BipolarBear (2016-04-29 02:51:28)

---

Ok thats just BS

---

PANZERFAUST (2016-04-29 03:03:44)

---

None in the above spoiler have been removed.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 03:16:19

---

Lani (2016-04-29 03:14:13)

---

It's more about intent of the content, which is what makes some of the pics that have been posted worse than others despite them seeming to be the same thing--a girl just sitting in her underwear. However, take into consideration the focal point of the content...if attention is being drawn to her assets, the intent could be considered as sexual, which would make it NSFW. Otherwise, I would consider a girl sitting in her underwear with no particular focus on her assets to be "mildly mature", which should be contained in a spoiler with a content warning.

If you're seeing indecent content on TV, keep in mind that cable or other subscription services are not restricted by any "NSFW" laws unlike direct TV, radio, or public places. Likewise, programs after 10pm are not restricted by "NSFW" laws even for dircect TV or radio stations. If you've somehow seen provocative commercial or program content on dircect TV between 6am-10pm, it likely isn't sexually charged.

Opinions of what inappropriate content is varies cross country and around the world. Since this is the interent, it doesn't matter if your school or employer would be dandy with it, because my school or employer could very well not be. Standards here are held by whoever is in charge of it. I don't know if you have absolutely no filter anymore, but I certainly hope you're all capable of being sensitive to what others might consider to be "too sexual" for children to be exposed to. It honestly concerns me that some of you seem to be clueless to the fact that erotic pictures are, in fact, erotic....clearly, we can't always expect you to get it right all the time, which is why there's no consequence for posting it the first time; however, reposting content that has been removed by a moderator will result in a ban unless otherwise permitted by applicable authority.

I could really keep going on about this and add a few more miles to this post, however I hope this has gotten the point across well enough, since a few of you still seemed to be confused.
I think I've been compromising quite a bit on some of the content that has been posted here, and I doubt any of you really need to post NSFW to survive or something. This is a public site with no age restrictions...what do you expect? Go to 4chan if you NEED to share your creepy girls who could easily pass as 12 year olds if it wasn't for their tattoos.

---

PANZERFAUST (2016-04-29 03:17:03)

---

That doesn't explain the inconsistency in moderation.

Why don't you post the sexiest, SFW thing you can think of? Something just at the edge of your limit, so that anything past that would point would be something not allowed on Plaza. That way I could get an idea of what you consider (N)SFW. (Sorry for bad writing, I'm a little high.)

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 03:28:43

---

BipolarBear (2016-04-29 03:18:08)

---

^^ word tbh

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 03:18:53

---

UnhingedTool (2016-04-29 03:50:23)

---

^^^

Wow. Your profile pic is her now.

---

TheIronMadden (2016-04-29 03:50:59)

---

Wait a minute. Aren't the MLP characters depicted in those two images under the age of 18, especially the second picture? Not only do the mods cherry-pick what NSFW to remove, but some of the pictures that are kept up depict characters that are underaged.

Either they didn't care until recently, or some of the mods on this site promote pedophilia.

Also, might as well watch the drama unfold:

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 03:53:04

---

Lani (2016-04-29 03:53:39)

---

Ideally, I'd stray from anything even "remotely sexual". This isn't a "sexy thread", it's a cute/hot thread. While "hot" can be related with "sexy", it isn't as specific as "sexy" is. "Hot" can be used for an overall pretty, modest person, while "sexy" implies a more sexual appearance.
Considering anyone can find just about anything cute/hot, plenty of innocent pictures could be shared that way without the need of sexualization (note the score of earlier pics shared). That is, if you want to share a picture without having to hide it in a content warning spoiler, keep suggestive poses and exposed skin to an all time low...the furthest you could possibly push the envelope is pretty much whatever I've left in spoilers, even many of those are pushing it (such as the ones featured on your profile)...though your profile pic, for example, is perfectly fine with the amount of crop involved.


Edit: Also, cartoon characters are not real people and therefore not real minors...they're not bound under any minor laws. Even so, minors in their underwear is not inheriently sexual (need I share a Pampers diaper ad?). The two pony pics left in the spoiler aren't sexualized in any way that I can see.
Again, opinions on NSFW can vary between persons, so there will likely be some disagreements between mods here and there and some images such as the one I removed slips by sometimes....Yes, it's a very subjective subject which causes inconsistencies but hopefully we'll adapt to a set standard.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 04:07:02

---

TheIronMadden (2016-04-29 03:58:10)

---

^ But having pictures of ponies that appear to be like 10 years posing in panties isn't "remotely sexual"? Okay...

---

PANZERFAUST (2016-04-29 03:58:32)

---

Are the ones on my profile okay? I don't want to have to redo it again.

---

Lani (2016-04-29 04:13:56)

---

The ones on your profile are okay as long as there's a content warning, so I wouldn't prefer them as backgrounds that people have no choice to view or not.

Sorry Iron, it took me awhile to edit and I didn't notice you posted until after I updated. But yeah, there's no implications that there's any anatomical reason for them to be wearing clothes in the first place, so it's not sexual (that is, to the majority of people)....and it's not really suggestive. Compared to Panz's pics of realistic girls in lacy underwear, the ponies are innocent.

I mean, the original ponies are techincally naked, but it's not an issue because they're cartoon animals with no implied nasty bits.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 04:20:03

---

PANZERFAUST (2016-04-29 04:22:44)

---

I think my pictures are pretty innocent TBH. Just look at Lass's face.

---

NodePoint (2016-04-29 04:36:34)

---

The looks of innocence from one doesn't mean that they are innocent. Same goes for the refusal of removal.

This post has been edited one or more times, the last time was:
2016-04-29 04:39:02

---

UnhingedTool (2016-04-29 04:38:53)

---

Gee whiz.

---

PANZERFAUST (2016-04-29 04:56:03)

---

('Twas sarcasm.)

---