Hi,
@Diego, audiovault has all the Harry potter and star wars movies with Description.
If you can't locate the website, PM me or something.
Grryf.

Hi.

It is an awesome sight.

ehh not this again

Moderation:
I'm issuing a caution here to Grryfindore. This information could have been given in a private message, and given the user in question, who has a vested interest in their project, I feel that this was self-serving enough to warrant attention. The caution is being given because this user has had a history of trying to push as far as he can regarding this particular site, and I, for one, don't take well to people doing this.
Note, again, that it's a caution. I could've lain down a warning, but I want to be gentle while still standing firm. I do not want to attack this with claws out.

I'm not going to change the message in question, but please note that if someone asks how to find something, telling them to find the vault is nearly as good as linking them to it. Please just don't. The vault is something we've made pretty clear we want no part of in public view on the website, particularly if it's being used this way. At that point, all you're doing is trying to skirt the rules by not linking. Intent vs. spirit of the law. Your intent is to promote the vault, so you name it in full so people can find it. As such, it falls somewhat under rule 3.

Just save yourselves the trouble, and don't bother, all right?

@10, agreed. the mods needs to make up their mind.

I am following rule 3 pretty tightly here.

Talk about the vault in general is not against the rules, in and of itself.

Pointing people straight at it when they ask for something is against the rules, as it is directly endorsing a site with copyrighted content.

If you posted a direct link, or a sneaky workaround, it's pretty clear you're trying to direct people to that site.
If you just name the site in direct answer to a question, you're still intending precisely the same thing. The logical chain says that the user will go seek out the site, access the illegal content there, and thus, public posts on the forum will be causally linked to the accessing and use of illegal material, which is what we're trying to avoid.
Given that you are directly affiliated with this site, Grryfindore, I invoked rule 3 to issue a caution (not even a warning) because I'm trying to ask you not to do this. I can't do anything about your site and I have no interest in doing so even if I could. But we have made painfully, 100% clear that we don't want people to easily hop from public threads here to your site in order to get hold of copyrighted content. Now, you have two choices here. You can push this, escalate it and get warned/banned down the road, or you can accept that as much as you don't like this rule, it's being enforced as reasonably as can be managed. You don't have to like it, but you do have to honour it if you want to remain here.

Aaron,

First, let me point out that throwing me under the bus this way, in public, off list, is a really excellent way to sow dissention on the forum, where this is already something of a hot-button topic. I respect that you disagree with me, and I'm willing to discuss it with you - and now I may as well do it here, so hold on a sec for that - but coming in this way, and then not even being willing to name your source, stinks of unprofessionalism and a power play in one go.

Nevertheless, here we are, so let's have this out.

Never once did I say that people cannot mention the vault. See? I just did so right there. Nothing wrong with that. Here are some more context-sensitive examples where it would be okay, with explanations, at least as far as I see it.
1. You can't mention the audiovault here.
Rationale: obvious; this is someone telling someone else not do break the rules
2. The audio vault is a really ambitious project, and...
Rationale: You're describing the vault, and not actually endorsing its use. Respecting the work that's gone into it is fine.
3. The vault came into being in (year)…
Rationale: Instead of praising it, you're explaining its history. Again, perfectly safe.

So in contexts where you want to discuss the vault in a nonspecific way, this is fine.

But here's the deal.
The reason I issued a caution (remember, no one actually got punished here) is because someone asked for something, and the immediate response was to point them at a website with illegal content. This totally defeats the purpose of not allowing the link. If person A asks a question, and person B provides an answer to that question, then it is logical that person A will probably do the legwork because they were encouraged by person B's answer. This isn't rocket science.
Using your justification, Aaron, anyone who asks, "where can I get (insert illegal material here)?" can be told "try the audio vault", and that's okay. Uh, no. Totally defeats the purpose.

Perhaps you and I have different understanding of "it's okay to mention the vault, just not to link to it", but torpedoing me this way in public is totally not the way to go. I am not convinced by your rhetoric and, given that no actual punishment was given, I see no reason to change my stance or to rescind anything that I have said.

I would ask that if you want to discuss this further, we switch to a different medium. You've made your case. I've made mine. Any further talk to this end, as administrators, should happen via a different channel.

"I do not want to attack this with claws out."? Wow, that sentence alone makes you look very professional. Now I'm scared, it could have been with claws out. So can you actually be kind and tell us why that rule is being enforced? If I understand it correctly, to avoid the site getting into any trouble. Perfectly reasonable, no problems with that. So what exactly is the problem if someone says it's on the vault? Who's getting into any trouble that way? Will you get any DMCA notices because someone said on the vault? Didn't think so. The other reason given was the public image of the forum being that mainstream devs are often around and you do not want to share the view that we support sharing paid content for free. Again, nothing was shared. People who are not blind probably do not know what vault means in this context, and all you are doing is being repetitive with the same statements over and over again.  What's next? Someone asks for an NVDA addon and I tell him hey it's on Jeff's repository, and you tell me sorry, you get cautioned because Jeff's repository also has links to described content. However, I'm actually really kind, because it could have been a warning with my claws out.

A nitpick, but Grryfindore didn't just say "vault", he said "audiovault". One word. Intent to direct someone to this website even without a link. Remember that intent matters. A caution was given because yes, this is a lot better than a straight link.

And as far as "claws out", my point here is that I am far, far more frustrated with this whole scenario than I'm showing you. My first impression would have bee to warn, not caution. That is "claws out", i.e., letting anger and frustration get the better of me. Rather than do that, I went for basically saying, "please don't make me escalate this", but in a sharp way. It is not my intention to bully, shame or overtly threaten anyone, but as stated previously, I am personally getting very tired of this argument.

Look. Let's be real here. The original poster wanted audio described Star Wars and Harry Potter. If you strip away the nitpickery on what Grryfindore said (vault vs. audiovault), and if you strip all the talk of vendettas or extra care out of it, here's what it comes down to.
The first person to reply mentioned iTunes (I don't know if this is viable, but I suspect it probably is). Totally fine and aboveboard.
The next poster, Grryfindore, who got cautioned, mentioned a site where you can get free content. He didn't mention a site where you can pay for the movie with audio description like everyone else. Ever wonder why that might be? This is why I cited personal gain in one of my prior posts. He was in essence encouraging piracy. This was his intention, or else he would have linked to or mentioned a legitimate website or service. When he made the choice to make direct mention of a site that hosts copyrighted material, he made the choice to infringe upon rule 3, and was asked not to do it anymore. This is not his first rodeo, and again I mention, he got a caution. I wanted to warn, but I think that would have been harsh and somewhat reactionary.

Now, can we put this to bed? Because to my way of seeing this, it's a done deal.

Perfect example: your mention there is relatively harmless. It's incidental.
Intent matters, even under the law. If one's first response to a question about how to obtain something is "go to this illegal site", that's problematic. If one's first response is "go to this legal site", or "I can't help you here", or "check your private messages", even if we know the vault has been invoked somewhere, somehow, it sets up plausible deniability.

We are not having this discussion again. And once more, for those everpresent folks in the back: we are not. having. this discussion again.

I do not understand what part of that statement wasn't clear the first, or eighteenth, time it was made.

If there was some enormous harm that could be averted, then you'd have a point. Since there isn't, you don't.

Feel free to discuss your illicit dealings elsewhere, or in private, not in public view.

It's not possible to retroactively scrub every mention of a site or activity from a forum,  and that's not what we're interested in doing in any case.