Just what the hell is happening to my Babe Thread?

[Vuk]

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]

Well I didn't see it, so I defer to their judgment on the matter. That does sound more serious.

[rajpoot]

Sad......

[naut]

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]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[miotas]

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.

[Lemur]

Moving this to the Watchtower is probably a good suggestion. Hey presto!

[PanzerJaeger]

LOL @ our little lynch mob! Now where are these death threats I keep reading about, Rosa?

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?

[Caius]

God Grace has been separated from the .org?? Such a weird thing...

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[TosaInu]

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]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(blatant brown-nosing, but hey, a Pizza guy has to find a way to get ahead in this world! )

just kidding.

[Pannonian]

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]

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]

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.

[Caius]

desert is back? Or he came to say goodbye?

[Blatskiye_Suki]

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]

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]

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.


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]

I agree. Even when there was this lynch mob out to get me, Tosa still gave me fair judgement.

Ooooh controversy! I'll tell you about the only warning points I ever got if you tell me yours!

[Caius]

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]

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.

[Caius]

Well, I just remembered mrdun multiple accounts. Something like that?

[Askthepizzaguy]

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)]

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 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Nozomi Sasaki (26)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Which one is more womanly? The one above? Or this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But, OH. She's DEFINITELY a woman right?:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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]

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.

[Vuk]

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 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Nozomi Sasaki (26)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Which one is more womanly? The one above? Or this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But, OH. She's DEFINITELY a woman right?:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[TosaInu]

This topic will be closed for a bit. I should be back within a few hours.

[TosaInu]

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.