[bnek]

Thought i'd post a few screenshots, from the webchat...

One word.

Cleavage. WOW.

Mod edit to remove another violation (post of ChloeVevrier.com content). Had you spared the two seconds to look at the post preceding yours, you'd have seen that this is not allowed. Or read the rules. Either way, you'd have known. -Pal

[SwitcherX]

Damn.   

How big is she?

[Zealot]

Any more shots of her looking all happy and effervescent?

[DJPFC]

mmmmmmmmmm

Mod edit to remove image in violation of the site Rules (your second such 'second chance'). The rules are updated from time to time (we pin a note about changes at the top of the General Forum) so it's your responsibility to stay abreast (pun intended) of the Owner's rules. Your post here violates those rules and endangers this site, so please go re-read them and be MUCH more careful in the future. Thanks. -Palomine

Is this a new rule?  When did this happen?  Because people have been posting the occasional photo from her website here in this thread.  And am I understanding you right that no content from ChloeVevrier.Com is ever to be posted in here?

[southy]

The policy seems to have gone from "posting the odd photo now and then" to none, ever,never again.

Weird.

[bmoc434]

The policy seems to have gone from "posting the odd photo now and then" to none, ever,never again.

Weird.

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9982777.0.html

[Palomine]

http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9982777.0.html

Apparently, bmoc is the only one who reads the rule update thread.

WHENEVER the rules are changed (be it to add, delete or modify a rule) we ALWAYS bump the pinned rule update thread... users are responsible for keeping up-to-date on the rules as they change over time and the bump is our way of notifying everyone of changes.

We've been asking/cajoling folks to take it easy and not post too much of her current site content for ages, even within 1-1-1... and as feared, eventually, someone noticed it and the usual C&D letter was received, with which the BEA Owner has complied: so now a new prohibition is part of the rules. As of the date the rule became effective, no more posts sourced from there can be posted here... doing so is a violation of the User Agreement just like any other.

[ltfields]

Dang, oh well c'est la vie...

[bmoc434]

Dang, oh well c'est la vie...

However, unmorphed images of CV that are NOT part of chloevevrier.com appear to be fair game.

Mod edit: and again, I THANK bmoc for reading the Rules... he is again correct. The rules aren't that complex, and they don't get updated more than a few times a year. I saw a rule list for another forum the other day and compared to it, ours is teeny-tiny. -Pal

[bmoc434]

However, unmorphed images of CV that are NOT part of chloevevrier.com appear to be fair game.

Mod edit: and again, I THANK bmoc for reading the Rules... he is again correct. The rules aren't that complex, and they don't get updated more than a few times a year. I saw a rule list for another forum the other day and compared to it, ours is teeny-tiny. -Pal

You are welcome; however, just to be clear, my conclusion was an extrapolation from the rule, not an actual rule itself. It's the logical outcome of the posted rule, which, I suppose, makes it an indirect rule. I will now shut up.

[DJPFC]

However, unmorphed images of CV that are NOT part of chloevevrier.com appear to be fair game.

Mod edit: and again, I THANK bmoc for reading the Rules... he is again correct. The rules aren't that complex, and they don't get updated more than a few times a year. I saw a rule list for another forum the other day and compared to it, ours is teeny-tiny. -Pal

Actually, that's not true.  Images from ChloesWorld are not part of ChloeVevier.Com and those are off-limits as well as any and all photos she shot from her era with Score.  As are all the photos she shot with Daktari.  So basically everything on Chloe is off-limits, except for the shots she did for Danni.Com which are from 10+ years ago.  Anything even remotely new is verboten.

[Palomine]

Actually, that's not true.  Images from ChloesWorld are not part of ChloeVevier.Com and those are off-limits as well as any and all photos she shot from her era with Score.  As are all the photos she shot with Daktari.  So basically everything on Chloe is off-limits, except for the shots she did for Danni.Com which are from 10+ years ago.  Anything even remotely new is verboten.

If ANY model poses for a site from the prohibited source list, then of course her work for that site is prohibited. So, Chloe's work for Score sites or for Daktari is prohibited, and I'm sure that bmoc434 is as aware of that fact as I am... since it's hardly new/news.

DJ, you're often ill-informed about the Rules here: you've given public evidence of that for months on end, making our jobs that much harder the whole time while you complain and criticize. You're also SO quick to demean the work/content of other sites, but the first to fly off the handle when any user here dares voice justified criticisms of work from your site. And of course, we've yet to witness from you even one iota of the professional courtesy that we've extended to you over the years... but given your other behaviors, that's not exactly a surprise.

You've already been warned about this: you using the BEA forum to promote your website does not entitle you to indefinitely keep making our jobs harder, nor to involve yourself in the relationships/agreements between the BEA Owner and other sites.

[DJPFC]

What's with the tone, Palomine? I was just making a simple statement of the facts according to the rules in order to clarify the earlier comment regarding what exactly from Chloe is prohibited. No need to get upset or infer that I was criticizing somehow.  Please relax.



 

If ANY model poses for a site from the prohibited source list, then of course her work for that site is prohibited. So, Chloe's work for Score sites or for Daktari is prohibited, and I'm sure that bmoc434 is as aware of that fact as I am... since it's hardly new/news.

DJ, you're often ill-informed about the Rules here: you've given public evidence of that for months on end, making our jobs that much harder the whole time while you complain and criticize. You're also SO quick to demean the work/content of other sites, but the first to fly off the handle when any user here dares voice justified criticisms of work from your site. And of course, we've yet to witness from you even one iota of the professional courtesy that we've extended to you over the years... but given your other behaviors, that's not exactly a surprise.

You've already been warned about this: you using the BEA forum to promote your website does not entitle you to indefinitely keep making our jobs harder, nor to involve yourself in the relationships/agreements between the BEA Owner and other sites.

[Palomine]

What's with the tone, Palomine? I was just making a simple statement of the facts according to the rules in order to clarify the earlier comment regarding what exactly from Chloe is prohibited. No need to get upset or infer that I was criticizing somehow.  Please relax.

Your concern for my welfare is unnecessary: my post is simply a 'relaxed' response to yours, and it's based on the entirety of our experience with the user 'DJPFC' in our forum. The fact that more than one person from PF logs in as the DJPFC user is moot: ALL are obligated to abide by BEA policies and because you choose to share that login, each is responsible for the actions of the others. We've already explained to 'you' privately the fact that we can no longer abide by you making our jobs more difficult: complaining about the rules, getting into conflicts with other users, and the half-dozen other more serious ways that 'your' actions have required moderator attention over the years.

We'll ask you one last time: please bear in mind that 'you've' already had more than your fair share of 'second chances' before you again indulge your desire to criticize, debate or involve yourself in any of the matters mentioned earlier. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[southy]

Both Palomine and DJPFC have been valuable member of this site, and may that continue for many years to come.

On the subject of Chloe Vevvrier, if thats the rule, fine, no problems. At least its clear. No Score and no ChloeVevrier.com.

She also did some work for a website called HQ.SEX, and then there are the early photo's/ copyright unknown where she has added the Chloe.Vevrier.com logo. (but thats another debate)