More Clarification And Consistent Enforcement of the "Borderline NSFW" Rule

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

And where is the line drawn for BNSFW picture of a "sexual" nature?

How does one decide what pushes the boundaries of taste in that?

 

There is no strict line in the sense that any one example could encapsulate every case. The rule is applied on a case-by-case basis, though some are clearer than others (or should be, as the case may be). In the spirit of Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it. More specifically, though, context is by and large our guide.

 

But tell me, what guidelines would be sufficient? What would they entail? You've dedicated a lot of energy to decrying the current system, but I have yet to see you propose a suitable alternative.

 

 

What better way to highlight a system that needs fixing, than by posting examples of times people got burned for ambiguous content?

People sharing these experiences will undoubtedly only further the argument of a clearer guideline.

 

That was not what was going on here. We had multiple members dragging in warning histories -- some of which were not even their own -- not out of academic interest but because of personal qualms. It was becoming a tremendous mess and distraction.

 

 

Fail safes that I, for example, did not receive.

No warning my post was removed, no stern talking to, just BAM. 250 warning points for a picture that was, even if you (generally) were the most sensitive man on Earth, is at most, PG-13 hand that's pushing it).

 

Hence why I said "generally speaking," which is to say in most cases but not all. We are not obligated under every circumstance to PM a member regarding offensive content.

 

The other fail-safes, i.e., PMing a moderator or submitting a support ticket, are still at your disposal.

[Simon 4,554]

I absolutely agree with that it's not as simple as just creating a perfect definition that instantly explains the rule to everybody.  My entire educational background is in the law and criminal justice, so trust me when I say that trying to come up with a definition for a rule or law is nearly impossible... lawyers wouldn't exist if laws were written in a way that the average person could understand what was and was not legal... 

 

The fact of the matter is that any definitional standard is either going to be too broad or too narrow... either things that shouldn't be on the forum will be permissible under the rule and then we'd have to leave them, or things that should be permissible under the rule will fall within the definition and a user will be unfairly punished.  The reason for this is that while there are things that are clearly acceptable, and clearly not acceptable, there's a grey zone where the two lines bleed together and it's nearly impossible to draw a line that perfectly divides what is and is not permissible from the forum.

 

That being said, while it's impossible to have a definition to put on the forum that can make everything clear, and I think that suggestion is a gross over simplification of the issue, I do want to emphasize that there are other ways to reduce the arbitrariness factor as I suggested earlier.

 

I want to talk a bit more about my earlier suggestion to assign mods and admins to be in charge of a particular rule.  The way this would work, as I said before, is that a single staff member (or two for rules that are more commonly violated) would be assigned to make the final determination of how to best punish an individual for some rule violation.  By having a single member assigned to all instances of one rule violation, they really become an expert on that area... where under the current system, a moderator may only have a NSFW violation pop up once or twice in the entire time they work on the forum, and thus might not have a great frame of reference for determining how much to punish that person, this individual would deal with that same problem all the time, so they would have a really good understanding of how to deal with it.  Since they would be the person who made that determination for every other rule violation as well, they would also be able to make sure that it wasn't being unfairly applied.  If they knew that they gave one person a 2 day ban for something similar, they could give the same punishment this time.

 

On top of that there are a ton of other benefits... by having this list of moderator assignments made available to the members, we'd know exactly who to contact to ask if it's okay to post something.  For example, let's say SCS was our NSFW expert and I want to post some risque picture of Fluttershy... I would know that I could PM SCS and get a really accurate answer as to whether or not it's okay to post it.  However, under the current system, SCS might think the picture is fine, and then another mod could come in and ban me for posting it, not knowing SCS had already said it was okay.

 

It's far from a perfect system, but if there was a perfect system, I'd go become a politician and use that knowledge to reform the courts instead of worrying about this forum.  The fact of the matter, however, is that even though we all know that the moderators here are wonderful and have nothing but good intentions, any time 20 different people are making individual decisions on a rule, you're going to have it inconsistently applied.  I really think that some slight alterations to the way the moderating is done on this forum could reduce some of the arbitrariness which would not only help the forum, but help to reduce some of the stress from the staff.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

There is no strict line in the sense that any one example could encapsulate every case. The rule is applied on a case-by-case basis, though some are clearer than others (or should be, as the case may be). In the spirit of Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it. More specifically, though, context is by and large our guide.

