Quote:
Originally Posted by luvbblogos
In the past several days I suspect a 'public lynching' is going on. RAINMAKER posted several photos (Glorious sharp early Vault images found) on 11/23/16. I myself down loaded everyone of them. RAINMAKER stated "3) is it kosher to post some of these images since they cannot truly be documented as Topps Vault issues? Here is where the OOTP officials (and possibly? MERKLE923, only because of his expertise in these manners and one who is held in high esteem and a wealth of knowledge for the community at large) and of course JOHN from BASEBALL-BIRTHDAYS, should have contacted RAINMAKER to advise him of the rules and guidelines regarding his postings! ...
|
I would have had nothing whatsoever to say had my name not have been brought up in the problematic posts - and, quoting from a PM regarding ToppsVault postings sent to me and several members here (including Rainmaker) from the OOTP moderator a while back-
"Essentially, if it has a watermark, and it is a rare/useful photo, post it. Discretion is the key here; we don't want to flood the forum with 23 more Don Sutton/Dodgers photos. If it is one of the older TV images that doesn't have a watermark, please don't post it here. If you have an image with a watermark, please don't crop out the watermark (...) The only exception here is to post a 180x270 or smaller head shot." (emphasis mine)
Personally, I think the claim of
posting images to see if they're OK to post is a bit disingenuous... if you have some doubt about a given image's propriety for the board, wouldn't asking the moderator in a PM before posting the image be the way to go?
In any event, it's not a "lynching" of any sort. OOTP has asked that we follow the guidelines quoted above - and anyone who's been around this forum and paid any attention at all to matters concerning ToppsVault images cannot be unaware of the sensitivity OOTP has about this stuff. Why is that a difficult thing?