View Full Version : Just what the hell is happening to my Babe Thread?
Reverend Joe
04-08-2009, 20:38
Somebody owes the Frontroom an apology. :stare:
"Softcore porn?!" "Pedophilia?!" What's wrong with you people?! Just because Beirut's gone doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to in the Babe Thread.
lol, don't look at me. I enjoy pretty pictures of women as much as the next guy, but I do not view or post porn, and I am not a pedophile. I think this thread is pretty useless though, as it will not serve a constructive purpose. Everyone knows who did what already.
Reverend Joe
04-08-2009, 21:25
I think this thread is pretty useless though, as it will not serve a constructive purpose. Everyone knows who did what already.
I know... :shame: I just needed to vent a little. I wasn't even that angry, just frustrated.
Strike For The South
04-09-2009, 00:08
There was a babe thread?
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
04-09-2009, 00:21
lol, don't look at me. I enjoy pretty pictures of women as much as the next guy, but I do not view or post porn, and I am not a pedophile. I think this thread is pretty useless though, as it will not serve a constructive purpose. Everyone knows who did what already.
I don't, I was shocked when seeing it closed. :embarassed: :no:
a) who posted porn?
b) who posted pedophile content???
a completely inoffensive name
04-09-2009, 01:06
The org is simply suffering from a disease all popular forums experience. 4chanification.
Beefy187
04-09-2009, 01:55
:wall:
I liked the babe thread. I just hope that it wasn't one of the old timers who posted porn and pedophile pictures.
tibilicus
04-09-2009, 01:57
Did I miss something here?
Pedophiles are the worst scum of the earth.
No form of life is lower.
Death is too good for them, they should be locked in a hole with no windows and fed nothing but bread and water for the rest of their days.
I support the locking of any thread that has the potential to be used in such a way.
*edit*
my view are actually much stronger than this but i though it best to keep my post clean
GeneralHankerchief
04-09-2009, 03:25
Some of the contributions of late have been quite stunning too - I have to give props to Centurio and aimlesswanderer for that. Shame that this kind of cloud has to hang over the thread. :no:
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
04-09-2009, 03:46
Some of the contributions of late have been quite stunning too - I have to give props to Centurio and aimlesswanderer for that. Shame that this kind of cloud has to hang over the thread. :no:
Thank you - I've got tons of great pics that I already thought of when and in what dosis to share them. I really hope this is not the end of the Babe Thread. :no:
I support the locking of any thread that has the potential to be used in such a way.
So you support the locking of the internet?
Also, although I agree with you in the perception of these kind of sexual perversion, we must keep in mind that we don't know if people who posted this (I still don't know what was posted) really do have this inclination, or if their posts were simply misunderstood (because of a misinterpretation of the content on their part).
So you support the locking of the internet?
I meant within the guild, a veritible haven amongst the filth on the internet
Also, although I agree with you in the perception of these kind of sexual perversion, we must keep in mind that we don't know if people who posted this (I still don't know what was posted) really do have this inclination, or if their posts were simply misunderstood (because of a misinterpretation of the content on their part).
The girl couldn't have been more than 5
the others may have simply looked young but that is impossible to misinterperate
What's a woman? Is it like....a boss in FF7?
It had to be a troll. I do not know anyone in here who would do this. It's disgusting to hear though.
Hi gang, here's an update on the Babe Thread:
I'm going to give it a week to cool down. Hosa and I are in agreement on that. When it re-opens, we're going to have some new rules. Nothing onerous or terrible, just stuff to help us manage it when idiots put inappropriate stuff up.
The main question now is whether the two patrons who were batting pedo-lite back and forth should receive a temporary or permanent ban.
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me or Hosa. Thanks.
Hi gang, here's an update on the Babe Thread:
I'm going to give it a week to cool down. Hosa and I are in agreement on that. When it re-opens, we're going to have some new rules. Nothing onerous or terrible, just stuff to help us manage it when idiots put inappropriate stuff up.
The main question now is whether the two patrons who were batting pedo-lite back and forth should receive a temporary or permanent ban.
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me or Hosa. Thanks.
If we are deciding this in a democratic manner, I'd say ban them permanently. Pedophilia does not deserve to be tolerated in the least bit.
Oh wait, the org isn't democratic? :sweatdrop:
Strike For The South
04-09-2009, 04:28
If we are deciding this in a democratic manner, I'd say ban them permanently. Pedophilia does not deserve to be tolerated in the least bit.
Oh wait, the org isn't democratic? :sweatdrop:
And we strike again. Bene
Full nudes of any kind deserve a perma-ban. Children in sexual positions/exposed deserve a perma-ban.
In fairness to the two patrons who triggered the lockdown, they posted a long series of erotic poses by women who looked and dressed young, but could easily have been of age. But that wasn't enough for them. They mixed in a couple of pictures of actual children in much less erotic poses.
Clearly they meant to imply pedophilia without actually committing it. I have zero patience for this sort of "let's see how close to the rules we can dance" behavior, and will have none of it. I suspect Hosa feels even more strongly.
Minimal accepted behavior is just that, it is the absolute bottom end of what we will tolerate. If someone thinks it's wicked cool to work that line and see how far they can push, well, this is what happens. In general Orgahs are a thoughtful, tasteful, good-spirited bunch, and that's a big part of why I've hung around for so many years. People who think it's clever or a game to see how far down they can drag the tone and content of this board do a disservice to the patrons and members who make this board what it is.
[/]end rant
In fairness to the two patrons who triggered the lockdown, they posted a long series of erotic poses by women who looked and dressed young, but could easily have been of age. But that wasn't enough for them. They mixed in a couple of pictures of actual children in much less erotic poses.
.
Perma-ban them. They should know what is tolerated at the Org, and by their nations, and Orgah nations, laws.
Samurai Waki
04-09-2009, 04:41
I know I'm not a big contributor to the thread. But I go over it once and awhile, both guys need to be Temporarily Banned.
Any Future Exchanging of Images of Children for any explicit reason should be Permanently Banned.
