x
Click to expand

"Your Thumbing Violation"

  • Recommend tagsx
+711
Views: 43436
Favorited: 39
Submitted: 10/08/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to adu submit to reddit

Comments(413):

[ 413 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#57 - hopskotch (10/08/2013) [-]
So not only can we not post even moderately sexy things, we get banned for upvoting them too.

Tough crowd man, tough crowd.
User avatar #322 to #57 - Bacula (10/09/2013) [-]
I got banned the other day for using diglet reactions, and ive been getting this message frequently.
#370 to #322 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
***** , diglets be the sexiest things ever
#371 to #57 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Or you could stop posting sexualized images of any kind, crazy idea I'm sure.
#413 to #57 - hopskotch (10/09/2013) [-]
My profile says +171 replies.........say what.

Just saying dude. We need some hard-on ground rules. I'm honestly scared of being banned for something I didn't know was bannable.
User avatar #59 to #57 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Yes, because thumbing it up says "I support that you're breaking the rules, please continue doing it"
Or at least that's admins train of thought
User avatar #120 to #59 - reginleif ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
Christ Phanact, but let's take a serious look at the other kind of content on this site.

This isn't a place for kids. Why is admin trying so hard to turn it into one?
#171 to #120 - anon (10/08/2013) [-]
Advertisers
User avatar #154 to #59 - heartlessrobot (10/08/2013) [-]
Even though most of the ads are more **** than the posts.
User avatar #203 to #154 - graydiggy (10/09/2013) [-]
Ads?
#235 to #203 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
There's those typical gaming Advertisements, that have women barely clothed "Come play this game" and that's okay but "sexual content" isn't, what a joke.
User avatar #236 to #235 - graydiggy (10/09/2013) [-]
You missed my joke...
#238 to #236 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
No I didn't, you have adblock congrats, maybe you want a cookie? I'm merely adding to the discussion below.
User avatar #242 to #238 - graydiggy (10/09/2013) [-]
Well if you want to add to the discussion below, don't explain stuff to me that I already know...
#243 to #242 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
Its the internet, I'm pretty sure I can reply to people I want to reply
User avatar #248 to #243 - graydiggy (10/09/2013) [-]
That is fine and dandy, but you seemed to have replied to the wrong person. Either that or you just felt like being redundant.

You claim to have gotten my joke, yet felt the need to explain the ads to me whilst it is obvious that I know what they are, and what content they may display.

#250 to #248 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
"whilst it is obvious that I know what they are, and what content they may display. "
In what way is "what ads" obvious to people reading your comment that you know what ads are being displayed. We aren't mind readers.
User avatar #254 to #250 - graydiggy (10/09/2013) [-]
So you didn't get the joke at first...

It means I use an ad blocker. That is the only explanation. There literally cannot be any other explanation. How else could it be interpreted? If someone is too dense to never get the joke, that is their problem.

It is the type of joke that will normally go right over someones head, but come back and smack them after a few minutes.
#261 to #254 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
No I said I got it, but when you say "what ads" it doesn't mean that you are aware of they types of ads that are on the site, how could you know if you have ad blocker?
User avatar #207 to #203 - heartlessrobot (10/09/2013) [-]
I don't have adblock, so there's ads before I log on.
User avatar #158 to #59 - lolfire (10/08/2013) [-]
His plan is sound alright, it's just the boundaries that are ****** .

However, as the vast majority of people are being banned for thumbing up semi-nude women, then I shall be reporting all semi-nude males in pictures as porn.

He needs to define what is and what isn't sexual content. Or just stick an 18 and over cert on this website and be ******* done with all this ******* around.
User avatar #260 to #158 - kyrill (10/09/2013) [-]
says his dog
User avatar #411 to #264 - kyrill (10/09/2013) [-]
there was a gli;tch, that was meant for phanact
#310 to #264 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
WHOO! I LOVE YOU MICHAEL!
User avatar #146 to #59 - spikethepony (10/08/2013) [-]
No matter how unpopular the concept may be, Phanact is right. Admin has become somewhat paranoid.
User avatar #153 to #146 - bbboy (10/08/2013) [-]
I think it all started when he started getting ads from Google
User avatar #81 to #59 - dosburritos (10/08/2013) [-]
I have trains in my house.
User avatar #297 to #59 - funnyjunkianonetwo (10/09/2013) [-]
I don't understand the hate you get. You're actually a good person, and reading your other comments it seems like you're a good mod. I guess it's because you're pretty much the only person I've ever seen say they're a mod, and you actually contribute to the community, it makes you easy to reach, so people dump hate on you.
User avatar #399 to #297 - newforomador (10/09/2013) [-]
Yea, that is pretty much why everybody hates him. It's also because he like MLP, and reposts a decent amount, not that I mind either of thos.
User avatar #149 to #59 - dvdfaust (10/08/2013) [-]
If only more people knew what sarcasm was.
User avatar #303 to #59 - shadownigga (10/09/2013) [-]
You mean have trains of thought? I didn't even know they put down the track.
#90 to #59 - anon (10/08/2013) [-]
I hope something bad happens when my train of thought derails.
User avatar #220 to #57 - kittygirl (10/09/2013) [-]
This site is going to hell in a handbasket.
#58 to #57 - adu (10/08/2013) [-]
People have been complaining recently about how front-page posts and comments only have a fraction of the thumbs that they used to, how the community is supposedly dying out, or people contributing less.   
   
The reason people are contributing less is because of stricter and poorly-defined regulations.   
First it was level 10 account.   
Then it was level 40 account.   
Then people get thumb banned for thumbing up stuff with mildly lewd content, regardless if the lewdness was the focus of the content or comment.   
That's why thumbs seem like such a scarce resource, which is ironic now that lurkers just started caring about them, because they need level 40 to thumb.   
   
