickly explain why, often with a caveat for the future.

It is here where trouble can start. The correct action is to publicly accept the action and perhaps privately admit that you understand the action, and maybe even add you were in the wrong and will strive to be in compliance in the future.

When this happens I have never heard of the mods curtly banning anyone.

The problem only arises, in my observation, when the transgressor gets overly defensive and insists on creating a public debate and either refuses to accept the rules and/or mocks them as unfair or unreasonable.

Then, to add insult to injury, a decent percentage of these folks often will proceed to berate the mods.

It is instructive to remember that this forum is not a representative democracy. The owner is the only one whose ass is hanging out to dry. He makes rules to cover said ass so he can keep this site open and not get dragged into court by the forces of propriety.

Therefore discussions of moderator's logic tend to be circular at best and obnoxious and melodramatic at worst.

We all run afoul of the traps set by the circumstances from time to time. It's often confusing trying to remember the tangle of rules which constitute eligibility for posting here. It's inevitable.

Next time just try thanking the mods for spending their unpaid time correcting these errors and helping to keep our favorite big boobie site open.

Two cents poorer.

Bob
Call me Bob.

*

Meister

  • A Cup
  • *
  • 13
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2009, 11:45:05 AM »
She's done some nekkid.



*

Q_BE

  • P Cup
  • 5871
  • Dreaming of a Scarlett Spring
    • Q-BE's Ramblings
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2009, 01:13:11 PM »
Quote:

Meister said:
She's done some nekkid.


 



Do you have a link to the actual page where this photo was featured? I'd like to see in what context it was posted... p

Q-"Digging through the site is not my idea of a good time"-BE

*

Goldeneye

  • The Midas Look
  • 12443
  • The Midas Look
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2009, 02:32:28 AM »
My guess is the best kind.

*

salem

  • Moderator
  • 75496
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2013, 01:10:48 PM »
Twitter pic of Calley, looking goooooooooood!

*

Hark

  • A Cup
  • 904
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2013, 08:32:42 PM »
That is one hell of a bump!  Four years...  Thanks, Salem.
Embrace the facts, uphold the truth.

*

salem

  • Moderator
  • 75496
Re: Calley Westwood MERGED
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2013, 06:24:59 AM »
Thanks.  :D

I only recently came across her thread, and as I have a few pretty good pictures of her I thought, what the hell!