Full nudes of any kind deserve a perma-ban.
*Ahem*. It depends on whether you see them in Real Life or here in the forum. :P Or on the person in the pic. :P Jokes, aside. Indeed, whoever posted the pedophilliac pictures should recieve the full force of the "BANZ!1 Stick".
a completely inoffensive name
04-09-2009, 05:38
In fairness to the two patrons who triggered the lockdown, they posted a long series of erotic poses by women who looked and dressed young, but could easily have been of age. But that wasn't enough for them. They mixed in a couple of pictures of actual children in much less erotic poses.
Clearly they meant to imply pedophilia without actually committing it. I have zero patience for this sort of "let's see how close to the rules we can dance" behavior, and will have none of it. I suspect Hosa feels even more strongly.
Minimal accepted behavior is just that, it is the absolute bottom end of what we will tolerate. If someone thinks it's wicked cool to work that line and see how far they can push, well, this is what happens. In general Orgahs are a thoughtful, tasteful, good-spirited bunch, and that's a big part of why I've hung around for so many years. People who think it's clever or a game to see how far down they can drag the tone and content of this board do a disservice to the patrons and members who make this board what it is.
[/]end rant
Dang, even I am not anywhere near that horrible when it comes to pushing the limit of the rules.
That's just over the line. By a wide margin.
Well, if this is democratic, my vote is a permanent IP ban. Something like that should not be tolerated for even an instance IMO. Anyone who finds children sexually attractive has to be :daisy:ed in the head anyway, so I do not see why we would want them here. My:2cents:.
Megas Methuselah
04-09-2009, 06:55
Well, if this is democratic, my vote is a permanent IP ban.
Seconded. And my vote counts as two.
Rhyfelwyr
04-09-2009, 15:37
Seconded. And my vote counts as two.
Thirded. But I only get one vote because I'm just a poor Cornish fellow from Vuk's story. :embarassed:
I don't know what was posted, but if what has been said here is true, then a perma-ban is needed straight away.
Thirded. But I only get one vote because I'm just a poor Cornish fellow from Vuk's story. :embarassed:
I don't know what was posted, but if what has been said here is true, then a perma-ban is needed straight away.
lol, I did not brand you like that. :P You can make your own contributions. :P
Vladimir
04-09-2009, 16:00
Wow. I've been away from the thread for too long and was horrified to read this. Sexting hits the .org I guess. If the picture displayed child sexual abuse then there is no reason for them to come back. If it was merely suggestive poses in the context of the thread a long holiday with a LENGTHY explanation and apology is more appropriate.
No forgiveness for abuse but no one should have their hands cut off for stupidity. Full frontal of adults isn't that bad but clearly inconsistent with the intent of the thread.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-09-2009, 18:08
The org is simply suffering from a disease all popular forums experience. 4chanification.
lurk moar!
/hang them high, Lemur
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2009, 18:45
:2cents::2cents::2cents: to whoever outs them.
Give us names, and a ban won't be necessary. The community will ensure they don't have a place here ever again.
Wow. I've been away from the thread for too long and was horrified to read this. Sexting hits the .org I guess. If the picture displayed child sexual abuse then there is no reason for them to come back. If it was merely suggestive poses in the context of the thread a long holiday with a LENGTHY explanation and apology is more appropriate.
No forgiveness for abuse but no one should have their hands cut off for stupidity. Full frontal of adults isn't that bad but clearly inconsistent with the intent of the thread.
No offense, but I do not want to listen to anything pedos have to say, esp not at length. Nor do I want scum like that on this forum. Someone who watches child porn is more than just 'an idiot', they are dangerous, and sick.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2009, 19:22
"desert" posted pictures of little girls mixed in with "erotic" pictures of young women (?) dressed as little girls.
"SorBlade" wasn't as obvious--he egged desert on and posted some links which I didn't care to examine.
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2009, 19:37
"desert" posted pictures of little girls mixed in with "erotic" pictures of young women (?) dressed as little girls.
"SorBlade" wasn't as obvious--he egged desert on and posted some links which I didn't care to examine.
:2cents::2cents::2cents:
I think everyone knows how to handle these "patrons", if they ever bother to show their faces here again.
LittleGrizzly
04-09-2009, 19:46
From what I remember both seemed like decent people...
I never saw the material myself (nor do i want to) but i would like to say there is a slight difference with a joke (?) gone wrong and taken to far and being an actual paedophile...
That being said i never saw the material myself but i think a few other people who never saw the material either may be judging too harshly...
The very fact that they weren't permanent banned tells me they didn't take it that far as the .org can be a fairly strict place
Again just to point out i didn't see the material in question so i may be well off the boil i would just like other members to consider this could be a joke gone wrong...
:2cents::2cents::2cents:
I think everyone knows how to handle these "patrons", if they ever bother to show their faces here again.
Now now, let's not go on the lynching mob here.
I actually agree with Grizzly. Was it a joke pushed over the line? Or was this full blown paedophilia?
In the case of the former, a temporary ban and an apology, in the latter, perma-ban.
From what I remember both seemed like decent people...
I never saw the material myself (nor do i want to) but i would like to say there is a slight difference with a joke (?) gone wrong and taken to far and being an actual paedophile...
That being said i never saw the material myself but i think a few other people who never saw the material either may be judging too harshly...
The very fact that they weren't permanent banned tells me they didn't take it that far as the .org can be a fairly strict place
Again just to point out i didn't see the material in question so i may be well off the boil i would just like other members to consider this could be a joke gone wrong...
