What she said

[corinna_5]

I had a whole long post about the Current Unpleasantness, and then I read Livia's post, which said it all much more cogently and succinctly. Damn you for being so smart, Livia!

The one thing I would add is that "we" are not being targeted as in fandom, but "we" as in LiveJournal. I'll repeat her central point:
Right now, Livejournal is in the

Comments

[liviapenn]

Please, even if you decide to leave LJ over recent events, think about that in the way you present yourself to the rest of the Internet from here on in.

Thank you, I was trying to think of a nice way to say something like that but it just kept coming out... not right. :\

[corinna_5]

It's such an emotional topic, it's HARD for it to come out right! Thank you for your totally sane post, and of course for that awesome icon. *g*

[the_girl_sleuth]

I'm just a lurker in fandom, but between this and fanlib I'm thinking of something you said shortly after the 2000 election: "I spent the last four weeks listening to NPR nonstop, and I'm going to spend the next four years drinking corona and listening to the clash." Of course, in the current situation I would need to replace "NPR" with "fandom wank" (and actually, replace "Corona" with "Crystal Geyser Spring Water"). I can't tell if things are actually crazy or if I'm enthralled because I want to procrastinate on a project I'm working on.

[corinna_5]

That was not me, that was the great Jon Langford! Who I quoted. :)

The answer to your question is, of course, both. And you have saved me contacting you to say that Something is in the mail, and should arrive by week's end.

[corinna_5]

Also, as it turns out? EIGHT years. Feh.

[the_girl_sleuth]

8 years is a LOT of beer.

Of course you are witty enough to have possible said something like that, so its almost like you said it, right?

Yay! Packages!

[ratcreature]

It does kind of suck though that they suspend LJs permanently without warning when those disclaim interests fictional, or are in fact fictional RPG villains and such. It makes no sense, especially not since their own FAQ tells you that the procedure for suspension is handled differently and gives you opportunity to remove material that is against the TOS before resorting to a suspension unless all material in the LJ was against the TOS. If they need to do that differently for merely listing an "illegal interest" they should have made that clearer.

[liviapenn]

I would check out heyschasm's third point here.

Immediate suspensions are done for certain reasons, including but not limited to:

* Denial of Service attacks,
* account break-ins,
* violation of previous Abuse Team directive,
* and journals where all material is a violation of the Terms of Service.

So, basically, it's always been part of LJ's TOS that they could immediately suspend your journal for reasons "including but not limited to" the ones listed-- and the language is probably that vague there for situations precisely like this one, where they're facing a problem that they did not actually foresee (and therefore could not take into account in the normal suspension procedure) that could actually cause them serious harm.