Obligatory 'Why is D3V banned?' thread # 38

Just curious!

Though I already know why I think...

hahahaah I was waiting for this thread

http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44099

Tch, how childish.

Haven't looked at WetWired's link yet, but I'm pretty damn sure I know what it is.

Edit: Yup.

Wow... just wow.... Good thread title, MJ.

anyway, what's the link? I can't view it.

Yeah, me neither.

I reckon it'll be in the NSFW forum - I can't view it, either.

EDIT: "Eva Mendez nude in chatterbox" is the reason given.

.....

Don't you learn at all, D3V?

At least he's funny about it.

True. This is mildly entertaining.

Growing old, though.

Everyone and everything is growing old.

Very observant of you.

He posted nude pictures in the chat forum, knowing good and well that he'd get banned for it. We need a dumbass tag.

Good idea.

Just curious! Though I already know why I think...

Well, here's what went down through another forum exchanges.

It doesn't have to be pornographic to be against the rules. The rules say clothed. How do you figure her to be clothed?

I never said or figured she was.

So under this rule, you're going to tell me that something that would partain to somebody being naked, in essence, BUT had a censor bar over them would ALSO be against the rules? And technically, what else would be included with this rule? Say if somebody we're to post a half-naked picture of a guy with his shirt off, for example, would that break the rules? BECAUSE TECHNICALLY they wouldn't be fully clothed, if you respond with because they aren't naked would totally contradict your whole entire argument, hence, making you a hypocrit in the context of the rules which in case is overstupified and grounds for change.

You have to be clothed to go to most US beaches. Men are not required to wear tops to most US beaches, therefore... And yes, even if there are censor bars, if it is clear that the subject is not clothed, then it is against the rules.

I am posting this on behalf of the rest of the members...

The rule is in place to ensure that those who wish to view Zelaron from work or a formal environment (such as my office) can do so without risk. According to your logic, if I had full blown hardcore porn up as my screensaver in the office that would be alright as long as it was blurry and covered in censor bars. It doesn't work that way. The presumed intent is more of the issue. If WW's boss walked in and saw a huge image of a woman naked but covering herself with her hands, you can bet that he wouldn't say to WW "well, as long as I don't see any nipple it's O.K."

If you can't follow the rules to respect the rest of us, don't expect to garner any respect.

If you can't follow the rules to respect the rest of us, don't expect to garner any respect.

The only reason I even give a rat's ass is because I got shot down for putting SNWS in the title, being told that we have a NSFW section for a reason, which I don't choose to partipate at work, while I can still do so with SNWS pictures. It's a twisted argument. I guess i'll just restrain completely.

And the picture itself, Didn't show any actual nudity. She may have been naked, but was bent in such weird angles that you couldn't even see anything, which is the point I was trying to get at.