Having seen the posts myself, I do not see how you could think it was a 'joke'. They had been discussing their 'fetishes' throughout the thread, and talking about how they liked asian women with small breasts. The pictures they had been posting were either of little girls trying to look like women, or women trying to look like little girls. You are right, that was very grey, and may not have broken the rules, but the last post that desert made was of tiny girls (they looked like they were between 4 and 5 years old) in school girl costumes and stuff, and they were very suggestive. I am not sure about you Grizz, but I think that is pretty :daisy:ed in the head, 'joke' or not. I can see if they did something dumb and posted a picture of a fully naked woman. Ok, it was dumb, in bad taste, rude, whatever. Posting suggestive pictures of tiny girls is territory that the Org should not even consider anything by a hard line stance on though. Things like that should not be acceptable under ANY circumstances, and should result in a ban. Child pornography by nature entails the exploitation of innocent children Griz, and it is a serious thing; a very, very serious thing.
Having seen the posts myself, I do not see how you could think it was a 'joke'. They had been discussing their 'fetishes' throughout the thread, and talking about how they liked asian women with small breasts. The pictures they had been posting were either of little girls trying to look like women, or women trying to look like little girls
Questioned answered. Perma-ban.
LittleGrizzly, I've posted what I hope is a clear description of what was shown and discussed. Sasaki's account is accurate as well, as is Vuk's.
A mod who has a legal background looked over the material, which was very helpful. Since none of the clearly underage pictures involved showing swimsuit-area skin, and none showed any sort of simulated sex, there is no legal danger to the Org. Or to desert and SorBlade15, for that matter. This is now purely a matter of what behavior is acceptable to Orgahs in our own little online culture.
I'll only clarify that neither patron actually posted links; they did a "cough coughWEBSITEcough cough" that any three-year-old could see through.
Once again, they clearly meant to imply pedophilia without actually committing it. I have no doubt it was intended as a joke. That does nothing to excuse the intent and the behavior.
Look, I'm not a freak who screams bloody murder when, say, a photographer takes nude pics of her own sons for artistic reasons. (There was a real lawsuit about that. The artist won.) I believe that a lot of the hysteria surrounding pedophilia is overblown. Yes, pedos are real, but so are lightning bolts and tigers. You have to gauge your risks with your children, and act accordingly. Otherwise you should seal them in a bunker with filtered air and deny them all contact with the world.
That said, I don't see any constructive purpose to posting mock pedophilia in the Babe Thread. It's not terribly funny; the joke seems to have been exclusive to desert and SorBlade15. As I said to another patron on another issue, "Something can be funny and still be inappropriate."
So. Let's not get too hysterical and let's not act like an angry mob of villagers. I'm in active PM exchanges with quite a few other mods and the admins about this, and I'm looking for some sort of consensus about how we should deal with the two patrons who couldn't leave a bad joke alone.
LittleGrizzly,
So. Let's not get too hysterical and let's not act like an angry mob of villagers. I'm in active PM exchanges with quite a few other mods and the admins about this, and I'm looking for some sort of consensus about how we should deal with the two patrons who couldn't leave a bad joke alone.
I think it's disgusting to even joke about it. I mean, it's like if another member and I made crude jokes about Jews, it could be a joke between us, but it doesn't excuse it, and the fact they brought it on a public forum.
Strike For The South
04-09-2009, 20:14
I've seen people get perma banned for less.
LittleGrizzly, I've posted what I hope is a clear description of what was shown and discussed. And Sasaki's account is accurate as well, as is Vuk's.
A mod who has a legal background looked over the material, which was very helpful. Since none of the clearly underage pictures involved showing swimsuit-area skin, and none showed any sort of simulated sex, there is no legal danger to the Org. Or to desert and SorBlade15, for that matter. This is now purely a matter of what behavior is acceptable to Orgahs in our own little online culture.
I'll only clarify that neither patron actually posted links; they did a "cough coughWEBSITEcough cough" that any three-year-old could see through.
Once again, they clearly meant to imply pedophilia without actually committing it. I have no doubt it was intended as a joke. That does nothing to excuse the intent and the behavior.
Look, I'm not a freak who screams bloody murder when, say, a photographer takes nude pics of her own sons for artistic reasons. (There was a real lawsuit about that. The artist won.) I believe that a lot of the hysteria surrounding pedophilia is overblown. Yes, pedos are real, but so are lightning bolts and tigers. You have to gauge your risks with your children, and act accordingly. Otherwise you should seal them in a bunker with filtered air and deny them all contact with the world.
That said, I don't see any constructive purpose to posting mock pedophilia in the :daisy: Babe Thread. It's not terribly funny; the joke seems to have been exclusive to desert and SorBlade15. As I said to another patron on another issue, "Something can be funny and still be inappropriate."
So. Let's not get too hysterical and let's not act like an angry mob of villagers. I'm in active PM exchanges with quite a few other mods and the admins about this, and I'm looking for some sort of consensus about how we should deal with the two patrons who couldn't leave a bad joke alone.
Lemur, I agree that the community should not act like an angry mob about it, but at the same time, I think it is important that the Org not accept stuff like this. This has nothing to do with stifling children, it is simply not wanted anyone who would be sick enough to watch child pornography to be part of the community. I am sorry, but I do not think it makes sense that it was a joke either. How exactly does someone get links to child pornography sites anyway (I am assuming that is what the link was too, I did not check it myself), unless those are things that they search for? If it was a joke (which I doubt), I do not think 'jokes' of that type should be tolerated either.
Fair point, Vuk. And may I point out that the posts have been deleted and the posters have been temp-banned? We're not in any way signaling that we accept this sort of behavior. The only remaining question is whether or not either of the two should receive a permanent ban.
I'm saying they meant it as a joke because that is the least damaging possible explanation. If I look at it from the best light and it still looks horrible, then I know it's time to oil up the banstick.
LittleGrizzly
04-09-2009, 20:32
Like i said i have not seen the material for myself i just wasn't sure on the whole lynch mob mentality, one thing that i wanted to calrify on the members behalf was that it was (or i was assuming it was) a bad joke rather than paedolphilia (or a bad joke about paedophilia) its wrong to make a joke like they did... no disagreement from me here... i just didn't think it was right to brandish them peadophiles rather than foolish... which is the impression i got reading this thread...
It wasn't so much directed at the moderators and thier decision whether or not to permanent ban the members, im not really sure i can judge that situation as im not aware of the usual level of severity that results in perma bans and what they actually posted...