 

But tell me, what guidelines would be sufficient? What would they entail? You've dedicated a lot of energy to decrying the current system, but I have yet to see you propose a suitable alternative.

 

 

That was not what was going on here. We had multiple members dragging in warning histories -- some of which were not even their own -- not out of academic interest but because of personal qualms. It was becoming a tremendous mess and distraction.

 

 

Hence why I said "generally speaking," which is to say in most cases but not all. We are not obligated under every circumstance to PM a member regarding offensive content.

 

The other fail-safes, i.e., PMing a moderator or submitting a support ticket, are still at your disposal.

1. That's what this thread is for. To reach Geth consensus.

 

-Edited for "niceness", upon OPs request. You get off the hook for trying to downplay my POV. This time.-

 

I would propose a sit down and an active discussion within moderator circles about what would be BNSFW and what wouldn't.

It may be "hard", but most beneficial things are.

 

It's been drilled into my head around here (directly and indirectly) to keep it PG-13.

View it from.that stand point.

 

 

2. Hardly a distraction. At least not to me. It's more like...no, evidence is too strong a word.

 

3. It definitely would be helpful.

 

Edit: beh. No need for that here.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Dattebayo

[Shanks 10,811]

lawyers wouldn't exist if laws were written in a way that the average person could understand what was and was not legal... 

The problem with that argument is we are talking about "borderline NSFW" policy on a fourm not the law in a courtroom. I am not saying there aren't complicate situations on this matter but I don't think you can even begin to compare the those situations especially with all the funny business the government and major corporations try to pull though I guess that is a topic for another thread and another time.

 

 

lawyers wouldn't exist if laws were written in a way that the average person could understand what was and was not legal... 

True, but the constitution itself arguably the most important legal document ever was deliberately written to be as simple as possible so that the average person could understand it. That of course dosen't mean there isn't occasional complication even if certain people can overcomplicate certain things in my opinion but while of course there won't be a "perfect" solution to this we can at least work toward where it is as clear as is reasonably possible.

 

 

by having this list of moderator assignments made available to the members, we'd know exactly who to contact to ask if it's okay to post something.  For example, let's say SCS was our NSFW expert and I want to post some risque picture of Fluttershy... I would know that I could PM SCS and get a really accurate answer as to whether or not it's okay to post it.

It certainly could help with consistency but with how many moderators and admins have resigned due to a varity of reasons there could be some changes as to how things are handled should the "NSFW expert" decide to resign. It is something that I think is worth of consideration though could probably use a bit of tweaking.

1. That's what this thread is for. To reach Geth consensus.

Yes, I do want to stress that that is indeed one of my main reasons for making this thread. I alone can't form a new policy and never intended to, not can anyone else but together we can talk about this and come up with a compromise which of course won't make absolutely everyone happy at all times can at least remove a great deal of confusion and be seen as fair by most people.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

I don't want a simple blanket-all rule saying what is allowed and what is not. That'd be impractical and silly.

 

I want a sort of guideline or at least prolonged conversation that basically helps removes all (or most) personal prejudices and and sensitivities from the moderation equation.

It's definitely not easy. But again. Most good things aren't

Edited July 17, 2014 by Dattebayo

[Simon 4,554]

The problem with that argument is we are talking about "borderline NSFW" policy on a fourm not the law in a courtroom. I am not saying there aren't complicate situations on this matter but I don't think you can even begin to compare the those situations especially with all the funny business the government and major corporations try to pull though I guess that is a topic for another thread and another time.

It's actually not as different as you think.  While the severity of the situation you're dealing with is different, in both instances you're talking about trying to figure out whether something is permissible, or impermissible conduct, and putting that into a definition so people know what is and is not illegal or impermissible.  The problem is that for thousands of years, governments haven't been able to really make understandable laws that are thorough and can be applied in the way legislature really wants them to.  The same is true here... we can make a definition easily that can be applied to borderline nsfw conduct, but you're going to either have people getting punished who don't deserve it, or you're going to have people's content being left up even though it'd probably be better if it were taken down.  That's because once you put down a definition and apply it strictly, there's always going to be something that falls into the cracks.  That's why our legal system is so complicated... you don't just have a definition, you have a definition, then you have exceptions to the law like self defense, and then you have exceptions to those exceptions... and then you have courts interpretations of the law which are called the common law... it's just a really super complicated way of doing things and it really can't be neatly done on a forum setting without resulting in unfair punishments of some sort.

