Seems to be a bit of a double standard with Rekface

The ban was deserved. That kid was the epitome of annoying anyways, so good riddance.

 

So what's your guys' opinion on this?

(NOTE: the following link may be porn, don't click if you don't want to)

http://veganfeministnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PETA-Woman.jpg

 

PureAddiction. Video decided not to ban him because pureaddiction was scammed by the person, and video saw pureaddiction's reaction as not banworthy, yet unwarranted.

@Lilmj. Someone was just banned for posting an inappropriate image. Do you really think posting another questionable one is the smartest idea? Or maybe taking this to Skype would be better.

 

He posted porn, and got banned for it.

In his dispute he talked shit to staff.

He dug his own grave, thread is unnecessary.

If it we're me I would have been apologetic and gotten the length reduced. Common sense.

 

Yikes.. that's a bit unprofessional and unnecessary. If what you guys say is true regarding the photo he posted, then then that butt is incomparable to his image.

 

This.

I saw the picture Rekface posted and it was CLEARLY VISIBLE. I don't care if he removed it or not, he shouldn't of posted it to begin with.

YOU DON'T POST PORN.

A naked breast with the nipple clearly visible is classified as porn. There is no difference between this and what he posted.

EDIT:

The ban was completely warranted - in fact, it should've been a permanent ban from the start. Posting porn is just as bad as posting someone's information.

 

5char

if you're confused about what constitutes porn, pm a staff member. we're all pretty reasonable people, and it's best to err on the side of caution

 

Definition of Pornography -

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.


Am I supposed to look at Shall Skill's signature and admire the emotion of that woman? Or the aesthetic curves she was provided with, nope.

I fully support Rekface's ban and it was 100% warranted, but it kinda annoys me that something hasn't been done about Shall Skill's sig. It's not like I'm a prude or I can't look at it at work or anything like that, it just shouldn't be allowed and I think it makes the site as a whole look worse.

Even if you take Rekface out of the equation, that signature is a textbook definition of porn.

 

Honestly all you're going to end up accomplishing is that they change it to nudity instead of porn since you're being picky about the wording of the definition of porn. I didn't see the picture, but considering mods say it is porn, I'm going to assume that it was actual nudity, not some girl prancing around in a fucking gif. What she is wearing is acceptable to be wearing in public, girls wear that shit to jog all the time. It's not acceptable (though some believe it should be, see "FreeTheNippleMovement") to show private areas of females, which I guess includes but not limited to nipples, and obviously genital

 

Maybe that's true, but I think personally that it should be removed all together, and where do you live where that's acceptable to wear out in public? Like maybe it's technically legal, but that's not the norm at all.

 

Acceptable = legal
Acceptable != norm

 

Porn/Gore: posting pictures, videos, links to websites related to porn/extreme gore, etc. The staff will decide what constitutes porn or gore. It is not for you to decide. Steer clear of posting anything which could be interpreted as this.


This rule is one of those rules that gives staff unlimited power, if staff wanted to shall skill's sig could get him banned, hell, a chick in a tank top could.


tl;dr of this entire thread: Staff can pretty much declare anything they want porn within the rules so a "double standard" does not exist.

 

Bus hit the nail on the head.

When it comes to a lot of bans, there is always the chance for their to be a grey area. That is why the staff are there to make a decision as to whether the activity in that grey area has broken the rules or not. It's only a month, and it's to protect younger users and those who're at work.

I can watch a PG show and TV and see more ass than what's in Shall Skills signature, but from what I hear that Rekface posted, a PG rated show certainly wouldn't be able to get away with it.

 

What's up with this?

 

FireZ is basically telling the guy to grow up, say sorry, and get over it. If he does so he'll be unbanned

Rekface isn't stupid, what he posted was against the rules, he knew it was against the rules and that's why he removed it. That being said, he should just be an adult about things, say look I was wrong I should have known it was something that was against the rules, and apologize.

I really don't see his ban staying perm...

 

FireZ is just looking after his staff, it's not really a permanent ban, he just wants an apology made to those staff who were just doing their job.

 

Pretty much what dave/brendan said

 

I personally think that this rule should be more lenient. In the case with rekface his ban was deserved after his reaction, but if someone harmlessly posted that pic in the Spam Forum I don't really think it should warrant a ban. I mean it's nudity sure, but not pornography. I get that nudity also isn't allowed but that just seems a bit childish to hammer someone for posting a boob. Like, what is wrong with that other than "tis in the rules"? Yeah this isn't a porn site but the post means no harm, doesn't effect the site negatively in any aspect, and harms literally nobody in the process; it's a completely arbitrary rule.

 

I like scrolling through Sythe at work because pornography won't suddenly appear on my screen. It's not really an arbitrary rule.

 

I don't really think this is the place to debate the rule, that's what the Rule Reform thread is for.