Warrning issued

[Jim]

Couldnt oral sex be defined as kissing to?

If he meant kissing would couldn't he post kissing? It's not a filtered word.

The title of the thread was about "love" so i decided to post "love"

[deni]

I agree.

The PG13 guideline as set by Jason, as well as some other de facto rules (disobeying a mod, short term bannings, ...) should be covered be added to the official forum rules.

The fact that it is not added to the appropriate document does not mean that the guideline/rule is not effective.

[Empy]

Yes it does...

People are not gonna go hunting through the Announcement to know the rules, the whole point of the Rules thread is to have them all in one place... I can't follow a rule if I don't know what it is, and if it's not in that topic it's not a rule. Plus Jason did NOT make a "PG13" rule he clarified the existing Pornographic rule to make it enforced more stringently. That's my take on what happened... prevent evidence otherwise and I can be convinced.

[zeekomkommer]

well, i've read trough the entire topic and all i can say jim is that your remark isn't realy fitting in it. the only post that could have leaded up to the point where someone can post that is your own.

the thread was about squad uk Vs rico's and them spreading the love around.

if love was the name of an alliance then it would be a slightly different context ofcourse but atm i think you intentionaly wrote it up to have a double meaning. yeah as a joke but still. the warnings iven in other posts like the ones complained about here below are less subtile then yours.

now you do have to admit that the innuendo in the disney movies are alot more subtile then what you posted. not to mention that in the disney movies they often do it to words lill kids find funny, make it look like they are going to say it and then don't

anything you want to ad to your defence jim ?

[Hitchkok]

I agree.

The PG13 guideline as set by Jason, as well as some other de facto rules (disobeying a mod, short term bannings, ...) should be covered be added to the official forum rules.

The fact that it is not added to the appropriate document does not mean that the guideline/rule is not effective.

As do I. Because one thing is not said in the rules directly, does not mean that it is not covered by the rules, take the 'multi posts / spam" argument a week or so ago

YES IT DOES.
just as a police officer can't come to your and arrest you for something not in the law-book.
and just as there is only one lawbook, there is one set of rules, in one thread.
you as an administrator can ammend the rules. if you think they need ammending, ammend them. until then, follow them.
short term banning is in the rules (although it is written so vaguely it can be applied to practically everything...). multi-posting and disobeying a mod aren't. an neither is "PG-13", for that matter.
and, let me ask, where would the harm have been if jim would have received only a verbal warning?

[odji nsu]

um couldnt his post saying oral love been meaning some one sending messages , since oral is to do with the mouth,

I actually thought he was talking about them sending me some nasty messages,

I only posted what i did to mess with jim , I never thought jim intended it to be dirty,

I have 3 girls they are constantly around me when im on this forum and what jim posted wasnt bad at all, I would of let them read it, for one unless someone told them what it could of been no child would of know what it could of been taken as any way, unless they were already sexual active,,

You dare warn him but yet there is a bunch of people with sigs with all kinds of sexual agenda that dosent belong in here, like the one humping people, of the one with 3 girls showing there butts in the mirror,, check all theses sigs people have these days then you might be doing something,

more stupid warnings for bullcrapt, You folks really need to get a real set of rules in this damn forum , jesus this place is so stupid some times,

Im going to go now before someone warns me,, fight it jim

(just so everyone knows what i edited, i spelled AS wrong, i had one to many s in it didnt want a warning for it )

[KnowLedge]

i think you got a warning cuase a mod who hated you just happen to see your post

the other examples that you show there are indeed not pg13, but noone saw them, or were too scared to give warnings..

this is what happens when you get volunteers to work.

nothing you can do, just make ur ombudsman life hard from them LOL
jk, its just one warning.. itl go away

[zeekomkommer]

points out the warning was given by a forum admin, not a forum mod

i don't think eary hates jim

[Jim]

I dont believe eary hates me.
It is a good point that the guidelines should be in the rules.
Yes i should and do know the guidelines.
Yes i am fighting the guidelines.
Yes i did intend it to mean Messages.
Yes i did intend it to have some kind of hidden double meaning that should only be understood by those old enough to understand them.
That is the reason for a lot of innuendos, so you arnt actually saying something rude and only those who are old enough to understand them do understand them.
If a 13year old or younger kid looks at "oral love" and instantly thinks "blow job blow job blow job" then either a) there is something wrong with them, or b) they already know about oral sex and have been sufficiently exposed to it for oral sex to be the primary meaning.

Innuendos are meant to be subtle so that people who dont know about the subject just take them at face value.
I just asked a 13 year old and his first response to "oral love" was making out or kissing".

Zeek, yes they were spreading the love around so i was asking if they had got any love in return.
You have a point with some of the Shrek references being about imature words zeek, but take Scrubs: Todd describes how he makes the car rock when he has a girl in it. What does this imply? what does it mean? I think it is quite clear what he means.

I suggest trying to get more clarity on the "pg-13" bs, something thats actually in the rules, some kind of defined meaning, if you wanna continue this debate...

Agreed. That is my purpose.

I agree.

The PG13 guideline as set by Jason, as well as some other de facto rules (disobeying a mod, short term bannings, ...) should be covered be added to the official forum rules.

The fact that it is not added to the appropriate document does not mean that the guideline/rule is not effective.

I would again lead towards agreeing with you. However, for something that is only a "guideline", to somebody that has a clean record for innuendo or porn or whatever, do you not feel a straight up warning could be a little severe?

[Benny The G]

I agree.

The PG13 guideline as set by Jason, as well as some other de facto rules (disobeying a mod, short term bannings, ...) should be covered be added to the official forum rules.

The fact that it is not added to the appropriate document does not mean that the guideline/rule is not effective.

Im 13.... Oral Love means kissing. its a phrase I encounter on a daily basis when at school.

"Hey shelby, did alex give you oral love yet?"
"Dude!!! you totally shoulda given her oral love"
"dude no way you shoulda done that... you havnt even had oral love!"

Fact is, it means kissing, making out or playing tongue tennis.

[[BoT] Jason]

"Hey shelby, did alex give you oral love yet?"
"Dude!!! you totally shoulda given her oral love"
"dude no way you shoulda done that... you havnt even had oral love!"
=

you go to a wierd school

all this is ,is misinterpretation

jim meant kissing but eary saw it as BJ or Oral....

and if an under 13 knows what oral is then they should not have access to internet to start with

[Jim]

You are right pimpin this is all about misinterpritation, but i meant messages not kissing.
Just goes to show how many ways you can read into it


Edit: just found another example of innuendo-
An advert i heard while listening to Spotify for Burger King. The add was centered around the word "King" and how it sounds like "F-ing" when said right and with a little bump in the audio.
For an adult they can read into the add that its two people swearing at each other.
For a child its just two people who keep saying "king" over and over.

This example has flaws im sure some intelligent people will point out soon enough, but i heard it so thought i would include it

[ƒëmmë ƒatalë]

omg, you lot still on about oral (oral sex isnt talking about sex- old joke) when the thread about DoJ massing pax is full of male sex innuendos..

*wonders how many warnings that thread generated*

[zeekomkommer]

mak the last ads to this please, i will present the case to the admins tomorow