But it gets worse... People started getting banned for SFW mildly-sexualized contented inside SFW, and even 			****		 in 			****		. I saw some of this on the Hentai board where people were getting banned for girls that merely "looked" or were otherwise stated to be underage. So, in otherwords, whoever the 			****		 Phanact or Admin feel like, because just about any anime girl can be seen as 17 or under if you're got a stick up your ass. One time I saw someone get banned for posting a 			****		 picture of Yoko in the hentai board, and the ban reason was because Yoko was known as 14, but it was post-timeskip Yoko who was actually 21... but to be honest, it's a 			*******		 goddamn cartoon, as long as its not 			*******		 undeveloped children or raping babies then it shouldn't even 			*******		 matter.   
   
			******		 sake.
People have been complaining recently about how front-page posts and comments only have a fraction of the thumbs that they used to, how the community is supposedly dying out, or people contributing less.

The reason people are contributing less is because of stricter and poorly-defined regulations.
First it was level 10 account.
Then it was level 40 account.
Then people get thumb banned for thumbing up stuff with mildly lewd content, regardless if the lewdness was the focus of the content or comment.
That's why thumbs seem like such a scarce resource, which is ironic now that lurkers just started caring about them, because they need level 40 to thumb.

But it gets worse... People started getting banned for SFW mildly-sexualized contented inside SFW, and even **** in **** . I saw some of this on the Hentai board where people were getting banned for girls that merely "looked" or were otherwise stated to be underage. So, in otherwords, whoever the **** Phanact or Admin feel like, because just about any anime girl can be seen as 17 or under if you're got a stick up your ass. One time I saw someone get banned for posting a **** picture of Yoko in the hentai board, and the ban reason was because Yoko was known as 14, but it was post-timeskip Yoko who was actually 21... but to be honest, it's a ******* goddamn cartoon, as long as its not ******* undeveloped children or raping babies then it shouldn't even ******* matter.

****** sake.
User avatar #190 to #58 - zight (10/08/2013) [-]
everyone including myself thumbing you up will wake up without an account tomorrow
#414 to #190 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
You clearly assume far too much self-importance.
User avatar #164 to #58 - bipolarprobe (10/08/2013) [-]
There have actually been court cases about what you're talking about, they deemed that you cannot define animated characters as children based on appearance, so you're right. There is no basis behind it, its not like admin can get in trouble for animated stuff so there's no problem and they just choose to be sticklers about it.
#377 to #164 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
How long before those court cases start to get serious? Have you paid court fees before? It's not like they decide "Oh this is frivolous we don't be charging you".
User avatar #436 to #377 - bipolarprobe (10/10/2013) [-]
No it means someone went to court and then after the initial case they called for an appeal which takes it to a higher court where they decided on the connotation of the law.
#438 to #436 - blarny (10/10/2013) [-]
So you defend the idea that it's okay to create imagery specifically drawn and designed to appear or simulate an underage human being for the purposes of someone's fetish?

Because this tired argument of "It's not hurting anyone" or "It's just a cartoon" is rather ridiculous as the subject matter is a cartoon depiction of underage human beings participating in sexual or explicit activities.

In all honesty you've got to be able to at least consider that perhaps allowing them to make this type of pornography has the chance of encouraging pedophilia and other kinds of sexual crimes.

But you're welcome to agree with the law and the court to justify it, I still think it's creepy and rather unsettling how many people jump to defend it with the arguments of freedom and personal enjoyment.
User avatar #60 to #58 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Since I became mod, I only ban for things I think are ****
I know that is hard to kinda explain but there are ways to like, differentiate between what is and isn't ****
I don't give a **** about the **** part of the site. Post whatever you want there, and I won't do ****

If I see a woman in a bra, or her hands covering her tits, and its purposely supposed to be sexy and is an attempt at bending the no porn rule, then I'll flag it. But if its a girl in like, a **** with huge t its I won't do ****
Its so hard to like, kinda draw the line, and let everyone know how you, personally, as a mod would draw the line
#68 to #60 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
Would you be able to tell me why I'm not able to thumb, phanact? I've never received any warnings on this site, nor have I broken any rules that I know of. I don't vote up or post porn/sexy images that aren't funny, I don't participate in thumb orgies, I only thumb posts I find funny, interesting, or that I agree with. I contribute in comments. I just want my thumbs back
User avatar #70 to #68 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Could be something got flagged that you thumbed up
Could have been spam or something else
User avatar #71 to #70 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
Is there any way to get my voting privileges back? I miss them so
User avatar #72 to #71 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I think (not completely sure) but I think a thumb ban lasts for 2 weeks
User avatar #126 to #72 - wersand (10/08/2013) [-]
Hey Phanact, I've never been banned before. I want you to flag me.
User avatar #170 to #126 - wersand (10/08/2013) [-]
I'm still waiting.
User avatar #319 to #170 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
I can't ban someone who doesn't break the rules
User avatar #421 to #319 - wersand (10/09/2013) [-]
Well I'm not that dedicated.
User avatar #352 to #319 - Ekans (10/09/2013) [-]
That's the first.
User avatar #354 to #352 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
Lol?
User avatar #279 to #72 - sagedivinity (10/09/2013) [-]
Thanks for taking the time to reply to all of these comments. If only we could get the ad man to have conversations with us. People probably wouldn't be blaming you as much and we might actually get some things to change.
#74 to #72 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
That's so long! but I guess I'll just have ...
That's so long! but I guess I'll just have ...
User avatar #213 to #74 - miscarriage (10/09/2013) [-]
that was lame.
#219 to #213 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/09/2013) [-]
I'd do it again.
I'd do it again.
User avatar #269 to #70 - thisxshitxisxhard (10/09/2013) [-]
phanact i actually love you man ur trying ur best to handle crap but its ultimately not up to you i think the reason everyone is yelling and taking thier anger out on you is becuase ur easier to reach you come and talk to us post with us and luagh with us unlike admin whos alienated himself your a true bro
User avatar #277 to #269 - newforomador (10/09/2013) [-]
I actually agree with you on that. He's actually a pretty cool dude, and he tries as best he can to do what is supposed to be done, without being too strict about it or being a dick. I've talked to him occasionally on places like the brony board and he's a nice guy.
#388 to #70 - darkjustifier (10/09/2013) [-]
guess I better be more careful.
guess I better be more careful.
User avatar #221 to #60 - elburritoextremo (10/09/2013) [-]
That's exactly what people are trying to say. As a mod it shouldn't be your personal
opinion, there should be strict rules as to what is and what isn't **** .
#156 to #60 - flapz (10/08/2013) [-]
Got banned for a facebook post of a girl showing mild cleavage which in my opinion was not porn related in any way.