My post was more directed at the lynch mentality of some of the people who like haven't seen the pictures... and was partially inspired by pj's run em out of town post...
If the material is as bad as some are making it out to be than a permanent ban is probably appropriate...
Pannonian
04-09-2009, 20:34
Damn the closure, as I had some tasteful pics prepared for the new page.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2009, 20:40
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=113326
Full disclosure time: I posted a joke pic of my own son some years ago. It's nothing terrible, but it's under the tag just in case.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/page11-1007-full.jpg
I was trying to humorously express the fact that it's okay to show a naked baby, but at some hard-to-determine moment it becomes not okay. Even though the child is not sexual, it's no longer tasteful to show the full monty. I can see how someone could see that picture and scream that I was sexualizing my own child, even though that was not my intent even slightly.
Should I have been banned for posting this pic?
LittleGrizzly
04-09-2009, 20:49
So desert the one who was posting has been permanently banned and the other sorblade who was encouraging him we are waiting on a decision for ?
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2009, 20:53
Even though the child is not sexual, it's no longer tasteful to show the full monty. I can see how someone could see that picture and scream that I was sexualizing my own child, even though that was not my intent even slightly.
Should I have been banned for posting this pic?
Was it posted mixed in with sexual pictures and talk about how you prefer asian girls who dress like cats and have small breasts?
No...
Full disclosure time: I posted a joke pic of my own son some years ago. It's nothing terrible, but it's under the tag just in case.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/page11-1007-full.jpg
I was trying to humorously express the fact that it's okay to show a naked baby, but at some hard-to-determine moment it becomes not okay. Even though the child is not sexual, it's no longer tasteful to show the full monty. I can see how someone could see that picture and scream that I was sexualizing my own child, even though that was not my intent even slightly.
Should I have been banned for posting this pic?
There is a huge difference Lemur. The entire reason they posted the pictures that they did was to be sexually suggestive. That is not what you were doing with your son.
Pannonian
04-09-2009, 21:02
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=113326
I figured that was the case, as desert had Guest under his name. Sorblade's profile can't be accessed, which is the case for suspended members.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
04-09-2009, 22:02
Having seen the posts myself, I do not see how you could think it was a 'joke'. They had been discussing their 'fetishes' throughout the thread, and talking about how they liked asian women with small breasts.
Liking Asian women or women with small breasts is not pervert and it is in no way on the way to becoming pedophile.
Though I agree that they should be banned (life-long or for what time ever), I have the feeling that some people here are crossing the line to lynch mob mentality, and that's inappropiate as well.
Reverend Joe
04-10-2009, 01:09
I should have never posted this thread. My intention was only to complain about stupid behavior. At no time did I feel vindictive about the actual people, only what they did. However, by opening this thread I created an angry lynchmob.
Right now, I feel absolutely at fault for having gotten a member banned. He did not commit a permanent bannable offense, and I suspect it was a bad joke at worst.
I'm going to take a leave of absence for a few days.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-10-2009, 01:14
I should have never posted this thread. My intention was only to complain about stupid behavior. At no time did I feel vindictive about the actual people, only what they did. However, by opening this thread I created an angry lynchmob.
Right now, I feel absolutely at fault for having gotten a member banned. He did not commit a permanent bannable offense, and I suspect it was a bad joke at worst.
I'm going to take a leave of absence for a few days.
Hi reverend, the decision was made by tosa independent of this thread :balloon2:
Yeah, Reverend Joe, don't go taking more on yourself than you should. The Org is not a democracy and we aren't counting votes. Tosa made that decision based on the facts, not on what anybody posted.
I mean, if you've got stuff to feel guilty about don't let us get in the way, but please don't flog yourself over this particular thing.
Reverend Joe
04-10-2009, 02:37
Actually, Lemur, I thought about it and I feel a bit silly about my decision. It certainly helps that Tosa made the decision, but at the same time the banned members did post some pretty messed up stuff. Not on a broader scale, of course, but it was pretty far over the line for the Org.
I still don't like starting a lynch mob, but seeing as it was inconsequential and rather justified there's no reason to punish myself.
I don't know the degree, but if they were fully clothed I would have settled with temporary bans, anything even slightly revealing for a 5 year old deserves a permanent ban, because that's terribly immature and sick.
I don't let members being permanently banned but he kinda deserves it.
aimlesswanderer
04-10-2009, 04:39
Since the little kid was not sexualised it wasn't quite so bad, as Lemur stated, but clearly that did not belong in the Babe thread - or the org, for that matter. As for the others posted, it can be difficult to determine ages just by looks alone, so that will have to be sorted out and made clear in the new rules.
I think that the new rules should be stated clearly in the thread, somewhere easy to find, as from memory I searched for them before I started posting pics, and only found bits and pieces.
Askthepizzaguy
04-10-2009, 09:18
"desert" posted pictures of little girls mixed in with "erotic" pictures of young women (?) dressed as little girls.
"SorBlade" wasn't as obvious--he egged desert on and posted some links which I didn't care to examine.
I don't know about a permanent ban. If it wasn't actual child pornography, as despicable as it was, it's just VERY, VERY inappropriate and not welcome. And they should lose all gameroom/backroom/frontroom posting privileges for a very long time.
I vote Temp ban on desert; but I don't buy guilt by association. SorBlade may have just been acting juvenile and that is it's own mistake, but he didn't commit the awful deed. I say warning points on SorBlade.
But I'm a bit of a gentle giant; don't mind me. Trust me, I hate pedophiles, but I can't say any child porn was posted if the girls were dressed. That's just atrocious context for the images to be put in, and I will be wary of desert for a long while.
Fortunately for you guys, I'm not in charge here and my light sentencing doesn't seem to be going to go into effect. Just my two cents. Please don't flame me for not being absolutely brutal on them.
Beefy187
04-10-2009, 09:29
I automatically assumed that the girls was undressed but I seem to be wrong.
