A new comic.
-
DukeNukem 2417
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:26 am
- Technosexuality: Built
- Identification: Human
- Gender: Male
- Location: somwhere on Planet Earth
- x 3
- x 31
- Contact:
Jeez, I'm only gone for a fucking week and another debate over this pops up? I side with Kishin, R-Man and the moderators---I don't want a repeat of what happened to a good friend of mine (who shall remain nameless for privacy reasons) and his bad experiences with a certain website in which he was caught up in a flame war. If the rules say no underage fembots, then damnit, NO UNDERAGE FEMBOTS!!!! Semper Fi, hoorah and may the Force and the Schwarz be with you.
Elvis Lives. Not in this timeline, but in quite a few others.
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been.
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been.
-
WilloWisp
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:25 pm
- Technosexuality: Built
- Identification: Human
- Gender: Male
- Location: An infinite distance away in a direction which can't be described in 3-dimensions.
- x 2
- Contact:
For those still getting in an uproar over this issue, it should be noted that there isn't really a conflict. The parties on the dissenting side have relented. Further "if you don't get it, ____ off" posts are simply whistling into the wind. The rule is established. I don't think there's anyone reading this thread who is still confused about the matter.
-
Chevy Monza
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 4:51 pm
- Location: Curled up Inside a Bottle
- x 112
- x 5
- Contact:
give the pot a stir
Good Day,
Seeing as how my comment started this debate, I'd like to ask for further clarification. Contrary to some view points, one can disagree with an application of a rule, or the rule itself while not actually supporting the opposite view point. (yeah, higher thought and all that).
The rule as it's been presented is NO UNDER AGE MATERIAL. Further defined by the Age being 18.
This, as it stands is clear....now for how it's applied.
1) Should I draw an image of a fully developed Female android and post a link [b]OK[/b]
2) Should I draw the same image and title it 'UNIT 3B Age 17' [b]NOT OK[/b]
3) linking to/posting pictures of movies/tc shows where actresses over the age of 18 play teenages (minors) [b]OK[/b]
4) linking to/posting pictures of animated family shows where the voice talent is over 18, but the character is a minor [b]NOT OK[/b]
5) posting stories that take place in high school, but don't mention that the characters are underage [b]OK[/b]
6) posting stories where characters are defined as being underage [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b]
7) posting links to online videos of highschool/college age girls doing the Robot dance [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b] not always enforced as age is difficult to determine
Japanese live action movie where of age actresses dress the part of school girls (Minors)[b] OK [/b]
9) Japanese comics where the characters are school girls [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b]
The hard limit of AGE 18 or greater as seen above CAN be interupted more then one way. I understand some/most of these calls are the domain of Robotman. Perhaps the admin staff should work on some of the 'QUESTIONABLE' scenarios and develop an actual set of rules. As mentioned above the AGE 18 thing works, but the application of it can be spotty (In my opinion).
I'm not campaining for the right to post child pornography, I'm asking the hard questions of the admin staff. I appreciate the work they've done and do to provide an excellent forum, that effort and work however doesn't remove them from their responsibility to be accountable for the creation and enforcement of their rules.
/\/\()|\|z@
Seeing as how my comment started this debate, I'd like to ask for further clarification. Contrary to some view points, one can disagree with an application of a rule, or the rule itself while not actually supporting the opposite view point. (yeah, higher thought and all that).
The rule as it's been presented is NO UNDER AGE MATERIAL. Further defined by the Age being 18.
This, as it stands is clear....now for how it's applied.
1) Should I draw an image of a fully developed Female android and post a link [b]OK[/b]
2) Should I draw the same image and title it 'UNIT 3B Age 17' [b]NOT OK[/b]
3) linking to/posting pictures of movies/tc shows where actresses over the age of 18 play teenages (minors) [b]OK[/b]
4) linking to/posting pictures of animated family shows where the voice talent is over 18, but the character is a minor [b]NOT OK[/b]
5) posting stories that take place in high school, but don't mention that the characters are underage [b]OK[/b]
6) posting stories where characters are defined as being underage [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b]
7) posting links to online videos of highschool/college age girls doing the Robot dance [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b] not always enforced as age is difficult to determine
Japanese live action movie where of age actresses dress the part of school girls (Minors)[b] OK [/b]9) Japanese comics where the characters are school girls [b]QUESTIONABLE[/b]
The hard limit of AGE 18 or greater as seen above CAN be interupted more then one way. I understand some/most of these calls are the domain of Robotman. Perhaps the admin staff should work on some of the 'QUESTIONABLE' scenarios and develop an actual set of rules. As mentioned above the AGE 18 thing works, but the application of it can be spotty (In my opinion).
I'm not campaining for the right to post child pornography, I'm asking the hard questions of the admin staff. I appreciate the work they've done and do to provide an excellent forum, that effort and work however doesn't remove them from their responsibility to be accountable for the creation and enforcement of their rules.
/\/\()|\|z@
-
fection
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 11:50 pm
- Location: London, UK
- x 71
- Contact:
Oh, man... Of COURSE rules are, by definition, arbitrary. But the decided rule has been stated clearly (and REPEATEDLY!). If it could be SEEN to be underage, it is prudent not to post. So don't post ANYTHING QUESTIONABLE.
Can we quit with the equally arbitrary technicalities and get back to reporting?
Or can the mods move this to the discussion area?
Can we quit with the equally arbitrary technicalities and get back to reporting?
Or can the mods move this to the discussion area?
-
33cl33
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:59 pm
- Technosexuality: Built
- Identification: Human
- Gender: Male
- Location: USA
- x 337
- x 105
- Contact:
And amen from one old-time lurker / member... The last thing I (or anyone else as appreciative as myself) wants to see is this site turning into what the ancient usenet a.s.f.r. turned intoKishin wrote:R-man has my support on the stuff he removes.
Its not my personal crusade, or his. But the fact is even the faintest taint of kiddieporn here may result in our (and your) personal lives being utterly destroyed by the ruthlessness of the government.
We thank those of you who continue to support us and our efforts, and we're genuinely sorry we have to drop the hammer on websites and links that might be interesting, but ultimately dangerous to you.
But thats our job and we will not back down from doing it.
Keep up the great work - and let's all get along & keep the magic rolling!
SynthSuite audio clips, etc: https://linktr.ee/synthsuite
-
KingJeremy
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests