Simping For Hina Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Frunk gets me hard whenever he arrives. God, than man is a beautiful piece of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Isn't the bigger problem 8 year olds frequenting a PG-13 forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Isn't the bigger problem 8 year olds frequenting a PG-13 forum? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simping For Hina Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Isn't the bigger problem 8 year olds frequenting a PG-13 forum?They allow you here, so I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 No.And why not? If we want to say a certain age that's allowed, should that actually be enforced in the best way possible? Such as warnings and the like.If you're concerned about (your definition of) softcore pornography because of the legal implications, shouldn't you also be concerned that we claim to be for 13+ and yet don't do anything about 8 year olds having access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchermitcher Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 enforcing an age limit is harder and less practical than not allowing nsfw images in a worksafe place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 And why not? If we want to say a certain age that's allowed, should that actually be enforced in the best way possible? Such as warnings and the like.If you're concerned about (your definition of) softcore pornography because of the legal implications, shouldn't you also be concerned that we claim to be for 13+ and yet don't do anything about 8 year olds having access? Again, no. PG-13 means that some content may be inappropriate for a person under the age of 13, not that the only people who should be allowed to use this site must be at least 13 years old. Softcore pornography is certainly NOT protected by that. This site should be absolutely, unequivocally safe for persons under the age of 13, because people younger than 13 make up a significant portion of the audience of Yu-Gi-Oh and, by extension, this website. This is about movies but pretty much sums it up. You can try and spin it until the cows come home. My "definition" was the opinion of a person appointed to moderate this site. There is absolutely no way anybody can reasonably justify J-Max's actions and I question the motives of those who try to defend him/her/it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simping For Hina Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Frunk, can we do the funk together in your bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Again, no. PG-13 means that some content may be inappropriate for a person under the age of 13, not that the only people who should be allowed to use this site must be at least 13 years old. Softcore pornography is certainly NOT protected by that. This site should be absolutely, unequivocally safe for persons under the age of 13, because people younger than 13 make up a significant portion of the audience of Yu-Gi-Oh and, by extension, this website. This is about movies but pretty much sums it up. You can try and spin it until the cows come home. My "definition" was the opinion of a person appointed to moderate this site. There is absolutely no way anybody can reasonably justify J-Max's actions and I can only question the motives of those who try to defend him/her/it."Softcore pornography or softcore porn is commercial still photography or film that has a pornographic or erotic component. It is less sexually graphic and intrusive than hardcore pornography. It typically contains nude or semi-nude actors involved in love scenes, and is intended to be sexually arousing and aesthetically beautiful." Seems the most solid definition I can find. Which, that's kind of a flimsy thing to be working with. Plus I don't know the images in question so I can't really decide, but it does feel like it's a somewhat thin line. And perma banning based on something so iffy seems wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin Posted March 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I feel the crux of the matter, that is the unbanning of rag 2016, is being totally disregarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I feel the crux of the matter, that is the unbanning of rag 2016, is being totally disregarded.The struggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 "Softcore pornography or softcore porn is commercial still photography or film that has a pornographic or erotic component. It is less sexually graphic and intrusive than hardcore pornography. It typically contains nude or semi-nude actors involved in love scenes, and is intended to be sexually arousing and aesthetically beautiful." Seems the most solid definition I can find. Which, that's kind of a flimsy thing to be working with. Plus I don't know the images in question so I can't really decide, but it does feel like it's a somewhat thin line. And perma banning based on something so iffy seems wrong. Wow. Are you actually trying to suggest that "up-skirt" images depicting a scantily-clad, very young-looking woman in a provocative, open-legged pose, complete with drawn on "features" such as nipples and a "camel toe" - an image that can only be considered sexually suggestive and perverted - are in any way appropriate on this website? That's just one of them that I can vaguely remember. There were many. Your definition stresses that an image must include nudity to be considered pornographic. Mine does not. Pure semantics, nonetheless. The