I agree if it was nude photos its completely against Org policy but if its cosplay of some sort, I can see the same thing every single time I step in Tokyo, and its not a rare sight. Even for a young girl.
I don't know exactly what was posted there, I've read the entire thread but I can't say I'm getting a ban worth material.
If ban is what the mods decided then I'm sure thats right as they were the ones who saw the pictures. but its hard to believe desert would post pictures which is way too far for the org policy after his long contribution of normal babes he's been giving in the babe thread.
Askthepizzaguy
04-10-2009, 09:32
I'm actually glad we have mods who have to decide this stuff for us. I'd rather not see the pictures if they are pedophilic, and I have no problem with dressed little girls (that's normal) but in the context of sexuality it would make me uncomfortable; I don't think it's cute or clever or edgy or funny, and my sense of humor is very, very blue and perverted to a (non-threatening and non-serious) extent. Everyone has a line, I draw it at making underage girls into sex objects.
Since we didn't see the images in question, and we aren't mods, it is not our call, thankfully.
Without reviewing the pictures (which I am not able to and have no wish to), I could not pass a judgement on Sorblade, but on desert, I think that there should not be a question.
The intent of his post and the context was VERY obvious. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a picture with a little girl holding two metals bars on a window behind her head, and sitting with legs spread out, a little girl in a school girl costume, two or three other little girls in 'provocative' positions. When you are talking about children, I think that intent and context is everything. The intent here could not have been clearer. Personally, I would not consider it any differently than if he posted pictures of fully naked children. I know what a naked child looks like, cause I used to be a child, and when I was very young I used to play naked with my friends out by the garden hose. :P What matters is context and intent. There is nothing wrong with a mother washing her naked child, but there is when someone is looking at pictures of naked children for sexual reasons. IMO, sexualizing clothed children is just as disgusting, and really no different. What is bad (as Lemur tried to point out I think) isn't naked children, it is sexualization of children, naked or not. That is what desert was doing, and I think he is completely deserving of a lot more than a ban from an internet forum.
Askthepizzaguy
04-10-2009, 10:47
Well I didn't see it, so I defer to their judgment on the matter. That does sound more serious.
I don't know exactly what was posted there, I've read the entire thread but I can't say I'm getting a ban worth material.
If ban is what the mods decided then I'm sure thats right as they were the ones who saw the pictures. but its hard to believe desert would post pictures which is way too far for the org policy after his long contribution of normal babes he's been giving in the babe thread.
I saw the pictures. And my initial response was disgust, I actually logged out because I didn't trust my self to contain my anger in any post I made after seeing his post. As Vuk already said, the fact that there were images, one of a girl no older than five, mixed in with some other more ambiguous pictures implied more than they showed. A perma-ban is probably the least punishment he could get.
Rev, you didn't create a mob. There was bound to be one, there always is if something like this happens anywhere.
Should this thread be moved to the watchtower?
rasoforos
04-10-2009, 13:51
I was trying to humorously express the fact that it's okay to show a naked baby, but at some hard-to-determine moment it becomes not okay. Even though the child is not sexual, it's no longer tasteful to show the full monty. I can see how someone could see that picture and scream that I was sexualizing my own child, even though that was not my intent even slightly.
Should I have been banned for posting this pic?
Voice of reason.
I believe that...
It is all a matter of where and when. The human body is beautiful and should not be demonized. The display the human body for artistic purposes is perfectly fine.
However, the display of a minor in a thread dedicated to sex or implying sex is clearly unacceptable. The babe thread never tried to be artistic. It is dedicated to women who look great to have sex with. End of story. Joke or not, whoever did it should have known better and should be held accountable as it is terribly bad taste and thus getting banned is fair.
Allowing such behavior only gives fundamentalist people room to act and push their agenda and we will end up with history repeating itself (i.e. destroying statues because of nudity, expressing anger at the way women dress etc)
Also, the expression of lynching/killing threats is equally disgusting and has no place (especially) in the frontroom. I believe there are specific forums for people with lynching fetishes too.
Voice of reason.
I believe that...
It is all a matter of where and when. The human body is beautiful and should not be demonized. The display the human body for artistic purposes is perfectly fine.
However, the display of a minor in a thread dedicated to sex or implying sex is clearly unacceptable. The babe thread never tried to be artistic. It is dedicated to women who look great to have sex with. End of story. Joke or not, whoever did it should have known better and should be held accountable as it is terribly bad taste and thus getting banned is fair.
Allowing such behavior only gives fundamentalist people room to act and push their agenda and we will end up with history repeating itself (i.e. destroying statues because of nudity, expressing anger at the way women dress etc)
Also, the expression of lynching/killing threats is equally disgusting and has no place (especially) in the frontroom. I believe there are specific forums for people with lynching fetishes too.
While I think you have a point, I also think you may be over reacting. I agree with you completely that it is presentation that matters. I see very young naked kids playing in the sand at the beach some time, and I do not yell at their parents to get clothes on them. In its self, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a child's naked body, but there is a problem when sexuality is applied to that body. There are very few reasons for someone to post a picture of a naked kid on a public forum (lemurs being an acceptable one), except to imply sexuality. What they did was imply sexuality with a picture of a clothed child, which is just as bad, because it is the attachment of sexuality that is at fault, not the child's body. I think that everyone who has posted here would agree with me on that, so I do not see the relevance of your argument. No one is saying there is anything wrong with the human body (or even hinting at it, heck, everyone who has posted here views and/or posts of the babe thread for crying out loud), simply that sexualising a child is wrong. Thus I see no basis for your argument on "fundamentalist people...push[ing] their agenda...[and] history repeating itself..."
Also, I saw only two or three posts that I think characterised a "lynch mob" mentality. I do not think there is anything wrong with members of a community expressing their dissatisfaction and disgust at another member posting childporn. (or implying it, which I think is more the case, but as I said, I really think there is no difference) Also, as members of the community, I think it is fair that we should have an opportunitty to voice our opinions on the matter, and to inform other members of what happened. I do not support people doing and saying stupid things in fits of anger over things (whether those things are bad or not), but I do not think that this thread has exactly been characterised by a "lynch mentality".