I consider the current rules = if you post more than her face outside nfsw it's banhammer time
User avatar #294 to #60 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/09/2013) [-]
If all the mods aren't able to follow the same guidelines, that's bad moderation on a site.

Admin needs to give us clear cut guidelines, not just say "Flag what you think is porn"
NO, BETTER IDEA
Tell us what YOU think is porn admin, so we ******* know what to flag, what not to post, and what not to thumb up.

Rather than just letting us/you 'decide' what's porn and what to flag, and then banning users when they post stuff they think is okay...and then NOT EXPLAINING why what they posted is wrong.

As someone who basically has Admin riding your dick, and vise versa, ******* talk to him about this **** already.
#346 to #294 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Or everyone should stop posting **** or anything even remotely sexual to avoid it completely.
User avatar #351 to #346 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/09/2013) [-]
But what's 'remotely sexual'?
A hot chick standing there?
A person making a suggestive face?

two lines with a circle at the end of it because it resembles a penis?

After seeing some of the stuff that's gotten flagged, there is no guideline, and there needs to be.
#360 to #351 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
See you're trying to re-interpret the statement I just made, do you have reading comprehension problems?

It's simple, nothing at all, that could be even at the absolute lengths of the imagination be seen as sexual, not something 'sorta sexy', not something 'well it was funny and the picture wasn't centered on it', not even 'oh it was a selfie', NOTHING, meaning a lack of, an absolute vacuum, zilch, nada, zero. :V
User avatar #362 to #360 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/09/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is, post nothing.

I mean, honestly, have you see the **** people imagine?
A picture of a stick is sexy to some people.
#365 to #362 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is everything is sexual thus everything should be allowed?

Sarcastic remark:Makes perfect sense and is hardly an over dramatization.
User avatar #343 to #294 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
Yea
I'll ******* work on it
Relax
User avatar #345 to #343 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/09/2013) [-]
Hooray, potential progress!!

(he's not going to do **** ...is he?)
User avatar #348 to #345 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
Words are usually what helps
#174 to #60 - anon (10/08/2013) [-]
So it was you who banned me for posting Jennifer Aniston slightly naked in the comments?

You are a ******* tool who jerks it too pony porn, shoots his load in his fedora, then consumes it with pleasure.

You are a freak, and I bet that's not the first time you've been told that.
User avatar #318 to #174 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
It would tell you on your profile that I banned you
#93 to #60 - klutzyspy (10/08/2013) [-]
so if there are no clear rules, and we dont get to see the content that was "out of line" then we have no idea how to vote.
#440 to #93 - klutzyspy (10/10/2013) [-]
i got another mail for thumbing violation - however i thumbed it down... seems kind of unfair
User avatar #96 to #93 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Its a flawed system, sure
#101 to #96 - lolollo (10/08/2013) [-]
Then what are you doing to unflaw it, moderator?
User avatar #103 to #101 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I literally can't do anything
#106 to #103 - lolollo (10/08/2013) [-]
Then what good are you?
User avatar #107 to #106 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I can stop spammers and people who post porn
User avatar #108 to #107 - lolollo (10/08/2013) [-]
Except that the issue is in moderators abusing those privileges. Even if it isn't you, simply reassuring us that you aren't doing it doesn't actually do dick for us. Neither does telling us it's a flawed system. We already know that. The concern is in fixing it. What is being done to fix it? If the moderators still don't have that much influence, then it's still admin solely running things behind the scenes, unchecked. He still has a monopoly on the site and how it's run, meaning that the introduction of moderators was nothing more than a lie meant to comfort us.
User avatar #109 to #108 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I can only try to influence him
He does have a reason for whatever he does, weather or not the majority of people understand it
Things will change, don't worry
#209 to #109 - brutallyhonest (10/09/2013) [-]
This is like politics, lol. Phanact, you're like the President. Everyone's pointing blame on you and **** , asking you why you're not doing anything, when in reality there's people much higher in power that makes the decisions and says what and doesn't give a reason why.

Phanact, you're Obama.
User avatar #287 to #209 - triggathepirate (10/09/2013) [-]
Phanact is fart.
#122 to #107 - learned (10/08/2013) [-]
Why haven't you ever stoped yourself?




spammer
#206 to #60 - hammertheham (10/09/2013) [-]
**** you **** head just tried to post a funny reaction gif and it was flagged before i can even post it. Your immature ***** are like those TSA agents at the airport, you are unfit for society so ruin everyone else's life just to get a hard on from being a dick. You are insignificant and have less value then trash, people like your deserve to die like a disease-carrying pest. You may shrug off what i am saying as some butt-hurt internet dweller but know this, you are a piece of **** to be a part of this ******** , you should use you power and **** with admin and all those retards running this **** website and maybe this website wont suck so much ******* dick.
User avatar #182 to #60 - stanleys (10/08/2013) [-]
You're probably the faggot who banned me Sunday for posting a gif, which is one that I have been using pretty much since I came to this site
User avatar #316 to #182 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
If I banned you, it would tell you
User avatar #333 to #316 - digitroll (10/09/2013) [-]
Phanact, some people here are the cancer of the internet. I (as with a few others) understand what you're doing is right and some things are out of your control. Do what you can (and are doing) and keep bein you. Good on ya mate!
#244 to #60 - lamarisagoodname (10/09/2013) [-]
Just tell admin or whoever that he sacrificed the security of FJ because he was too scared of losing money. Right or not he's still being a dick about putting regulations on a forum
#97 to #60 - generalwatergate (10/08/2013) [-]
you used to be loved by fj, phanact. but this flagging and no porn in sfw ******** is not okay, asshole. do you hear it, phanact? the revolution is coming.
User avatar #148 to #97 - spikethepony (10/08/2013) [-]
..... What ******* revolution? What the hell are we going to do, report them to the cyber police? For ****** sake, man, we are technically consumers. We have to deal with the rules or find some other place to be. Simple as that. All we can do that would do anything is organize a mass exodus, and let's face it, that's never going to happen.
#157 to #148 - flapz (10/08/2013) [-]
I don't think you get the point of a revolution
User avatar #105 to #97 - nossersvin (10/08/2013) [-]
"no porn in sfw is not okay"
no porn in the sfw is exactly what makes it sfw, how is that not okay
User avatar #98 to #97 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I'm just doing whats best for the site

