StarGateWars Forums

That was the mods first impression and one of the "reasons" for the warning point but I can demonstrate that the watermark is barely visible and understandable and also, that it links to a blog that does not contain pornographic material and it is not a pornographic site.

Family friendly forum: The pic that I posted is educational for kids and funny for those mature who can extrapolate the nature of it. I doubt that too many knew what Ophidiophobia stands for. Do you ban the kids right for education?

Clarkey wrote:

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.

an u prove you were doing it for the slightest educational reason? If not then u can't use that as grounds for appeal.

Before u claim something isn't inappropriate u first need to understand what makes something inappropriate. For example, of I had a pic of a naked girl in front of me now with her small (or big) naughty bits covered by a few pixels, I would not consider that inappropriate because I like girls (especially the naked variety), and if it did anything to me it would turn me on. However, if I then decided to post it on SGW forums then it would "become" inappropriate. You see its often about what you do with it rather than the image itself.

Please give you complete explanation as to why you feel SGW forums is an appropriate place for that picture and why you posted it.

It was posted in the spam area, with the intent to be fun. Who didn't knew what ophidiophobia is, also learned something new, thus it was educational too.

It was for teh lulz how some would say.

However, there are lots of other disturbing things which were posted in the spam temple and general that remained un-moderated:

• Encouraging driking?
  viewtopic.php?f=207&t=185234
  
• Advertising drinking:
  viewtopic.php?f=207&t=185079
  
• Forum sigs showing just as much as my pic showed?
  http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a174/ ... Lovers.jpg
  http://ascdgen.com/sigs/brunotapping.jpg
  http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg14 ... up1sig.png
  
• Some uncensored and disturbing pictures in this thread (man defecating, man drinking, man drinking and a drawn symbol image that can be interpreted a a phallus in erection)?
  viewtopic.php?f=101&t=158825&hilit=why+rico%27s+never+lose

and the list could go on...

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:That was the mods first impression and one of the "reasons" for the warning point but I can demonstrate that the watermark is barely visible and understandable and also, that it links to a blog that does not contain pornographic material and it is not a pornographic site.

Family friendly forum: The pic that I posted is educational for kids and funny for those mature who can extrapolate the nature of it. I doubt that too many knew what Ophidiophobia stands for. Do you ban the kids right for education?

Clarkey wrote:

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.

I notice you keep changing your reasons for posting it. It was funny. We only see porn because we have a predisposition to it. It is educational.

Did you honestly think that image was only going to create a spam topic about snakes or fears? You honestly had no idea this could and was taken to be inappropriate? At least 2 others noticed the pornographic nature before I even stepped in.

MEZZANINE wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:That image looks like a badly edited version of a porn picture...where the woman is being abused (from the look of her face).

Considering what the words in the top left corner running downwards say, thats exactly what it is, and it's advertising more. If the author of this thread doesnt remove the image I suspect he has a warning on the way from the first mod that see's it

The watermark with the original URL on the picture isn't smeared and is perfectly legible to me without any enhancement. Heck, it even contains a word that is on the filter. Maybe I should have said you violated the Masking rule, instead.

Should have is NOT have. I appealed for the reason given as to why I was warned, not because I should have been warned for something else.

Psyko wrote:.................. Heck, it even contains a word that is on the filter. Maybe I should have said you violated the Masking rule, instead.