EDIT: I also saw no death threats. PJ (stupidly :P) said that the community would not welcome them back, but I think it was obvious that he was referring to the types of posts people would make in response to them, not threatening their lives.
I also saw no death threats. PJ (stupidly :P) said that the community would not welcome them back, but I think it was obvious that he was referring to the types of posts people would make in response to them, not threatening their lives.
No need to lynch, there are worse punishments than death threats.
I believe that if they come back a universal blank would be in order, completely ignore every thing they post and refuse to respond to any question they ask. :lipsrsealed:
Moving this to the Watchtower is probably a good suggestion. Hey presto!
PanzerJaeger
04-10-2009, 17:02
LOL @ our little lynch mob! Now where are these death threats I keep reading about, Rosa? :laugh4:
There are neither houses being burned down, nor people being strung up. Not one pitchfork has been raised in anger. This is not real life, it is an internet forum, and as such it is perfectly acceptable for the community to come together and draw a collective line in the sand when it comes to this kind of thing. Even pedos have rights in the real world, but on the internet, we can show them no mercy.
Of course, after reading some of the comments from other members, I may have overstepped my bounds in assuming "the community" as a whole is on the same page on this. Who knew? :shrug:
God Grace has been separated from the .org?? Such a weird thing...
Reverend Joe
04-10-2009, 17:19
Without reviewing the pictures (which I am not able to and have no wish to), I could not pass a judgement on Sorblade, but on desert, I think that there should not be a question.
The intent of his post and the context was VERY obvious. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a picture with a little girl holding two metals bars on a window behind her head, and sitting with legs spread out, a little girl in a school girl costume, two or three other little girls in 'provocative' positions. When you are talking about children, I think that intent and context is everything. The intent here could not have been clearer. Personally, I would not consider it any differently than if he posted pictures of fully naked children. I know what a naked child looks like, cause I used to be a child, and when I was very young I used to play naked with my friends out by the garden hose. :P What matters is context and intent. There is nothing wrong with a mother washing her naked child, but there is when someone is looking at pictures of naked children for sexual reasons. IMO, sexualizing clothed children is just as disgusting, and really no different. What is bad (as Lemur tried to point out I think) isn't naked children, it is sexualization of children, naked or not. That is what desert was doing, and I think he is completely deserving of a lot more than a ban from an internet forum.
Good god, forget what I said earlier, Desert deserved an instagib.
Hello,
No Reverend Joe, I see this very topic just now. Please do not worry.
I can stomach a lot, but posting a picture of an underage (huge understatement) girl in the babe thread and suggestive on top of that, is plain child abuse.
Sorblade: you are also on very thin ice.
Askthepizzaguy
04-10-2009, 18:08
IMHO Tosa is the fairest guy around. I don't think I've ever seen him act out of anger, even when us mortals would have gotten impatient. He has probably seen the posts in question, and in Tosa's judgment I trust.
(blatant brown-nosing, but hey, a Pizza guy has to find a way to get ahead in this world! :laugh2:)
just kidding.
Pannonian
04-10-2009, 18:18
IMHO Tosa is the fairest guy around. I don't think I've ever seen him act out of anger, even when us mortals would have gotten impatient. He has probably seen the posts in question, and in Tosa's judgment I trust.
TosaInu and Simetrical are both robots. They have no anger, only programming. Fairness and judgement are inapplicable concepts. They are, and they run.
Prince Cobra
04-10-2009, 21:29
The Babe thread was not bad...
For the sake of mankind I hope it is not dead.
It was source of inspiration,
Sad it was spoiled by strange illustration...
pevergreen
04-11-2009, 00:16
TosaInu and Simetrical are both robots. They have no anger, only programming. Fairness and judgement are inapplicable concepts. They are, and they run.
I'll +1 that.
Except for that one time the programmer took over of Tosa. My oh my what a day.
desert is back? Or he came to say goodbye?
Blatskiye_Suki
04-11-2009, 05:02
Wow, guys. I'm gone for a few days and the place explodes. Most of you have not seen the pic in question, and I will gladly post it up here so everyone can see that it is NOT child pornography (with Lemur's permission), and to those who have seen it and think that it is child pornography should probably not venture outside as they will surely be scarred for life.
Nowhere in the Babe thread was there a Rules section that said "only adults should be posted", or "this thread's sole purpose is as a Viagra substitute". I posted a girl wearing a maid uniform because I thought it was cute. I did not say "masturbate to this, she's sexy." Some say I was sexualizing her, but that was never my intent. If any of you found that picture to be sexual in any way, then you are just perverts.
Now to personally address Vuk. So, I'd rather not insult you but your conclusion that my post means that I am a pedophile and watch child pornography and abuse children shows a poor grasp of logic. And that site that I (not) so subtly mentioned was the place where I suspected Sor had gotten many of his pics from, pics that were certainly of ADULTS. So it's hardly a "child pronography site".
I'm not sure what Sor posted after me, but considering what happened to me I doubt it was all that bad.
Hopefully I won't be banned just yet, as I feel I should be permitted to defend myself. I was, after all, banned before I could say anything as desert.
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 05:30
Wow, guys. I'm gone for a few days and the place explodes. Most of you have not seen the pic in question, and I will gladly post it up here so everyone can see that it is NOT child pornography (with Lemur's permission), and to those who have seen it and think that it is child pornography should probably not venture outside as they will surely be scarred for life.
Nowhere in the Babe thread was there a Rules section that said "only adults should be posted", or "this thread's sole purpose is as a Viagra substitute". I posted a girl wearing a maid uniform because I thought it was cute. I did not say "masturbate to this, she's sexy." Some say I was sexualizing her, but that was never my intent. If any of you found that picture to be sexual in any way, then you are just perverts.