No porn in SFW has always been a rule, since the beginning of time
If you don't like it, then leave
#245 to #60 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
By that logic, any post with shirtless males should be flagged, but are they? Not in the slightest.
#336 to #245 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
You're assuming all shirtless males are sexier than the ads
#341 to #336 - stratotastic (10/09/2013) [-]
I'm not gay, but there a gay and women who use this site. Who can find shirtless men equally "sexy' as the ads.
#350 to #341 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Gay people are above the law sir, surely you know this since the gay pride movement took place.
User avatar #67 to #60 - adu (10/08/2013) [-]
You're the one who's the mod, I'm not, so ultimately it's your call, and no matter what I'll just have to deal with that. No point in me being a dick about it, but I can still speak my mind.

Personally, if stuff is borderline softcore porn (softcore defined as nude but not showing genitalia, not things like bras, panties, swimsuits, or anything else you could find in a Target magazine) then I would flag it. Hardcore porn too, obviously. If something just has something mildly lewd in it, maybe like a poorly drawn ass even, an it's not the focus of the content or comment but is just there, then I don't see a reason to flag it. That's my opinion.
#401 to #60 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Don't worry so much about it dude, you're just doing your job, can't ask more than that.
#340 to #60 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Just people trying to do their jobs and not get in trouble because someone is trying to break the rules, someone I might add that doesn't pay to use the site. :V
User avatar #82 to #60 - thegamegestapo (10/08/2013) [-]
Phanact can into moderator?
User avatar #83 to #82 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
As of recently
User avatar #84 to #83 - thegamegestapo (10/08/2013) [-]
But you are of hatred by community?
User avatar #86 to #84 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
That will only fuel my erection
#91 to #86 - gjsmothefirst (10/08/2013) [-]
Don't thumb this up, you'll get banned.
User avatar #145 to #91 - screencleaner (10/08/2013) [-]
I got banned once because I posted a close up of an older woman's face
#289 to #145 - triggathepirate (10/09/2013) [-]
Her wrinkles formed a labia
Her wrinkles formed a labia
User avatar #92 to #91 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Don't tell me what to do
#233 to #92 - discord (10/09/2013) [-]
I like how you're the only mod to be posting here saying they're a mod, and explaining what you're doing, yet you're getting thumbed down. its stupid.
#332 to #58 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Are you defending animated porn that even LOOKS like children based on the idea that it's a cartoon and thus more okay? Seriously, why are people into sexualizing anything that even remotely looks like a child? It's sick.
User avatar #338 to #332 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
Except for the fact that "looks like children" is a completely subjective call that cannot be made in the real world and shouldn't be made in terms of illustrations. A short, flat-chested 20 year old girl getting consensually shagged could get someone banned because she "looks underaged." Apply this kind of logic to anyone in a school uniform, and you have a recipe for seriously stifling perfectly reasonable fetish-goers.
#385 to #338 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Except the fetish is children, you're by extent defending pedophilia.

I understand that by the current laws and regulations it doesn't register as valid, but seriously speaking, if it looks like a kid and you're wanking to it, then somewhere along the line it should register with you that it's wrong, not justify it with "Well the courts said it was undetermined."
User avatar #389 to #385 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
Wanking it to loli is something I personally find distasteful, but that's not even the issue here. The issue is that the "age of consent" for this site is 18, and any fictional character bearing the mild appearance of being below that age (school uniforms, short girls, any woman with small breasts) gets flagged and the user subsequently banned because of the opinion of a moderator.
#391 to #389 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Except that porn is specifically designed to be legal whilst still bending the rules, an underdeveloped 18 year old that looks like a child is more or less based on the artists 'CLAIM' that the models are legal.
User avatar #397 to #391 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
Except that there is no model, just an illustration that invokes imagination. In real life, the victims of child pornography are the children themselves, and laws prevent this by requiring things like identification or birth certificates for the performers. With hentai though, **** is just drawn, and you pretty much have to take the artist's word for it. If the artist says it is indeed a six year old getting ****** , then that would be sick, but at least it's a victimless crime. If it's a 200 year old dragon in the body of a six year old, still kinda ****** up, not gonna lie, but still victimless. But I'm not talking about either one of those, I'm talking about developed women illustrated as sexually mature, and no matter what part of highschool or middleschool someone randomly just assumes they're in, you can't justify calling it "underage pornography" because yes, there are 18 year olds out there that look like that.

tl;dr: loli is not okay, but adolescent and young-adult is victimless and the age is largely speculative unless explicitly stated in the subject material.
#400 to #397 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
Victimless or not it's still child porn regardless of the law or anyone's interpretation of it.

Though I apologize for getting preachy or unreasonable about it, but it's irritating when I forget not everyone defaults to objectivity.

Blah blah blah, it's the artist going out of their way to make illustrations that look more 'childish' than their supposed age.

