Okay.

[conuly]

1. Based on the comments here, I think it's fair to ban "you must add me to see my icons" posts here, right? I mean, once somebody takes that icon and uploads it to LJ, there's no preventing other people from stealing it off of them anyway, so it's kinda pointless. If you have any objections to this proposed rule, now is the place to say it. We'd still allow links to other journals and communities, so long as we don't have to join the community or add the journal as a friend to see the icons.

2. The other rule, because this *really* pisses me off, is going to be added to the rules tomorrow if I hear no objections: If you are breaking the rules, and include the line "I don't know if this is okay...." or anything similar, I'll delete your post, and you *will* not have the chance to repost it. If you're not breaking the rules, I'll just ask you to edit your post, because that line really, really irritates me. I mean, you have no idea....

If you don't know if something is against the rules, you can ask. And if it is, I still might allow it as an exception. I've done stranger things. But that line... ugh. Makes me see red.

3. Somebody brought something up. He (or she) was concerned about the number of off-topic icons in the community. I've always considered it okay if they're with other, on-topic icons, but s/he made a good point that multiple icons makes the page load slowly, and it's a bit irritating to click an lj-cut to see 3 HP icons and 29,000 icons for American Idol, or something similarly non-bookish. So, comment, tell me what you want to see regarding this, I'll figure something out that makes as many people happy as possible. Right now, I just want input, I have no opinion one way or another.

4. Oh, and to clear things up, you *can* post links and fake cuts, but if you post a link and call it a fake cut (when it isn't), I'll point and snicker. Seriously.

Comments

thank you

[welsh-briar.livejournal.com]

Yes! Having to add someone to access the icons in a community is rather unfair, as long as everyone plays by the rules and gives credit where credit is due that should be the end of it.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Re: 3...

I think the best thing to do here would be to make sure people warn for it? I mean, i use free hosting, so I can crosspost icons to every man and his community, but for some folks bandwidth is an issue and I can understand why they wouldn't want to repost elsewhere. So... I guess if someone has, like, three book icons and eight bajillion Buffy icons, that's uncool, but say half-and-half, I can sort of sympathise with just wanting to link, you know?

So, er, perhaps a gentle guideline along those lines- you must warn people, and if you only have a very small number of book icons in the post, it's a good idea to separate them or something.

[nakeisha.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with this suggestion, warn if you only have a small number of book icons and a large number of other icons. It's seems a nice compromise to me.

[neytaritook.livejournal.com]

I'm against making a rule against posting icons that aren't bookish - if the person says how many non-bookish icons there are outside of the cut. That way one can decide whether or not they want to let the page load.

The fewer rules the better, in my book :-)

[enigel]

#3 I'd rather there weren't off-topic icons in the community.

The bookish icons could be posted here, and there could be a link to where the other ones (+/- the bookish ones) are posted - the poster's journal, the American Idol icons community (to use your example) or wherever, with the proper warning. I figure if people like the iconist's style that much, they'll go through the bother of clicking one more link to get to them.

#4 Heh, me too. I also won't click it. Also, if you make a perfect fake lj cut and there are no comments on the entry (because people usually comment on the post they've been redirected to), I don't notice it's a fake cut and I tend to assume the content under it isn't all that interesting, so I won't click it either.

It might be a silly peeve, but so is the trend of fake lj cuts, correctly or incorrectly labeled as such.

[layoutsforkarma.livejournal.com]

I agree on #1, 2, and 4.

For #3, I don't really mind, as long as the divisions are clearly labeled. For example, "BUFFY (picturepicturepicture) WUTHERING HEIGHTS (picturepicture)" would suit me fine. That way, if you're on dial-up, you can stop the page when just the text has loaded, and then right-click to load the individual icons in the category you want. If the categories aren't labeled, you either have to wait for everything to load, or take potluck if you do the loading-separately method.

[sreya.livejournal.com]

#1 Oh, definitely! It's always frustrating to hit a locked journal and wait to be added to a community. Most of the time, I never get around to returning for the icons.

#2 Makes sense.

#3 I'd prefer it if off-topic icons are not posted in or directly linked to from the community. Users can always provide a link within the post saying "And go to my journal if you'd like to see non-book icons."

For the bandwidth issue, I think there's a misunderstanding about how bandwidth works. It doesn't matter how many places you post an image's code, what matters is how many times someone loads the image to view it, or downloads it. So if you post the image under a cut in your journal and under a cut here in the community, you won't be using any more bandwidth than if you only posted in your journal and linked to it.

In fact, you'd be saving bandwidth by posting only the on-topic icons in the community, because the off-topic ones won't load with them when the person clicks the community cut.

Just thought I'd speak up, because I've seen the argument used before.

# 4 *giggle*

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

I agree with the new rules. They're appropriate considering the volume of posts on this comm.

[aquahaute.livejournal.com]

What really annoys me about #2 is the fact that when people do say that, no one says it properly ("I don't know whether this is okay").

:D

[beccak1961.livejournal.com]

1- fine with me either way

2- really, people should read the rules so I don't have a lot of sympathy. As you said, they could always ask first.

3-There are a lot of icon places so if you wanted this to be only books it would be fine with me. Or a warning if it's not just books.

4- Laughter is the best medicine, after all.

[athene-632.livejournal.com]

About #3...I have nothing against non-book related icons if the person in question clearly states how many icons are book-related.
(I'm supposing that we're talking about posting behind a fake lj-cut. Doing a real post in this community with Angelina Jolie-icons is another thing.)

[lyricalnights.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me to warn for non-book icons if they make up a significant portion of a linked page. If people can write up five zillion little rules about how and where their icons can be used, they can add a warning line somewhere. =)

[circlifly.livejournal.com]

The only thing that I have against multiple icons is slow loading time, but that's not necessarily a concern for me (at college with a fast connection). I like seeing multiple icons from various other genres.

And yes, the "you must add me" thing is really frustrating. Why not just post the three icons? It's not worth it for most people to add an entire icon journal to see one post. */rant*

[allie-meril.livejournal.com]

Sounds good. I don't take many of the icons here (my icon limit is almost reached), but I love looking at them and seeing what other people can create. It irks me to see "you must add me to see the rest". I ignore those: it's too much hassle to join and wait for the person to friend you back... Yuck.

re: #4. I am fairly new to LJ. Will someone please tell me what a fake cut is? Is it a link disguised to look like a real LJ cut? Or is it something different?

[midnightsmagic.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's a link designed to look like a cut.

I always ignore the friend-me-to-see-icons posts too. Why do people bother posting their icons for the public at all if they're so picky about who uses them?

[innermurk.livejournal.com]

Per #3: I am going along the supposition that this refers to linked entries, because I don't see the point of posting non-book stuff IN the community.
However, for out of community links, I don't think it should be against the rules. I rather enjoy seeing other icons, so it doesn't bother me. Yet, it is slightly annoying to expect a large number of one type, only to see just two or three, and the rest being some other thing.
I guess the best thing would just to be to require people to label and warn. It seems really fair that way.

[midnightsmagic.livejournal.com]

I think that a warning for off-topic icons and how many there are is fair enough.

I, too, point and snicker at people who call normal links fake LJ cuts. I even point and snicker when the fake cut is done incorrectly, so that it only vaguely resembles an LJ cut.