[Ooze3d]

I can't begin to think how awesome would be to have the amazing W. as a member here. And DJ has the power to make it real!!

Did I say it'd be awesome?

[DJPFC]

The suggestion that we would ban her and delete her posts is ridiculous, since those selfsame posts would indicate that she had reconsidered her original request to prohibit her content on this board. If she ever wants to strike down the forum rule that was established at her request and for her protection, all she needs to do is drop us a note.

In the meantime, exaggerated speculation from someone who doesn't fully understand the situation doesn't benefit her or the forum.

Pal adds: I have to agree with everything gonZo said. We're huge fans of your stuff DJ, but I've no idea why you continue to go on about the rules 'never changing' when you know that's absolutely not true... they get some kind of edit every couple of months or so on average, as I've already illustrated for you before. If she wants to rescind her prior request, all she has to do is get in touch and say so... I've no doubt that the BEA Owner will be happy to have one less rule in his list and more importantly to have another model contributing to the forum. Until she makes such a request, the Owner has no choice but to abide by her prior/standing request: that nothing about her appears here. I don't know how you'd expect him to do anything else.

Everyone just please relax.  I was exaggerating (a little) to illustrate a point about the rules here in some instances being raised to levels of just pure silliness.  I know the BEA management is extremely, EXTREMELY risk averse and that's totally understandable and certainly their right, but the bottom line is that many of these rules regarding certain models not being allowed in here are so preposterously outdated (Abby Montrose, anyone?) that some are just plain ridiculous at this point, so it needs to be pointed out and deserves some skewering, IMO.  My example was intentionally ridiculous to underline the point that the rules in some cases are almost as ridiculous.

A prime example:  not long ago, there was a thread post of someone asking for an ID on a model and the thread was removed by a moderator because the model wasn't allowed in here.  Which was fine, except for one minor thing: the mod was completely wrong in identifying the model.  She was not the off-limits gals, but someone else entirely and honestly didn't even look at all like the off-limits gal.  I pointed this mistake out to several moderators and even provided link after link after link of evidence that clearly showed the mistake and that this wasn't remotely the same gal they originally thought it was, yet the thread stayed locked and all of it was removed and stayed that way.  The mods also refused to even fully acknowledge the mistake.

So not only do the off-limits rules apply to models on the list, they also apply to models that LOOK like the models on the list, or even that the mods mistake for models on the list.  Like I said, it's just silly, made even more so by how earnest and seriously the rules are taken and enforced in here.  I just always have to chuckle the enforcement of absurd rules without the slightest hint of irony or recognition as to how absurd they are.    

[Palomine]

Everyone just please relax.  I was exaggerating (a little) to illustrate a point about the rules here in some instances being raised to levels of just pure silliness.  I know the BEA management is extremely, EXTREMELY risk averse and that's totally understandable and certainly their right, but the bottom line is that many of these rules regarding certain models not being allowed in here are so preposterously outdated (Abby Montrose, anyone?) that some are just plain ridiculous at this point, so it needs to be pointed out and deserves some skewering, IMO.  My example was intentionally ridiculous to underline the point that the rules in some cases are almost as ridiculous.

A prime example:  not long ago, there was a thread post of someone asking for an ID on a model and the thread was removed by a moderator because the model wasn't allowed in here.  Which was fine, except for one minor thing: the mod was completely wrong in identifying the model.  She was not the off-limits gals, but someone else entirely and honestly didn't even look at all like the off-limits gal.  I pointed this mistake out to several moderators and even provided link after link after link of evidence that clearly showed the mistake and that this wasn't remotely the same gal they originally thought it was, yet the thread stayed locked and all of it was removed and stayed that way.  The mods also refused to even fully acknowledge the mistake.

So not only do the off-limits rules apply to models on the list, they also apply to models that LOOK like the models on the list, or even that the mods mistake for models on the list.  Like I said, it's just silly, made even more so by how earnest and seriously the rules are taken and enforced in here.  I just always have to chuckle the enforcement of absurd rules without the slightest hint of irony or recognition as to how absurd they are.    

We ARE relaxed DJ, though I'm just curious... do you read anything that I've written to you? If not... that's fine... your prerogative of course... please just let me know, so I don't keep wasting time repeating myself for no reason, ok?

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, the rules DO get edited as necessary: they are not 'written in stone' as you say. As a courtesy to you, I sent you PMs about this in an effort to explain this to you, but maybe you didn't read those either, because you continue to go on and on about the mistaken alias for Barbie Griffin. The fact that the mistaken alias WAS REMOVED FROM THE RULES (a point you continue to neglect to mention every time you bring that incident up) FURTHER PROVES that the rules DO change. GO LOOK AT THE RULES RIGHT NOW and you'll see that what I say is accurate. And by the way, your assertion that we 'didn't acknowledge the mistake' is also incorrect... here's a link to the pinned thread about it that we posted months ago: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9982777.0.html

I don't know what to tell you... the BEA and the Forum are not Pinupfiles. Different ownership and VERY different liability situation. The Owner has the rules he wants and needs... and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, if ANY model who's made a request to NOT have her material here ever changes her mind, all she has to do is to say so. Until that happens, her request will be honored and the prohibition regarding that model will remain in effect.

If nothing else, I hope you read THIS post... so I don't have to keep setting the record straight on this.
 

