Just what the hell is happening to my Babe Thread?

[Vuk]

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]

"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]

"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 think everyone knows how to handle these "patrons", if they ever bother to show their faces here again.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[KarlXII]

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.

[Vuk]

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 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.

[KarlXII]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[KarlXII]

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]

I've seen people get perma banned for less.

[Vuk]

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 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.

[Lemur]

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]

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]

Damn the closure, as I had some tasteful pics prepared for the new page.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=113326

[Lemur]

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.

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]

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]

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...

[Vuk]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Lemur]

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]

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.

[Thermal]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.