On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
Not if we wrote it properly. The only way a policy can
be 'gamed' if it
is written ambiguously or in a way that is down to interpretation (e.g.
CSD T1 - what exactly 'divisive' means is down to the individual, and
two people acting in good faith can interpret it in completely different
ways). If, for example, we simply wrote it as:
Any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing
with sex toys
There is nothing in that (that I can see) which could possibly be
'gamed' or misinterpreted.
Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't
fit into the narrow bands. It needs to be generally worded, but
explicit inclusions are possible. For example:
"Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or
computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting
children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys."
And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually,
but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do)
--
Sam