[DJPFC]

Okay then, where is the thread and post that was mistakenly removed then?  That has been restored?

[Palomine]

Okay then, where is the thread and post that was mistakenly removed then?  That has been restored?

YES, of course it was restored, months ago: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9982180.0.html

[DJPFC]

I stand corrected

That said, my ultimate point remains fully intact: the idea of placing a model off-limits is silly, since models generally work freelance and can work for a number of different people/companies and, in almost all cases, do not own the rights to their photos.  Thus, to make all images of a specific model off-limits with no regard as to who actually owns the rights to the photos of said model is silly, and has absolutely no legal basis whatsoever, which has always been my main point about the off-limits rules in here. 

[Palomine]

I stand corrected

That said, the idea of placing a model off-limits is still silly, since models generally work freelance and can work for a number of different people/companies and, in almost all cases, do not own the rights to their photos.  Thus, to make all images of a model off-limits with no regard as to who actually owns the rights to the photos of said model is, as I said, silly, and has no legal basis whatsoever.

You are of course completely entitled to that opinion. From what I gather, the BEA Owner prefers that when a model asks that he not host images of her, he agrees to that request rather than allowing pix of her that she may not own herself. Whether he does this in an effort to limit liability, or just because he thinks it's the gentlemanly thing to do, I have no idea... that's just how he chooses to run his site.

But you see:

The rules DO change and we DO post public notices of those changes.
When a mistake has been made, we DO admit it and put the matter right.
If a rule needs to be deleted, it GETS deleted. If a removed thread needs to be restored, it GETS restored.

...all of these facts can be easily verified simply by clicking the links in my two posts below. Thanks.

[Real]

ive wondered before if girls who might have transitioned over time from regular modeling or just net notoriety to more of a glamour / erotic vein wouldnt reconsider might not reconsider previous requests.  in some cases it would only make for great promo.

anyways back on topic, after all the discussion in the mystery thread I must admit I cannot get the idea of awesome photosets of Nadia Chapuis out of my mind.

Of the girls I can think of who fit the pinupfiles aesthetic I think I'd like to see her most.

[The_Cub]

I cannot get the idea of awesome photosets of Nadia Chapuis out of my mind.

Of the girls I can think of who fit the pinupfiles aesthetic I think I'd like to see her most.

Agree 100%.

[Feral]

My two cents, if somebody comes in with a brigade of lawyers making threats and this and that and suddenly decides later on that its cool if such a thing occurs - it is up to them to let it be known PERSONALLY, not half way mention it an acquaintance or friend and assume it trickles down to the right ears.

[JimmyJones]

I nominate that Englishgirl lady for a pinupfiles model. 

[TWoods]

I stand corrected

Thus, to make all images of a specific model off-limits with no regard as to who actually owns the rights to the photos of said model is silly, and has absolutely no legal basis whatsoever, which has always been my main point about the off-limits rules in here. 

Wow - this is clearly a sensitive subject, but it moved off topic because I posted no images. Look I'm fine with not posting about this woman. But I take exception to the earlier accusation of trying to "work around the rules".  I'm still trying to get a read on exactly what a violation is, and it would seem that the mere mention of her name is a violation.  But that's hardly clear when at least 2 other General Discussion threads have moderators stating her name right now.  My post consisted of the exact phrase "_____ of course!", in response to the topical question headlining this thread.  My statement is hardly an OBVIOUS violation to the rules.  In fact I searched on her name before the post, just to make sure that her name had in fact been previously posted about.  I merely hope not to be brow-beaten in the future if a slip up occurs, and I am definitely not here to circumvent the system.  I responded with 3 words, no pictures, and no information - as requested in the rules verbatim.  I apologize if this still falls outside the guidelines but it took making that mistake for the rule to be fully understood.  Thanks for listening.

[gonZo]

Wow - this is clearly a sensitive subject, but it moved off topic because I posted no images. Look I'm fine with not posting about this woman. But I take exception to the earlier accusation of trying to "work around the rules".  I'm still trying to get a read on exactly what a violation is, and it would seem that the mere mention of her name is a violation.  But that's hardly clear when at least 2 other General Discussion threads have moderators stating her name right now.  My post consisted of the exact phrase "_____ of course!", in response to the topical question headlining this thread.  My statement is hardly an OBVIOUS violation to the rules.  In fact I searched on her name before the post, just to make sure that her name had in fact been previously posted about.  I merely hope not to be brow-beaten in the future if a slip up occurs, and I am definitely not here to circumvent the system.  I responded with 3 words, no pictures, and no information - as requested in the rules verbatim.  I apologize if this still falls outside the guidelines but it took making that mistake for the rule to be fully understood.  Thanks for listening.

The moderators have no choice but to mention the model's name occasionally; it's the only way we can specify whose information isn't allowed on the board. You were initially moderated for making a post that opened discussion about her. The information you posted was that you think she should be a PinupFiles model. I know that sounds like a very restrictive interpretation of the rule pertaining to her, but the intent of the rule is to virtually eliminate discussions about her.

Later... TWoods reminded us of someone, so we did some research, one thing led to another, and we're permanently banning him for returning in spite of previous bans.

[DoctorK]

Terri Jane, she's all natural, cute and gigantic

[solvegas]

I vote for BEshine. She's slim, is BEAutiful and she has, best of all, ginormoushugecolosalamazingtitanicearthshattering boobs.  'nuff said.