I just can't understand why you defend it?
#403 to #400 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
I honestly don't look even at hentai anymore. There's a lot of things that I don't do. But my opinion doesn't really matter. I'll defend a person's right to their own entertainment and life choices so long as it's not an infringement on anyone else's happiness or safety. This includes things that I might personally find disgusting, but I realize that just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.

And yeah, it's difficult to default to objectivity if your objectivity is different from others' objectivity. If you catch my meaning.
#406 to #403 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
I lack emotional content, possibly suffering from dysthymia, I tend to see reality with no filters or reinterpretations, It's why I have trouble remembering not everyone simply views things as they are without putting some spin or feeling to it.

When I see something that looks like a child, animated or not involved in anything sexual, I tend to view it as child porn.

Other people seem to look at it with some morality to explain it away as being animated and thus hardly the legal definition of child pornography, when in reality it's just trying to bend the rules to make something okay.

Though I will agree on one point, I think it would be ideal if the pedophiles keep to animated porn, if they COULD keep to JUST porn like that, it would be glorious and only slightly creepy, but at least they wouldn't go after real children.

User avatar #407 to #406 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
It's very presumptuous and even fallacious to assume that our personal view of reality is without filters or reinterpretations. Everyone has their own filter, everyone their own interpretation, whether emotional or distanced, reasoned or simply inherited.

If you wanted an example, I could ask you "at what age or point in life is a person no longer a child?" And by whatever definition you gave, you'd be wrong according to hundreds of cultures. 13? 15? 16? 18? 20? 21? 35? Old enough to have sex? or old enough to drive? or old enough to own a firearm? or old enough to hunt bison for themselves? or old enough to drink? old enough to make their own life decisions?
#408 to #407 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
I presume very little and understand fully aware that my view is already flawed as I lack emotions, also that everyone forms their own basis for reasoning and opinions as such, but it is my flaws that give me reason to strive to keep my view based on what can be proven, what can be demonstrated and what can be tested.


I would base a decision of age on all the psychological and sociological studies on the subject, not to mention many people discount the fact that whilst someone's body can be 16-18-21 but their mind can be far behind as far as maturing or being capable, testing the populace on common sense and maturity should be a priority, not simply making sure they've lived long enough to assume such progress.

User avatar #410 to #408 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
I actually believe that the point of true adulthood is different for each person. It has more to do with mental maturity than simple body development or person high-score on staying alive. It seems you believe something similar. For the sake of legislation without having to constantly test people on things like this though, it's useful to have a set age, granted, but this brings me back to the point of illustrated porn, where the subject's age really can't be guess at just by body type.

Examples:
Yoko from Gurren Lagann, age 14 before timeskip.
Konata from Lucky Star, apparently 18 at some point and still looks like a child.

Hentai and anime in general can become very confusing when artists decide to give younger girls adult bodies, or vice versa.
#412 to #410 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
As I said, to test them would imply teaching them well enough to be able to pass and more importantly to attempt to ensure they develop the skills to fend for themselves and hopefully assist them in maturing rather than assuming simply being alive teaches a child everything they need to be an adult, a set age is ridiculous as it assumes too much based on an average selection of the population.

tl;dr It's like assuming if you leave a child to their own devices they will raise themselves into a functioning adult.

Reference points: hands off parents, uncaring school systems and a generally apathetic world.

I have seen and understand your examples, I'm just saying that for the sake or marketing typically illegal pornography they attempt to bend the rules, it is of course the fault of the artists attempting to bend the rules to make money.

It is unfortunate that we may have gotten off on the wrong foot, we do seem to have a few bits of reason in common with each-other.
User avatar #415 to #412 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
I tend to not assume that something is bad just because it is illegal. As a Utilitarian I like to take a look at the general net happiness/sorrow caused by an action before making a moral assessment. Actual child pornography is seldom voluntary and can ruin lives. Loli, while distasteful, usually only ends up with some guys jacking off and another guy making a buck. It's possible that something like that would encourage the raping or molestation of children, but that argument is about as valid as saying that GTA incites violent behavior.

As far as objectives towards being an actual adult, I think parenting is the most important factor. Many parents these days just leave the responsibility to the federal government, wanting to send their children away for 8 hours a day to be taught the lessons and pseudo-lessons that their parents can't find the time or energy to teach them personally.

And yeah, you seem to be an alright guy.
#416 to #415 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
I agree with that line of reasoning, but as of late I may be more jaded as I'm seeing more and more that many people see fit to adjust the scales as they see fit more or less, driving the extra five miles above speed limit, using their freedom of speech to justify lacking civility for others, deciding because a large enough number of other people do it that it must be okay or even rationalizing their behavior as being irrelevant as there is someone/something worse to reference.

People seem to continue attempting to justify minor but harmful behaviors, the relevance of this is that it teaches that they are able to continue bending the rules until they can break it.

I'm well aware that there is always exceptions to the rule and they should never define it, there's always someone who was going to be violent/rapist/etc anyways.

I agree wholeheartedly that the parents should be raising them and teaching them as well as being far more involved in their children's development, it shouldn't be the school's/feds responsibility

I also agree that the law shouldn't be the defining element and it is not in my reasoning, I view it as wrong to take advantage of someone too young to be prepared to make these kinds of decisions.

Granted there may be room to argue that someone could mature past their actual age in the case of women, but still, nature decides that 12-13 is sexually mature enough to breed, I view that as being highly flawed.

Honestly my opinion would be that the children shouldn't be the ones being tested, but the parents should have to be certified and licensed to breed to ensure there's far less abuse of federal services thanks to parents who are not only unfit to take care of or raise their children.

Apologies for any offense I may have caused earlier, I was attempting to engage in (hopefully)humorous bouts of illogical argument.

I don't suppose you're in the market for a new friend?
As I've seen you in quite a few images recently.
User avatar #417 to #416 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
Requiring federal permission to breed sounds awfully Orwellian to me. My general policy is that if you can't raise children or don't want to raise children, then for the love of god use a condom.

