justincredible;1285358 wrote:More good news. Just got this from my contact on the adsense forums:

ernest_t_bass;1285397 wrote:Will you keep both adsense and the new company? Where would you like to display the ad I created?

justincredible;1285382 wrote:Seriously, though, can you explain more what you mean? We tend to give people slack unless they absolutely post something outside of the gray area. We aren't handing out infractions left and right like some people seem to believe.

mcburg93;1285399 wrote:You have said no half naked women but there are no rules about it. You want people to ease up on saying certain words but again no rules. I dont care on how many infractions or warnings you hand out its none of my business. If you want to keep adsense you might want to make the rules clearer so people understand why you dont want them posting half naked women or saying f*** you you a******. I dont break many rules, but think it might be a good thing to explain better to the retards like me so they dont break the rules for the ads.

mcburg93;1285399 wrote:You have said no half naked women but there are no rules about it. You want people to ease up on saying certain words but again no rules. I dont care on how many infractions or warnings you hand out its none of my business. If you want to keep adsense you might want to make the rules clearer so people understand why you dont want them posting half naked women or saying f*** you you a******. I dont break many rules, but think it might be a good thing to explain better to the retards like me so they dont break the rules for the ads.

LJ;1285402 wrote: What needs cleared up?

GoChiefs;1285400 wrote:Half naked women would fall under the no sexual content rule wouldn't it?

GoChiefs;1285400 wrote:Half naked women would fall under the no sexual content rule wouldn't it?

O-Trap;1285406 wrote:I think it's a good idea.

ernest_t_bass;1285408 wrote:LJ doesn't. LJ trumps all!

ernest_t_bass;1285408 wrote:LJ doesn't. LJ trumps all!

mcburg93;1285405 wrote:A thread was taken down and the woman was covered up so I am guessing no.

O-Trap;1285406 wrote:That's even iffy, though. Olympian outdoor volleyball players are practically half naked, but posting them wouldn't necessarily be sexual.

I honestly get the reasoning for wanting more concrete rules. I think it's a good idea.

LJ;1285402 wrote:General rules (apply to ALL forums):

1. No swearing in your user title. 2. No swearing in your signature. 3. No sexual content. 4. No pornography or gore. 5. Do not reveal anyone's identity. 6. No swearing in thread titles.

These rules apply to ALL forums (except The Basement):

1. No personal attacks or unwarrantedname-calling. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they're an idiot. 2. Do not continually harass other members (this includes moderators). 3. Do not aggressively troll a thread with the sole purpose of derailing it.



What needs cleared up?

LJ;1285402 wrote:What needs cleared up?

LJ;1285409 wrote:Yeah nice one, cause that's totally what I said.

GoChiefs;1285411 wrote:Yes, but I think that was taken down more because of the "who do you want to f***" concept of the thread, not necessarily the pictures. I think common sense would dictate what photos would be considered sexual content and what wouldn't.

GoChiefs;1285411 wrote:Yes, but I think that was taken down more because of the "who do you want to f***" concept of the thread, not necessarily the pictures. I think common sense would dictate what photos would be considered sexual content and what wouldn't.

mcburg93;1285412 wrote:A thread was taken down due to, I am guessing, a girl in a bathing suit which is not sexual content. Justin said the language was another reason the thread was taken down.

Leave the rules as is I dont care I was just making a suggestion.

O-Trap;1285416 wrote:I don't disagree. Problem is, everyone's notion of common sense is different when it comes to gray areas, including Google's. They live mostly by a set of concrete rules and just leave some small wiggle room for their compliance team.

LJ;1285420 wrote:So lets just post their rules as our rules. Problem solved.

mcburg93;1285417 wrote:This is the problem. You assume everyone will use common sense.

GoChiefs;1285427 wrote:The users on every message board have to use common sense. If we listed every single rule to include no gray areas, it would be a mile long.

GoChiefs;1285427 wrote:The users on every message board have to use common sense. If we listed every single rule to include no gray areas, it would be a mile long.

mcburg93;1285405 wrote:A thread was taken down and the woman was covered up so I am guessing no.

GoChiefs;1285427 wrote:The users on every message board have to use common sense. If we listed every single rule to include no gray areas, it would be a mile long.

justincredible;1285435 wrote:Well, that thread was removed because it was talking about who you'd f***. Sexual. That seems easy enough to understand.

I can see your point about pictures, but I honestly don't see any reason to post images of women in bikinis. AdSense may or may not like it based on the context. Someone's boss might not like it regardless if someone is browsing the site at work (on your lunch break only, obviously).