Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by 2kewl4u2know at 4:41 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Or would it be denied? -- Posted by PhoenixFire613 at 4:41 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 No, because you touch yourself at night. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 4:41 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 denied. -- Posted by UltimaTaz at 4:41 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Well, you'd make a lot of erections go away, that's for sure. -- Posted by Solitude at 4:42 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 XD -- Posted by xdark bluex at 4:43 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 where did you get a pic of me?!?! -- Posted by GrecoRomanGuy at 4:44 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Gross... -- Posted by YeahBoii at 4:44 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Rofl.  Denied. -- Posted by HideOrSeek at 4:46 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Denieddddd. -- Posted by greatescape at 4:48 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Shmexy lol -- Posted by samantharosekay at 4:52 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 Quote: from xdark bluex at 4:43 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 where did you get a pic of me?!?! bahahahahahaha   -- Posted by the real anti christ at 4:56 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 I don't see why not... -- Posted by Forever Angel at 5:05 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 It's plain to see that there is no underwear, so The Pro shouldn't object. -- Posted by The Professional at 3:39 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:05 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 It's plain to see that there is no underwear, so The Pro shouldn't object. No underwear is a TEAM ruling.  It's not a matter of what I object to or not.  Personally, if it was completely left up to me, underwear would be allowed fully and completely - but it isn't.  This is a clear policy standing by the team. 2kewl4u2know: I would deny the image based on our standing on underwear.  If we would deny it if he was wearing underwear, it only makes sense to deny it when he *isn't* wearing underwear, too. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 4:21 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 5:39 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:05 pm on Sep. 6, 2008 It's plain to see that there is no underwear, so The Pro shouldn't object. No underwear is a TEAM ruling.  It's not a matter of what I object to or not.  Personally, if it was completely left up to me, underwear would be allowed fully and completely - but it isn't.  This is a clear policy standing by the team. But you were the loudest and most adamant member of the team on this point. 2kewl4u2know: I would deny the image based on our standing on underwear.  If we would deny it if he was wearing underwear, it only makes sense to deny it when he *isn't* wearing underwear, too. I thought the 'ruling' was about pics with underwear, not without. Quote: from The Professional at 11:19 am on Aug. 20, 2008 Art is art. but no underwear.  ever.  ever.  ever. -- Posted by The Professional at 4:52 am on Sep. 7, 2008 How could I possibly be the loudest and most adamant member on the team when this underwear policy was developed before I was even a moderator?  All I did was tell you guys that underwear isn't allowed.  If you call that "loud and adamant," then okay.  lol We have no developed policy on what to do with pictures of people covering their penises.  Common sense would tell me, however, that if we don't allow underwear covering penises to be accepted, then we also wouldn't allow hands covering penises to be accepted. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 6:02 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 6:52 am on Sep. 7, 2008 How could I possibly be the loudest and most adamant member on the team when this underwear policy was developed before I was even a moderator?  All I did was tell you guys that underwear isn't allowed.  If you call that "loud and adamant," then okay.  lol There were no others posting "NO underwear" responses nearly as often as you or as emphatically. And since it seems to have been a 'policy' developed just between admin and mods, how would 'we' know when it came about?   We have no developed policy on what to do with pictures of people covering their penises.  Common sense would tell me, however, that if we don't allow underwear covering penises to be accepted, then we also wouldn't allow hands covering penises to be accepted. Well, if there is no policy, there is NO policy. And I haven't heard of hands being equated to underwear before. That's not exactly what I'd call common sense. -- Posted by The Professional at 6:34 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Sometimes you have to keep it simple stupid.  Ask any mod if underwear is allowed on this website, if they know what they are talking about, they will say, "No, underwear is not allowed." - Are you upset about the clearness of my answer?  Our policy says no underwear.  How would you have preferred me to explain it? That's because you lack common sense, unfortunately.  As a moderator, there are many times you come across something that isn't exactly spelled out for you - this is one of those cases.  It's clear to me that hands covering a penis would not be allowed on this website when we don't allow underwear either.   Sorry you can't see how I could possibly come to such a conclusion. -- Posted by audrey820 at 6:56 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:02 am on Sep. 7, 2008 We have no developed policy on what to do with pictures of people covering their penises. Common sense would tell me, however, that if we don't allow underwear covering penises to be accepted, then we also wouldn't allow hands covering penises to be accepted. Well, if there is no policy, there is NO policy. And I haven't heard of hands being equated to underwear before. That's not exactly what I'd call common sense. Are honestly mentally retarded? If you said yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all. We don't allow underwear pictures. We don't allow nude pictures. So to get a racy image through our image approval system, you have to cover your genitals with your hand. THAT MAKES SENSE! Like really, just use your common sense when you think about these things. Obviously we aren't going to allow an image like that. Stop being so desperate to prove Pro wrong and use your brain for once. We have policies that make it clear that that kind of image shouldn't be allowed. Sorry we didn't dumb it down enough for you. -- Posted by The Professional at 7:03 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from audrey820 at 8:56 am on Sep. 7, 2008 We don't allow underwear pictures. We don't allow nude pictures. Omg you're being so loud and adamant, Audrey! -- Posted by Forever Angel at 7:46 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from audrey820 at 8:56 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:02 am on Sep. 7, 2008   We have no developed policy on what to do with pictures of people covering their penises.  