And yeah, a new friend is always nice.
#418 to #417 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
But that would require that these 'parents' are smart!

Though I'm not proud of the suggestion, but just letting ANYONE breed whenever they feel like is nice in an ideal situation/world, but the reality of it is a bunch of neglected mentally and maturity deficient people.

Not forcing my ideals or saying it's right, just saying a little regulation would be nice.

Always good to make new friends though, here's to seeing you around, as well as thoroughly enjoying the conversation.
User avatar #419 to #418 - adu (10/09/2013) [-]
Regulating who can and can't start a family should be for the family themselves to decide. I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of handing over family management to any sort of governing body.
#420 to #419 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
The alternative is what's been in use currently, I'm not sure what else to suggest to fix the parental neglect issue and the overabundance of orphaned children.
User avatar #140 to #58 - dillnyethepikleguy (10/08/2013) [-]
I don't know man. I didn't think the level 40 thing was all that bad. It takes like, what, a few mildly witty or relevant comments to hit level 40? It took me only about half a day to get thumbing privileges after making an account. If anything it encouraged a long time anon like me to make an account and actually become a more active member of a community I had lurked on for years. That's just my story though, I don't know if it's had any other big effects on the community.

As for the suggestive content stuff, I don't think it would be that hard to differentiate between what would classify as safe for work or not.
#409 to #140 - blarny (10/09/2013) [-]
It's not that hard, you're completely right on all accounts sir.
#133 - acidreign (10/08/2013) [-]
Meanwhile, at FunnyJunk headquarters.
Meanwhile, at FunnyJunk headquarters.
#141 to #133 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
I believe you find this more accurate.
I believe you find this more accurate.
User avatar #1 - mausisdead (10/08/2013) [-]
Its simple, if you thumb anything resembling a woman outside **** , you get banned
#3 to #1 - brisen (10/08/2013) [-]
Very true. I found that our the hard way.
#4 to #1 - brisen (10/08/2013) [-]
Sorry, meant to turn the picture so that it points to your comment.
User avatar #211 to #198 - brutallyhonest (10/09/2013) [-]
Thumbing up.

******* ban me.
User avatar #292 to #211 - garymotherfinoak (10/09/2013) [-]
you will in due time TBH. just look at that ass.
#113 - optimussum (10/08/2013) [-]
(I'll probably get banned for this pic because it has a female in it)

I'm not even sure what's going on with this site. Admin says he's "improving" it, but he's not. He's making it so the site will appear more often on Google and companies will advertise on the site.

There's no point complaining, Addy doesn't care about the site's users. He only cares about his wallet.

I'd just advise leaving and going to one of the other infinitely better sites.
User avatar #123 to #113 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
Do you have any sites comperable to FunnyJunk?


I'd very much like to have some options laid out before I switch.
User avatar #155 to #123 - motherduck (10/08/2013) [-]
Well most of the content comes from Reddit.The community are a pile of **** though
User avatar #183 to #155 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
I don't like Reddit. I need something with a structure similar to FunnyJunk, but with much better administration.

Impossible?
User avatar #143 to #113 - zorororonoa (10/08/2013) [-]
Isn't that what everyone cares about these days? Their wallet?
User avatar #312 to #143 - nighkey (10/09/2013) [-]
Imagine if you went to the doctor with something potentially life threatening, but also potentially pointless that can be fixed with cream. Similar symptoms, different disease. If the doctor cared more about his or her wallet than the health of his patients, he would quickly lose money.

If a restaurant started screaming and customers and stealing tips, they would get rid of the 'troublesome' customers and make quick untaxed cash on staff; but in the long run lose A LOT more money as compared to keeping good terms with loyal staff and treating their customers right. Giving someone a free meal for undercooked pizza is less of a loss than banning them from coming back to the establishment.

tldr; Everything will catch up to you with competition and common sense.
User avatar #321 to #312 - zorororonoa (10/09/2013) [-]
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with people caring only about their wallet, just saying that it seems to be happening with more people. Also, something tells me you got that second example from Kitchen Nightmares.
User avatar #337 to #321 - nighkey (10/09/2013) [-]
-Grins- That I did, just to make it slightly more interesting.
User avatar #147 to #113 - ningyoaijin (10/08/2013) [-]
To be entirely fair, if I was an administrator to a site as popular as this, I'd likely want to get as much revenue from it as possible.
User avatar #201 to #147 - xdeathspawnx (10/09/2013) [-]
Yes, but the site is also losing users because of all of this stuff that is going on. If admin really wanted to make money he would make the site as much fun to use as possible, which would then make it more and more popular. I'm sure admin would be making a ******** of money if FJ had as many users as Reddit or 9gag.
User avatar #228 to #201 - linktheherooftime (10/09/2013) [-]
Admin doesn't want to make the site fun. He want's control.
#214 to #113 - tiddycats (10/09/2013) [-]
He's been about that for a long ass time, it's kind of a cycle really. Years ago he started this massive ********* when he took away anon voting rights, he said some ******** like "they all kept just thumbing down everything in the new uploads, so no more voting for them" as an excuse, what everyone later found out was that he was planning to drive up FJ's worth by increasing the number of users. Then came The Designer: the guy that supposedly took over in admins place after he realized 90% of the community was infuriated by him. Designer acted the exact same way admin is now, trying to change the site, not really listening to people, then going ******* and banning anyone that disagreed with him. Another dumb thing that happened a long ass time ago was admin somehow got the idea in his head that resetting every account's thumbs was a good move, he eventually decided not to cause everyone was screaming at him.