Now to personally address Vuk. So, I'd rather not insult you but your conclusion that my post means that I am a pedophile and watch child pornography and abuse children shows a poor grasp of logic. And that site that I (not) so subtly mentioned was the place where I suspected Sor had gotten many of his pics from, pics that were certainly of ADULTS. So it's hardly a "child pronography site".
I'm not sure what Sor posted after me, but considering what happened to me I doubt it was all that bad.
edit: to be clear; I'm not trying to stifle your ability to defend yourself. The call is the Administrator's, not mine. But a ban is pointless if people can just ignore it and post under a different name, yes? I need to educate myself on forum policy, so please don't mind me.
Hopefully I won't be banned just yet, as I feel I should be permitted to defend myself. I was, after all, banned before I could say anything as desert.
Ok, so you are desert and you've been banned?
Starting a new account and posting again is ban evasion, and I believe (if I recall correctly, please correct me if I am wrong...) that this is also against the rules.
Megas Methuselah
04-11-2009, 06:03
IMHO Tosa is the fairest guy around. I don't think I've ever seen him act out of anger, even when us mortals would have gotten impatient. He has probably seen the posts in question, and in Tosa's judgment I trust.
I agree. Even when there was this lynch mob out to get me, Tosa still gave me fair judgement. :7judge:
I'm not sure what I have to say about desert coming back here again. But it's still common sense not to post an underage child in the babe thread, of all places. But it is not in my place to judge.
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 06:05
I agree. Even when there was this lynch mob out to get me, Tosa still gave me fair judgement. :7judge:
Ooooh controversy! I'll tell you about the only warning points I ever got if you tell me yours! :laugh2:
Starting a new account and posting again is ban evasion, and I believe (if I recall correctly, please correct me if I am wrong...) that this is also against the rules.
Havent read that. Maybe someone can give us truth?
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 06:16
Havent read that. Maybe someone can give us truth?
Well, I know I didn't just make it up... for some reason I am very sure. My brain doesn't invent and then subsequently believe things... lol
Ummm, I can't remember where... I even fired Tosa a PM asking where it was in the rules or if I was wrong and it's not in the rules, to be sure.
Here's the common sense reason: Getting banned means you don't post here. Starting a new account to post here renders the ban useless. That should be against the rules by default, even if it weren't explicitly stated, but I seem to recall reading that SOMEwhere...
I'm at a loss. If I knew where it said so, I'd post a quote and a link. If I am wrong, I'll sit down and shut my big fat mouth.
:clown:
Well, I just remembered mrdun multiple accounts. Something like that?
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 06:29
I don't recall if multiple accounts in and of themselves are disallowed. I myself started another account or two so I could host an experimental game in the gameroom that never got off the ground.
But I do think that multiple accounts, specifically to avoid a ban, are bad news.
The Spartan (Returns)
04-11-2009, 06:41
For a while now, I've been wondering if I should explain myself to the ORG community. or just lurk and never post again, or just cancel my account. My reputation has been tarnished, and it's truly embarrassing to even log on here again.
I prefer petanko (delicious flat chest).
I had no intention whatsoever of even implying pedophilia in my posts. I've said this before, "I was only serving to desert's cup of tea, which was small-breasted women, and NOT anyone under 18. My posts has WOMEN in it."
Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2132246&postcount=4350) is a post in the babe thread from February 09, 2009 by Desert.
Now, here is a sample of pictures from one of my recent posts that was entirely deleted.
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/eb19fbc7.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/25445__448x_stylish-mizugi-idols-7.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/21770__468x_concealed-oppai-20.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/25687__448x_bikini-idol-gravure-1-3.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/vip913868.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/long-legged-idols-1.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/bikini-idol-gravure-1-32.jpg
Which is more appropriate?
Again all these WOMEN are over EIGHTEEN years old. Note, the breast size of these girls? They are, by today's standards, small; which was my intention of the kind of women to post.
The only picture that I admit needs deletion, was one picture with a girl with an inappropriate word on her shirt. In fact, I was again unsure, to post it or not. Like I remembered someone saying, "If you are unsure, don't post." I apologize for that.
These photos are interesting:
Aya Hirano (21)
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/11-1.jpg
Nozomi Sasaki (26)
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki01_02_01.jpg
Which one is more womanly? The one above? Or this:
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki03_02.jpg
I'm sure of you could be somewhat surprised that Nozomi Sasaki is 26. Just because her size proportions (including height) are considered small in many places, is she not a woman because she's 26?
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki04_25.jpg
Is she not a woman because of the face of her shape or her expression?
Is it just me or do some Japanese women, even Asians, have size proportions similar to that of a teenager?
Around the world, people have different concepts of what a woman is.
You could debate Nozomi Sasaki's womanliness (again 26):
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki01_12.jpg
But, OH. She's DEFINITELY a woman right?:
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/megan-fox-7.jpg
Meagan Fox (22)
Moving on...
I'll only clarify that neither patron actually posted links; theydid a "cough coughWEBSITEcough cough" that any three-year-old could see through. This is a misunderstanding. It was only Desert that did that, not me. Desert DID mention the site saying, That he recognized some of the photos I posted, then saying, "sor-cough(SITE)cough*"
I acknowledged him, saying something like, "I recognize some of your photos as well. *coughloliconcough."
And that's all. LOLICON is not a site. It's a word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Usually, people who enjoy lolicon, are pedophiles. I was pretty much calling him a pedophile. (Which can also be a false assumption)
Otherwise, I don't believe me acknowledging him, warrants any punishment towards me.
In the end, it's whether you believe me or not, which is pretty hard now that I have the ORG labeling me as a pedophile. I mean, "Why trust a pedophile?"
To those of you who have seen my posts in the babe thread prior to this incident, why would I, out of the blue, start posting implying that I enjoy pedophilia?
Just to let you guys know, it feels very degrading to be called a pedophile. I'm very offended. I'd rather kill myself, than being known as a pedophile.
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 06:52
None of these images seem offensive to me, personally.
I don't think you're a pedophile, especially if you never posted any underage pictures.
This incident has probably been horrible for you. I am sorry for that.