Common sense would tell me, however, that if we don't allow underwear covering penises to be accepted, then we also wouldn't allow hands covering penises to be accepted. Well, if there is no policy, there is NO policy. And I haven't heard of hands being equated to underwear before. That's not exactly what I'd call common sense.   Are honestly mentally retarded? If you said yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all. We don't allow underwear pictures. We don't allow nude pictures. So to get a racy image through our image approval system, you have to cover your genitals with your hand. THAT MAKES SENSE! Like really, just use your common sense when you think about these things. Obviously we aren't going to allow an image like that. Stop being so desperate to prove Pro wrong and use your brain for once. We have policies that make it clear that that kind of image shouldn't be allowed. Sorry we didn't dumb it down enough for you. Dear Audrey, look through Pro's replies here and see if you can find him mentioning anything at all about any policy on nudity. His comparing underwear to hands is the silliness I was commenting on. Your inability to read tells me that maybe I should have 'dumbed down' my responses so that you would be able to understand them. "Desperate to prove Pro wrong"? No, a person doesn't have to be desperate, only observant. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 7:54 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 8:34 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Sometimes you have to keep it simple stupid.  Ask any mod if underwear is allowed on this website, if they know what they are talking about, they will say, "No, underwear is not allowed." - Are you upset about the clearness of my answer?  Our policy says no underwear.  How would you have preferred me to explain it? That's because you lack common sense, unfortunately.  As a moderator, there are many times you come across something that isn't exactly spelled out for you - this is one of those cases.  It's clear to me that hands covering a penis would not be allowed on this website when we don't allow underwear either.   Sorry you can't see how I could possibly come to such a conclusion. Your confusion isn't surprising. Someone who thinks hands are in the same category as underwear probably walks around in a fog most of the time. Is your next 'crusade' going to be against pictures of people with hands? -- Posted by The Professional at 8:01 am on Sep. 7, 2008 There is no need for a crusade.  Luckily, unlike you, all of the current moderators can critically think enough to realize that if we have a policy that outlaws underwear covering penises, it's common sense to also not allow hands covering penises. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 8:14 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from The Professional at 10:01 am on Sep. 7, 2008 There is no need for a crusade.  Luckily, unlike you, all of the current moderators can critically think enough to realize that if we have a policy that outlaws underwear covering penises, it's common sense to also not allow hands covering penises. Tell me why the 'nudity' policy couldn't be used for that purpose. That, to me, would be the more 'critically' thought-out response. Apparently not to you, though. I do understand why you might not be anxious to go on another crusade. Going 'rogue' doesn't exactly win a lot friends or gain a lot of respect, does it. It mainly makes you look like a spoiled, petulant child. -- Posted by The Professional at 8:18 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Either one would work.  I'm sorry that you can't see that you can reach a conclusion two different ways.  Some might automatically rule it out because of the nudity policy, others might automatically rule it out through concluding that if underwear isn't allowed, then neither would covering a penis with hands.   How, exactly, did Audrey, PoP and I go rogue? -- Posted by audrey820 at 8:24 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:46 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Dear Audrey, look through Pro's replies here and see if you can find him mentioning anything at all about any policy on nudity. His comparing underwear to hands is the silliness I was commenting on. Your inability to read tells me that maybe I should have 'dumbed down' my responses so that you would be able to understand them.   "Desperate to prove Pro wrong"? No, a person doesn't have to be desperate, only observant. Lol, seriously? Not allowing pics of nude people is one of the most basic guidelines we have here. A mod doesn't have to tell you something isn't allowed. Maybe you should try using those reading skills you're so proud of and check out our image guidelines. -- Posted by The Professional at 8:31 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Apparently she's upset that I said, "We wouldn't allow that image because we don't allow underwear, so naturally, we wouldn't allow hands covering penises either." Instead, she wanted me to say, "We wouldn't allow that image because we don't allow nudity, so naturally, we wouldn't allow hands covering penises either." Desperate to prove Pro wrong rings true! -- Posted by Forever Angel at 8:35 am on Sep. 7, 2008 A conspiracy to push the guidelines to the limit in order to get your way, in opposition to the majority of the "team", would constitute going 'rogue', don't you think? I don't see why anyone would even think of the 'no underwear' policy if there was no underwear in the picture. And I don't believe that just the covering of a penis is the reason for the underwear ban. -- Posted by audrey820 at 8:39 am on Sep. 7, 2008 We used an existing policy and pushed it to the limit to make a point. We didn't go rogue. We just stepped outside of the box and showed the other mods the consequences of the policy rather than arguing about it endlessly. Other mods didn't see the problem so we made them see it. We didn't break guidelines though. And his explanation made perfect sense. If we don't allow underwear, why would we allow something that covers less than underwear. It's better than the nudity explanation because it actually covers more than what is covered in a nude picture. -- Posted by The Professional at 8:43 am on Sep. 7, 2008 Apparently FOLLOWING a policy is now going "rogue." Pages: 1 2 3  Next