He also even hired a lawyer in an attempt to sue the oatmeal for complaining about how fj kept posting his comics.
#118 - pulpunderground ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
FJ administration is the gay overlords of an army of massive faggots, this I have learned to accept. But t **** those guys for real this time.
#119 to #118 - learned (10/08/2013) [-]
Perhaps maybe not so sure
User avatar #121 to #119 - pulpunderground ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
ur a cheeky cunt m8
#124 to #121 - learned (10/08/2013) [-]
Possibly likely not much
#36 - princessren (10/08/2013) [-]
in my opinion   
I am starting to think   
"Banned for posting porn outside of 			****		"   
is just an excuse/cover up when there isn't a good reason to ban someone but they do anyways   
 inb4 B&
in my opinion
I am starting to think
"Banned for posting porn outside of **** "
is just an excuse/cover up when there isn't a good reason to ban someone but they do anyways
inb4 B&
User avatar #353 to #36 - edwardyeap (10/09/2013) [-]
It's for the purpose of advertising. If **** outside of **** , FJ loses funds an yadda yadda. It's all about money actually, But more **** on SFW = higher chance of FJ shutting down (well, in due time at least).
User avatar #422 to #353 - princessren (10/09/2013) [-]
my point being
I have heard alot of people get banned for this and they say they haven't done anything
User avatar #423 to #422 - edwardyeap (10/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's addys fault. But everyone's blaming Phanact when he's not the only moderator. Nact may be a dick sometimes, but I know he never bans/flag a person without a reason.
User avatar #368 to #36 - seventh (10/09/2013) [-]
Watch out man, you might get banned for that gif.

She's not covering up her hair and her skin. Wayyy to revealing.
User avatar #20 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
If you get comment flagged by a mod it gives you a link to the comment that got flagged in your inbox.

....A lot of good that does though since the picture, as well as any text you had with it, is gone with the flag.
Replace this useless Comment link with a Link to the picture you posted. It'd stop a lot of the "Why am I banned" comments people make, and actually help people understand what you consider ****

Seriously, the definition of ' ***** on this site has changed too much anyways.
Originally it was "If there's genitals showing, it's **** , that's it"
Then it got slightly stricter, and extreme borderline with sexual implications were ****
Then you at some point added Gore to that
Then you added the most tame of Borderline to the list.
Then all this other crap, like Hate Speech and Harassment
Now, if there's a girl in the picture, or a human not facing forward (so you can see their Butt), it's apparently ****

A little clarification would be nice right about now.
User avatar #27 to #20 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
>Now, if there's a girl in the picture, or a human not facing forward (so you can see their Butt), it's apparently ****

ass has always been **** you tard, stop crying because your borderline furryCP gets flagged
User avatar #35 to #27 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
I think you misunderstood what I said.

I mean a picture of a person.
Just standing there
Not doing anything, full clothed
But the area where their butt is is in view
So you know...a person standing up not looking at you

Also, if you'll notice..I'm not banned. So nothing I'm posting is getting flagged.
#37 to #35 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
>ass is main focus of photo
>sexualized too
>b-b-b-but she was standing there
#38 to #37 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
NO, read you illiterate **** .
I'm not talking about pictures where the ass is the main focus
or pictures where they're in a sexual pose

I'm talking about like this
<----
"human not facing forward (so you can see their Butt)"

Get it now?
User avatar #39 to #38 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
flagged
User avatar #41 to #40 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
flagged too
User avatar #42 to #41 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
flagged for hate speech
User avatar #43 to #42 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
im black i cant hate
#85 to #43 - aririnkitaku (10/08/2013) [-]
Holy **** , you're annoying.
User avatar #99 to #85 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
holy **** ur gay
User avatar #168 to #43 - ilovehitler (10/08/2013) [-]
flagged for being a ******
User avatar #49 to #43 - griffeni (10/08/2013) [-]
flagged for racisim
#293 to #43 - garymotherfinoak (10/09/2013) [-]
That made me laugh harder than it should have
User avatar #32 to #27 - oubliette (10/08/2013) [-]
still maid?
User avatar #34 to #32 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
someone got b&
u booty blasted
User avatar #112 to #20 - trivdiego (10/08/2013) [-]
you're still alive? I remember you were top commentor forever
User avatar #125 to #112 - ragingbrony ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
Yes, I'm still alive.
#163 to #20 - neokun ONLINE (10/08/2013) [-]
I once posted a picture of a girl smothered in 			****		, you can barely even tell she's naked there is so much 			****		. Heck I didn't even notice it till I got a 24 hour ban on it. Whoever done that, you suck.   
   
I'll probably get banned for this one too...
I once posted a picture of a girl smothered in **** , you can barely even tell she's naked there is so much **** . Heck I didn't even notice it till I got a 24 hour ban on it. Whoever done that, you suck.

I'll probably get banned for this one too...
#115 - lolokoko **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
Pfff... Don't ya know?

Mods have been searching rule breaking pictures with the allcomment thingie they installed. You could'a posted something months or years ago, and they can find it if they dig deep enough.

Everyone is getting banned for stupid things now. There's no rhyme nor reason for the bans either. There's really no standard, since bans are based on opinion and not facts. Post something and pray you don't tick off any of the mods short fuse, that's how it works now.

And it goes both ways, here and in the **** section. Just ask anyone, and they'll chant it.

Admin has made the common mistake of choosing biased mods, and that's it. You can have bronies posting rule-breaking stuff and getting out scat free. Or one mod making up a list of people and a list of reasons why he "thinks" they should be banned.

Hell, you can even bribe admin into unbanning you. Someone else did it before, and I bet is not the last time. Bans aren't permanent, thankfully, if you get on your knees and suck some dick. I'd rather delete the account and create a new one.
User avatar #197 to #115 - trivdiego (10/09/2013) [-]
how did someone bribe admin?
User avatar #199 to #197 - lolokoko **User deleted account** (10/09/2013) [-]
Basically, he traded three people in for his account.

As in, actively searched for 3 rule-breakers, and then asked for his account back.
User avatar #204 to #199 - trivdiego (10/09/2013) [-]
seems like a pretty ****** deal to me. these days practically anyone can be classified as a rule-breaker
User avatar #215 to #204 - lolokoko **User deleted account** (10/09/2013) [-]
Pretty much.

