Ophidiophobia

[~wolverine~]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

maybe the women is eating a sourlemon?

just a thought

[Empy]

First of all, you can link all the other posts you want, and link all the other images you want. Fact is you were warned for the image you posted, nothing else matters. Other images not being warned for has no bearing here.

Second, like Mordack said, I don't understand what point you're trying to prove? It's OBVIOUS to EVERYONE what the image is, and was, so..... what're trying to prove?

[Mordack]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.

Your mistake is that you're treating 'pornogaphic' as the operative word. No, the image isn't porn. No, the genitals have been transformed into snakes. Nonetheless, the image is still INAPPROPRIATE for these forums. Even if the genitals had been transformed into Alan Rickman faces, which I sort of would have liked, it would still be INAPPROPRIATE. Again, that's the word: INAPPROPRIATE. Not about porn.

[Drahazar]

Also, is this offensive? It's just a tree. If you the pervs see something else, it's not my fault that you watch too much "explicit content".

[spoiler][/spoiler]

The basis (at least for me) is not same. Possible abuse of a woman edited into something else versus a funny tree with people looking at it...not the same.

I am curious to see the non-edited version of the "snakes" picture, if it's really nothing porn at all, you should post it here...

you need to remember that pornographic material is controlled and they are paid actors/actresses

[~wolverine~]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.

Your mistake is that you're treating 'pornogaphic' as the operative word. No, the image isn't porn. No, the genitals have been transformed into snakes. Nonetheless, the image is still INAPPROPRIATE for these forums. Even if the genitals had been transformed into Alan Rickman faces, which I sort of would have liked, it would still be INAPPROPRIATE. Again, that's the word: INAPPROPRIATE. Not about porn.

[Drahazar]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.

Your mistake is that you're treating 'pornogaphic' as the operative word. No, the image isn't porn. No, the genitals have been transformed into snakes. Nonetheless, the image is still INAPPROPRIATE for these forums. Even if the genitals had been transformed into Alan Rickman faces, which I sort of would have liked, it would still be INAPPROPRIATE. Again, that's the word: INAPPROPRIATE. Not about porn.

inappropriate on what grounds, bearing in mind you cannot now say pornographic material ...

[Mordack]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.

Your mistake is that you're treating 'pornogaphic' as the operative word. No, the image isn't porn. No, the genitals have been transformed into snakes. Nonetheless, the image is still INAPPROPRIATE for these forums. Even if the genitals had been transformed into Alan Rickman faces, which I sort of would have liked, it would still be INAPPROPRIATE. Again, that's the word: INAPPROPRIATE. Not about porn.

Nice quoting. Would you like a piece of watermelon for your troubles?

Whatever, I wouldn't have written it like that. Maybe Psyko warned for the wrong thing, but again, the warning was valid. Maybe needs tinkering. Still deserved, though.

[~wolverine~]

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.

Your mistake is that you're treating 'pornogaphic' as the operative word. No, the image isn't porn. No, the genitals have been transformed into snakes. Nonetheless, the image is still INAPPROPRIATE for these forums. Even if the genitals had been transformed into Alan Rickman faces, which I sort of would have liked, it would still be INAPPROPRIATE. Again, that's the word: INAPPROPRIATE. Not about porn.

Nice quoting. Would you like a piece of watermelon for your troubles?

Whatever, I wouldn't have written it like that. Maybe Psyko warned for the wrong thing, but again, the warning was valid. Maybe needs tinkering. Still deserved, though.

pleasseeeeeee? xxxxxxx

[Psyko]

let's see what the ombudsmmanmen think. Lords knows they need something to do.

I'm actually kinda glad I gave them a dispute.

Also, is this offensive? It's just a tree. If you the pervs see something else, it's not my fault that you watch too much "explicit content".

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Not offensive, but the fact that the pic calls the tree a "treenis" makes hardly leaves it up to the imagination.

Maybe Psyko warned for the wrong thing, but again, the warning was valid.

I may have. The thread immediately went to discussing the pornographic nature of the photo, which may have influenced which rule I decided had been violated. I still saw the post as inappropriate.

[Clarkey]

If anybody who looked at that image, and didn't get what the 'snakes' were, please raise your hand now.

I haven't seen it.

Why there is a need to post "potentially" inappropriate images on a gaming website anyway is beyond me.

You got bloody MSN and email, use it like it's meant to be used.

Whatever anyone posts on this forum you all take and accept the risk you might get your hands slapped. This is what happened, you gambled with that risk and you lost and now you complain.

@Wolverine, maybe you should stop and actually understand what the grown-ups are talking about before jumping in and just automatically supporting someone on your side.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

I don't mind if my warning point is revoked.

Since Inappropriate <> Pornographic and because inappropriate is not punished with a warning point (I tried to find a forum rule to warn myself for inappropriate and didn't found it yet), I think that the initial topic could have been locked, edited, moved. I have been warned for something that I didn't do (see the mod explanation), hence the dispute.

Nice link. If it doesn't break forum rules, then my topic for which i was warned doesn't break them too. lol

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/work-safe-porn#.TlXSXxrCvxw

I think this case can be closed now.

Anyway, I don't see how Tetrismonkey's posts are relevant in this dispute thread, they're simply repeated off-topic spam, which has some rules to deal with (go for it mods).

[Clarkey]

I don't mind if my warning point is revoked.

Since Inappropriate <> Pornographic and because inappropriate is not punished with a warning point (I tried to find a forum rule to warn myself for inappropriate and didn't found it yet), I think that the initial topic could have been locked, edited, moved. I have been warned for something that I didn't do (see the mod explanation), hence the dispute.

Anything clearly inappropriate will be removed and users dealt with as appropriate, and anything potentially inappropriate will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Please respect the Forum Administrations attempts to keep the forum within the guidelines listed, and thank you in advance for respecting the community enough to keep your posts within the spirit of the rules.

Admin Jason.

^^

Anyway, I don't see how Tetrismonkey's posts are relevant in this dispute thread, they're simply repeated off-topic spam, which has some rules to deal with (go for it mods).

This is the Ombudsman section therefore the Ombudsman has responsibility for moderating this section thank you.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

I agree with the underlined part.
Please define that bold part. What is appropriate and what is not? Where's the standard?

Anything clearly inappropriate will be removed and users dealt with as appropriate, and anything potentially inappropriate will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Please respect the Forum Administrations attempts to keep the forum within the guidelines listed, and thank you in advance for respecting the community enough to keep your posts within the spirit of the rules.

Admin Jason.

^^

^_^

I have been warned for something that I didn't do (see the mod explanation), hence the dispute.

[Clarkey]

d. Pornographic and criminal content.
Posting anything of a pornographic nature is not permitted on the SGW forums.

Although I haven't seen the image, it has been said that the image contained the url of the original website it came from which has been said is a pornographic website. You are posting an image on this family friendly forum with a link to a pornographic site?

That's the impression that i get from reading what was said by the original Mod that handled it.

[Iƒrit]

Sorry for not noticing this thread till now, I have not looked at it yet, other then noticing. I am currently in the process of reading it, I have been busy the last few weeks.