For a while now, I've been wondering if I should explain myself to the ORG community. or just lurk and never post again, or just cancel my account. My reputation has been tarnished, and it's truly embarrassing to even log on here again.
I had no intention whatsoever of even implying pedophilia in my posts. I've said this before, "I was only serving to desert's cup of tea, which was small-breasted women, and NOT anyone under 18. My posts has WOMEN in it."
Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2132246&postcount=4350) is a post in the babe thread from February 09, 2009 by Desert.
Now, here is a sample of pictures from one of my recent posts that was entirely deleted.
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/eb19fbc7.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/25445__448x_stylish-mizugi-idols-7.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/21770__468x_concealed-oppai-20.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/25687__448x_bikini-idol-gravure-1-3.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/vip913868.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/long-legged-idols-1.jpg
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/bikini-idol-gravure-1-32.jpg
Which is more appropriate?
Again all these WOMEN are over EIGHTEEN years old. Note, the breast size of these girls? They are, by today's standards, small; which was my intention of the kind of women to post.
The only picture that I admit needs deletion, was one picture with a girl with an inappropriate word on her shirt. In fact, I was again unsure, to post it or not. Like I remembered someone saying, "If you are unsure, don't post." I apologize for that.
These photos are interesting:
Aya Hirano (21)
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/11-1.jpg
Nozomi Sasaki (26)
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki01_02_01.jpg
Which one is more womanly? The one above? Or this:
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki03_02.jpg
I'm sure of you could be somewhat surprised that Nozomi Sasaki is 26. Just because her size proportions (including height) are considered small in many places, is she not a woman because she's 26?
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki04_25.jpg
Is she not a woman because of the face of her shape or her expression?
Is it just me or do some Japanese women, even Asians, have size proportions similar to that of a teenager?
Around the world, people have different concepts of what a woman is.
You could debate Nozomi Sasaki's womanliness (again 26):
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/sasaki01_12.jpg
But, OH. She's DEFINITELY a woman right?:
https://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/Leonidas_The_Spartanhearted/megan-fox-7.jpg
Meagan Fox (22)
Moving on...
This is a misunderstanding. It was only Desert that did that, not me. Desert DID mention the site saying, That he recognized some of the photos I posted, then saying, "sor-cough(SITE)cough*"
I acknowledged him, saying something like, "I recognize some of your photos as well. *coughloliconcough."
And that's all. LOLICON is not a site. It's a word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Usually, people who enjoy lolicon, are pedophiles. I was pretty much calling him a pedophile. (Which can also be a false assumption)
Otherwise, I don't believe me acknowledging him, warrants any punishment towards me.
In the end, it's whether you believe me or not, which is pretty hard now that I have the ORG labeling me as a pedophile. I mean, "Why trust a pedophile?"
To those of you who have seen my posts in the babe thread prior to this incident, why would I, out of the blue, start posting implying that I enjoy pedophilia?
Just to let you guys know, it feels very degrading to be called a pedophile. I'm very offended. I'd rather kill myself, than being known as a pedophile.
Sorblade, I do admit that I was careless, and rather unfair when using the word paedophile in the plural. I later acknowledged that in this thread and stated that I did not pay enough attention to your posts to pass a judgment on you. I apologize for using the word wrongly, however your posts were edging desert on, and I believe that you should take some responsibility for that. Also, if a girl is of age/over age :P, and you post her because she looks like she is not to serve someone's 'cup of tea', do you not think that is a problem? As I said above, I would need to see your posts again before I formed an opinion, I will trust Tosa who already has, and apologise again for a hasty judgement.
Wow, guys. I'm gone for a few days and the place explodes. Most of you have not seen the pic in question, and I will gladly post it up here so everyone can see that it is NOT child pornography (with Lemur's permission), and to those who have seen it and think that it is child pornography should probably not venture outside as they will surely be scarred for life.
Nowhere in the Babe thread was there a Rules section that said "only adults should be posted", or "this thread's sole purpose is as a Viagra substitute". I posted a girl wearing a maid uniform because I thought it was cute. I did not say "masturbate to this, she's sexy." Some say I was sexualizing her, but that was never my intent. If any of you found that picture to be sexual in any way, then you are just perverts.
Now to personally address Vuk. So, I'd rather not insult you but your conclusion that my post means that I am a pedophile and watch child pornography and abuse children shows a poor grasp of logic. And that site that I (not) so subtly mentioned was the place where I suspected Sor had gotten many of his pics from, pics that were certainly of ADULTS. So it's hardly a "child pronography site".
I'm not sure what Sor posted after me, but considering what happened to me I doubt it was all that bad.
Hopefully I won't be banned just yet, as I feel I should be permitted to defend myself. I was, after all, banned before I could say anything as desert.
With desert though, it is an entirely different story. I unfortunately remember your post all too well. As for your site, I never said it was a childpornography site (because I never visited it), I said that that is what I assumed it was and asked if I was correct.
Your cry of innocence is ridiculous. You do not, on a thread devoted to posting very sexy (and scantily clad) women post pictures of little children (in maid uniforms, and in 'provocative' positions) out of the blue because you thought it would be cute. Also, I think it would be helpful if the mods put back your post withOUT the pictures, because I am pretty sure that you said something in that post as well that was more than innocent. (I could be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure)
The people on this board are not 3 year olds desert (if we were we would have left as soon as you came on), and they are not a gullible as you may assume. Your excuse is absolute BS, and are most certainly a degenerate.
This topic will be closed for a bit. I should be back within a few hours.
Sorry,
Rl threw more towards me.
Desert.
Nowhere in the Babe thread was there a Rules section that said "only adults should be posted"
That's right, it doesn't. Like many many other things aren't said and do not need to be said.
I won't label you pedophile based on that picture, but it's serious enough to ban your desert account for it.
SorBlade15.
I won't label you pedophile either. I haven't found pictures or comments in your posts, so your account was not banned by me. I agree however with the moderators decision to give you a timeout.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.