rules of the time were abundantly clear that such behaviour was highly questionable at best, and included in Rule 2 is the note that a member should contact staff before they post if they are unsure whether or not they are breaking the rules. The fact that J-Max either ignored this, or that he/she/it did not consider that the images in question were close to the "thin line" was, from my point of view, extremely disconcerting. I want to make clear that I'm not talking about legality or what J-Max may or may not enjoy in his/her/its spare time, nor am I suggesting that being perverted is so reprehensible that a member should not be allowed access to this site at all, but J-Max showed such a flagrant disregard for not just the rules, but also for common sense and decency, and perhaps that is why I was not slightly more lenient. Taken into account was the fact that the images were shared with no warning(s) on the thread/posts and, as I recall, this was not an isolated incident in J-Max's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I like how I admitted I didn't know the specific images yet you claim I'm suggesting anything.Disconcerting behavior and some iffy, but definitely not completely pornographic, images is a reason for a perma ban? Yeah, no, that is just absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I like how I admitted I didn't know the specific images yet you claim I'm suggesting anything.Disconcerting behavior and some iffy, but definitely not completely pornographic, images is a reason for a perma ban? Yeah, no, that is just absurd. Oh my God. If you don't know the specifics then how could you possibly know whether or not it was absurd to call for a permanent ban? Do you have any idea about moderation at all? Sometimes, we can't just hold everybody's hand and say "Sorry J-Max, I know you made a little mistake. I trust you won't do it again, mmmkay?" The fact that you draw some kind of line between the type of images I described and actual nudity/pornography, and refuse to acknowledge the nature of this site and its member base, is as disconcerting to me now as J-Max's behaviour was then. Keeping in mind that you've made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, what would you have done? A one-month ban? A week? A few warning points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 so... what i'm getting out of this... is frunk is batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 is frunk is batman I'm the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.tbh i thought the quote was the one it doesn't want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 tbh i thought the quote was the one it doesn't want Doesn't want is certainly more true! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.Sorry mate, but you are no Batman. I am Batman. *hears boos in the background* Well screw you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Sorry mate, but you are no Batman. I am Batman. *hears boos in the background* Well screw you too.You know things are bad when you literally boo yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Oh my God. If you don't know the specifics then how could you possibly know whether or not it was absurd to call for a permanent ban? Do you have any idea about moderation at all? Sometimes, we can't just hold everybody's hand and say "Sorry J-Max, I know you made a little mistake. I trust you won't do it again, mmmkay?" The fact that you draw some kind of line between the type of images I described and actual nudity/pornography, and refuse to acknowledge the nature of this site and its member base, is as disconcerting to me now as J-Max's behaviour was then. Keeping in mind that you've made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, what would you have done? A one-month ban? A week? A few warning points?Because from all you've said, which is what I have to go off on, it's absurd. And ya know, weekly bans and such exist for a reason. Going straight to perma ban for something that, as it sounds, isn't blatantly terrible is simply bad judgement.I question if you actually know much about moderation. So far you're the only person I saw actually defend your moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Frunk summoned me so I could do this. The magical answer to all your questions: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Because from all you've said, which is what I have to go off on, it's absurd. And ya know, weekly bans and such exist for a reason. Going straight to perma ban for something that, as it sounds, isn't blatantly terrible is simply bad judgement. I question if you actually know much about moderation. So far you're the only person I saw actually defend your moderation. "It is absurd, because I think it is absurd." Fantastic. So out of 6 years of moderation, there's one case that went awry, and you assume I was terrible. Most of the people who were around when I was most active, are gone, and you assume only I would defend myself. Another diligent assessment of my career. Take a bow Lord Cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 really though guys we need to deal with this rag situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 really though guys we need to deal with this rag situation Well I think Rag was an idiot too so I'm probably not much help. Frunk summoned me so I could do this. The magical answer to all your questions: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions Thank you, Draco Straybyrn. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.