SVF Rule Change

[antiliberalsociety]

4. No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors
It's not rocket science.

Are pictures of my niece at her preschool graduation sexually suggestive? They might be, if you're perverted enough.

Are you allowed to be within 500 feet of said niece given your current charges and court order?

[kestrel9]

4. No posting child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors
It's not rocket science.

Are pictures of my niece at her preschool graduation sexually suggestive? They might be, if you're perverted enough.

Correct, any photo of children can be arousing to pedos. That's why I never post pictures of children, not because there's anything wrong with the photos, but because of the asshole pedos on this site.

[SearchVoat]

Correct, any photo of children can be arousing to pedos. That's why I never post pictures of children, not because there's anything wrong with the photos, but because of the asshole pedos on this site.

So you understand the problem. Where to draw the line when someone turns up and simply wants to proudly share photos of his loving family. Do we ban all photos of children? Greta Thunberg?

[kestrel9]

Correct, any photo of children can be arousing to pedos. That's why I never post pictures of children, not because there's anything wrong with the photos, but because of the asshole pedos on this site.

So you understand the problem. Where to draw the line when someone turns up and simply wants to proudly share photos of his loving family. Do we ban all photos of children? Greta Thunberg?

I would find it hard to believe that anyone here is posting photos of their loving family. But no, we don't have to ban all photos of children, just don't have pedo subverses. If you allow pedo subs then the TOS must announce that people who don't want pedos to fap over their kids' family photos shouldn't post them. Photos of Greta Thunberg might be helpful to keep pedos away /s

[Thisismyaccount]

Those 2 photos he posted in chat had sexually suggestive captions though, let's not forget that. Or the "hands up" photo link that he posted on Aug 8th that you removed and warned him about. Having seen the stuff, he has posted on talk.lol firsthand he is not to be trusted. Our experience with him and his perversions has taught us to be wary of him.

[SearchVoat]

don't have pedo subverses

they've already gone.

Those 2 photos he posted in chat had sexually suggestive captions though, let's not forget that. Or the "hands up" photo link that he posted on Aug 8th

they've gone too.

We won't have a problem with b4a, I'm just pondering about how the rule will work moving forward.

[MadWorld]

Those 2 photos he posted in chat had sexually suggestive captions though, let's not forget that. Or the "hands up" photo link that he posted on Aug 8th that you removed and warned him about. Having seen the stuff, he has posted on talk.lol firsthand he is not to be trusted. Our experience with him and his perversions has taught us to be wary of him.

The image of group nudity with minors in it is nothing to b4p. He finds this type of images all the time. Of course, it is not his fault that those images just come to him. /s

[SearchVoat]

We won't have a problem with b4a, I'm just pondering about how the rule will work moving forward.

Reminds me I should tag him so he doesn't have the excuse that he didn't see the rule change, but you wouldn't try that, would you @blumen4alles?

[antiliberalsociety]

Those 2 photos he posted in chat had sexually suggestive captions though, let's not forget that. Or the "hands up" photo link that he posted on Aug 8th that you removed and warned him about. Having seen the stuff, he has posted on talk.lol firsthand he is not to be trusted. Our experience with him and his perversions has taught us to be wary of him.

The image of group nudity with minors in it is nothing to b4p. He finds this type of images all the time. Of course, it is not his fault that those images just come to him. /s

It's okay on [enter site] and it's legal in the US, so it should be okay here too amirite.

[blumen4alles]

We won't have a problem with b4a, I'm just pondering about how the rule will work moving forward.

Reminds me I should tag him so he doesn't have the excuse that he didn't see the rule change, but you wouldn't try that, would you @blumen4alles?

HELL NO