So that whole "bans are irreversible" thing got thrown out the window quick.
User avatar #286 to #115 - garymotherfinoak (10/09/2013) [-]
allcomment thingie, explain dis.
User avatar #425 to #286 - lolokoko **User deleted account** (10/09/2013) [-]
There used to be this nifty page on funnyjunk that allowed you to see all the comments.

It could be used by users to try to get more reaction pictures, but mods use it as well to catch rule-breakers.
#295 to #115 - cirruss (10/09/2013) [-]
So all that 			****		 is still saved? Well i better hope i don't get banned for those GuP things i posted a long-ass while ago.
So all that **** is still saved? Well i better hope i don't get banned for those GuP things i posted a long-ass while ago.
#193 - shitflippingpattie (10/09/2013) [-]
Well, I think Mudkips are sexy. Do I get a ban too?
User avatar #366 to #193 - greenstrongworld (10/09/2013) [-]
No because you don't **** them.
+9
#178 - bigdikdave has deleted their comment [-]
#169 - arcticassassin (10/08/2013) [-]
It says I had a thumbing violation a while back. I was so startled.
What for?
No one knows.
User avatar #61 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
Even worse than that, the moronic moderators won't stop flagging 5 MONTH OLD sfw pictures posted on the SECOND PAGE of my PROFILE.

They couldn't have just "found it"

They were actively searching for it.
User avatar #64 to #63 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
I have a hard time believing that.

You're one of them.
User avatar #65 to #64 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
If it was me, it would say "Flagged by Phanact" when you got the ban
User avatar #66 to #65 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
I'm fairly sure you're a moderator.

It would say "Flagged by a MODERATOR"


And it did
User avatar #69 to #66 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
The user who gets flagged, as well as all the other mods can see who flagged a user
User avatar #73 to #69 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
Well it said moderator.
User avatar #75 to #73 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
It would look like this
puu.sh/4KRM5.png

And I IP banned myself in the process of trying to show you this
User avatar #76 to #75 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
You should keep it that way lel
User avatar #127 to #61 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
Someone kept doing that to my other account, so I deleted my old account. Ain't gonna be subject to that **** .

User avatar #128 to #127 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
The mods are ****** assholes. I've given multiple complaints about them.
User avatar #129 to #128 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
Yeah, the worst part about it is that I never post outright nudity. I never have. I use dildos, but I don't think that counts, considering we have a god damn channel for dildos, which occasionally reach frontpage.

I contributed with funny, original images, and I got flack for it. It's ridiculous how strict things are.
User avatar #130 to #129 - cupcakescankill (10/08/2013) [-]
I have never posted anything more lewd than the ads on this site, yet I still get banned because admin is afraid of scaring away those advertisers.
User avatar #131 to #130 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/08/2013) [-]
Well if anything, i hope the outcry of the community can do something about it. I'd love to get back to creating stuff for this site, but if I am going to at the whim of whoever deems my content appropriated based on their personally, misguided opinions of "safe for work", then I simply won't offer my services to the community.
User avatar #2 - austoboyko (10/08/2013) [-]
I was banned for posting a pic with a dildo in it,attached to a toy helicopter. For 6 hours. So i think its "No discriminating against women" Because dicks only gets you 6 hours not life.
User avatar #53 to #2 - savirleo (10/08/2013) [-]
few months ago I got banned for posting a gif in September. Don't know why they waited months for that, and the girl wasn't even naked.
User avatar #5 to #2 - adu (10/08/2013) [-]
I got 6 hour comment banned for posting a gif of Kamina slapping his ass.

Totally kinky, right? You know, the kind of stuff they've been showing on children's cartoons for the last 20 years? Heaven forbid...
User avatar #25 to #5 - johnthunda (10/08/2013) [-]
oh i know right i was slapping this chicks ass with my dick, not even sexual dude
User avatar #54 to #25 - adu (10/08/2013) [-]
No, actually I'm just talking about two semicircles on a guy's rear. The same **** that people watched on Cow and Chicken and Ren and Stimpy.
#217 - robbyarcane (10/09/2013) [-]
Don't you have to be 18 to sign up for the site anyway? Even 9gag has this **** down.
#62 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
Only admin can permaban
Or set times on bans
I can only ban by flagging comments, and its a max of 6 hrs, so I can't do any harm
Admin must have done it himself, and he doesn't unban anyone anymore
#364 to #62 - anon (10/09/2013) [-]
Full of yourself much?
User avatar #372 to #364 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
wjta
#110 to #62 - lokiak (10/08/2013) [-]
so, I got a 6 hour ban for posting an unedited photo in **** to a picture that was edited to make it look like a person wasn't wearing clothes. Is there a reason for that? I saw nothing in the rules for it and have gotten no response from the email I sent in asking about it. I mean, shouldn't there be a reason given for the flag?
User avatar #374 to #110 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
I don't know. I don't regulate anything on the ****
#262 to #62 - jimthesquirrelking (10/09/2013) [-]
Hoooly **** , you still comment?
User avatar #136 to #62 - emadeus (10/08/2013) [-]
So Phanact, since you're a moderator you know how thing work on FJ.
Admin, is he the same guy all along or is it a new one?
User avatar #373 to #136 - phanact (10/09/2013) [-]
Even I don't know
User avatar #77 to #62 - adu (10/08/2013) [-]
Perhaps admin sees which things you flag, and decides to up the punishment for whatever reason?
#78 to #77 - phanact (10/08/2013) [-]
I wouldn't doubt it
User avatar #255 to #78 - lamarisagoodname (10/09/2013) [-]
What a moneywhoring dick

And he can take that to the bank, I rest my account on this. The only good thing about funnyjunk is it's community, and he's screwing that just because he's scared of whomever advertises on this site
User avatar #166 to #77 - feyhu (10/08/2013) [-]
last I heard phanact was admin...
User avatar #8 - lilmatty (10/08/2013) [-]
Its simple, you do anything, you get banned
#375 - seventh (10/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Admin, is this good or too revealing?
[ 413 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)