- 17,258
- 23,487
Thank you Ant
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,962
Yes, it was just Kaguya in a cooking apron from behind. Even her breasts were not seen. I do not think that a ban seems necessary here. I do not like being too strict with punishments in general.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,964
Well, the linked image itself seemed harmless, so maybe we should modify that rule a bit?
- 30,262
- 25,695
If DDM agrees, I'm fine for the ban to be repealed and the user to be given just a strict warning.
Our rule text should make it clear for the future though that linking to pornographic sites should not be allowed, even for images like this.
Our rule text should make it clear for the future though that linking to pornographic sites should not be allowed, even for images like this.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,966
Yes, definitely. He is not a badly behaving member as far as I am aware.
- 18,393
- 14,309
ANT YOU ARE REASONABLE PERSON. THANKS MAN!
- 2,971
- 1,835
What if he just googles imaged searched and posted a link form google image?
Also as we can see in the rule its against linking to pornographic images and videos not the sites itself. Nothing about the image posted was really above anything anyone else has and its rattish to try and use the watermark that no one looks at to justify a ban.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,969
I would personally argue that this was comparable to a bikini image link.
- 30,262
- 25,695
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to argue that the image of Kaguya in a naked apron on a site called Rule34 cannot be interpreted to be pornographic.
- 30,262
- 25,695
I'd still oppose to a bikini image link if that link was directly to a **** site.
- 2,971
- 1,835
So it would have been better to use the same image from another site like gelbooru or such which has a mixture of sfw and nsfw?
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,973
I am trying. I am compulsively obsessed with being truthful/honest. We cannot be forced to systematically lie about reality or be too intolerantly totalitarian regarding people having sexualities, as long as they are ultimately harmless.
That said, I suppose that I will get attacked for this. It is what usually happens in these kind of situations.
- 2,971
- 1,835
Bet I second this.
- 30,262
- 25,695
I seriously hope that no one would attack you for this.
As I said, I'm fine for the ban to be repealed if DDM agrees, but for future reference nobody on this forum should ever be linking to Rule34 or similar websites on here.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,976
I have no doubt that other images on that site are completely unacceptable, but that particular image was harmless, and it was posted by an otherwise well-behaved member, so I think that a warning should be sufficient.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,977
Well, I have repeatedly gotten in trouble for citing verifiable statistical facts in the past.
Yes, it was a dumb action, but not a malicious one.
- 30,333
- 32,087
I'm fine with lifting the ban, I did not agree with people comparing it to AKM's avatars though because those avatars at least had underwear. Her breasts were not showing, but her ass was exposed. It wasn't bad enough to be X-rated, but it was more so the site affiliation. However, a post removal and strict warning are still warranted, but the 1 month ban might have been rushed yeah.
- 30,333
- 32,087
I sent him a message on his wall.
- 11,302
- 12,824
The real issue here ain't so much the image itself (that can help or harm the case in question, certainly), but the site.
You don't link a **** site on the wiki. Flat out. "Don't be stupid, you know exactly what you're doing" is the idea.
- 10,383
- 8,783
As someone who pray before going to sleep almost every night and has a very religious family (father part), not so much. The guy didn't know what he was talking about, that's it
Honestly, I'm not going to comment about the subject anymore. The guy has already been banned and it has been established that he deserves it by the site rules
And sorry for disturbing the thread with my comments
Last edited:
- 17,258
- 23,487
Yes I addressed that Bone
my opinion was that he should be warned and not flat out banned for an honest mistake, that was a rather harmless one. No need to beat a dead horse here, the situation has been resolved and AF2 received his warning.
- 17,949
- 13,131
Just want to say that those comments is definitely very offensive to say to religious people, your literally attacking, accusing and generalizing their religion. That wasn't just not knowing what they were talking about
I personally got very angry at those comments
- 18,393
- 14,309
Me too
- 11,302
- 12,824
Yes I addressed that Bone
I realize that, just wanted to add my own two cents to the thing.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,991
Yes, people are obviously individuals. You cannot generalise and say that anywhere near all followers of a certain religion think a certain way.
That said, we cannot lie to ourselves about the available statistics either, although the ones I checked are almost 10 years old, and people in general have become considerably more progressive (which tends to mean much more tolerant in this area) in many parts of this world since then.
Last edited:
- 17,258
- 23,487
Love you Bone
- 17,949
- 13,131
Religious people hating LGBT+ is literally not true, I personally can't speak for other religions but there's a huge difference with not accepting them within their religion and hating LGBT+
- 18,393
- 14,309
You mean “not accepting/hating” and “not supporting”*
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 16,440
- 13,355
I guess it depends on the religion or the person in the religion. Some do seem like they shun LGBT+ people, some seem like they don't, it varies I suppose. Either way it is indeed evil to try and generalize them, and trying to use them as a shield for hating the LGBT+ community.
Still, the guy was doing some bad stuff, and said a slur or 2, so..
Also what religion are you in?
- 17,949
- 13,131
I mean for example a Christian wouldn't accept someone whos homosexual to be christian for example but yee kinda
- 11,927
- 18,872
I'm a Christian. I accept LGBTQ+ Christians. They exist. They are valid
This discussion's gonna devolve into a mess so let's not derail further please. It's already been dealt with
- 17,949
- 13,131
Most Christians, especially orthodox christians wouldn't see them as christians
Sure
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #15,999
Yes, that is definitely true.
- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #16,000
Yes, agreed. Let's drop this issue now please.
Similar threads