 

The fact of the matter is that while this forum may not be dealing with as severe of matters as the legal system, it's always the same complexity to form a definition, and you're going to have the same issues.

 

 

 

True, but the constitution itself arguably the most important legal document ever was deliberately written to be as simple as possible so that the average person could understand it. That of course dosen't mean there isn't occasional complication even if certain people can overcomplicate certain things in my opinion but while of course there won't be a "perfect" solution to this we can at least work toward where it is as clear as is reasonably possible.

 

 

Honestly, if you had any idea how distorted our constitution has become, you wouldn't be bringing up this analogy.  I won't get too far off subject into an analysis of constitutional law in the U.S. but suffice to say that while the language of the Constitution is simple, the interpretations of the Constitution over the years are inordinately complex, and it's the epitome of why definitions simply don't work very well.  To give you an example, the Eighth Amendment states very plainly that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  However because it's so straightforward and simple, it left a ton of questions unanswered... so now the Supreme Court was left with constantly figuring out what is an excessive fine, what is cruel and unusual punishment, and what is excessive bail.  That's left us with literally hundreds of thousands of pages of Supreme Court decisions which lawyers have to sift through to find the current status of the law.  It's really a horrible, terrible system and it's the exact reason why trying to come up with a definition on a site like this just doesn't work out.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Simon

[Panne 1,342]

I just want a place where I can talk about clop tastefully with out having to go to the "scary" side of the web. I mean I do participate in off site groups, but they never really expand because they are closed communities and I can't find new cloppers to talk with. Then your stuck talking with the same 5-10 people and it begins to not feel like a commune of members, but a small exclusive club. I just love new ideas/views/thoughts but I can never openly find them on this side of the web and I've tried going to the other sites to find new people, but all that happens is I find really really really creepy people that scare even me. That's why I wish this could get hammered out, so that I could openly talk about this stuff.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

I just want a place where I can talk about clop tastefully with out having to go to the "scary" side of the web. I mean I do participate in off site groups, but they never really expand because they are closed communities and I can't find new cloppers to talk with. Then your stuck talking with the same 5-10 people and it begins to not feel like a commune of members, but a small exclusive club. I just love new ideas/views/thoughts but I can never openly find them on this side of the web and I've tried going to the other sites to find new people, but all that happens is I find really really really creepy people that scare even me. That's why I wish this could get hammered out, so that I could openly talk about this stuff.

Sorry friend, but this will never be the site for that...ever.

Mods could state the "future flamewars" or the "someone will PROBABLY post something NSFW later" reasons, and other users might say that it's "just plain wrong".

 

Whatever the case, it's not gonna happen peacefully in this forum any time soon

 

/now that you said the word "clop", this thread is going down for sure

[Panne 1,342]

Sorry friend, but this will never be the site for that...ever.

Mods could state the "future flamewars" or the "someone will PROBABLY post something NSFW later" reasons, and other users might say that it's "just plain wrong".

 

Whatever the case, it's not gonna happen peacefully in this forum any time soon

 

/now that you said the word "clop", this thread is going down for sure

I just wish that sites weren't either 100% porn or 100% anti. I wish there were more sites that you could easily navigate between the two. My ideal site would be a age required (that way if people lie you aren't at fault), everything free to discussion (except terrorism etc.), and if you aren't 18 you can't touch the filter settings.

 

 

But yes Datte Clopping... such a common thing I wonder why it's even treated as a problem.Though I suppose the Brony fandom itself is divided into like 4 groups when it comes to clopping: The cloppers, the live and let live group, the close their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist group, and the burn all cloppers at the stake group. (I have belonged to each group at one point.) Honestly for a fandom based around harmony and friends we sure do love ripping ourselves apart.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

I just wish that sites weren't either 100% porn or 100% anti. I wish there were more sites that you could easily navigate between the two. My ideal site would be a age required (that way if people lie you aren't at fault), everything free to discussion (except terrorism etc.), and if you aren't 18 you can't touch the filter settings.

 

 

But yes Datte Clopping... such a common thing I wonder why it's even treated as a problem.Though I suppose the Brony fandom itself is divided into like 4 groups when it comes to clopping: The cloppers, the live and let live group, the close their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist group, and the burn all cloppers at the stake group. (I have belonged to each group at one point.) Honestly for a fandom based around harmony and friends we sure do love ripping ourselves apart.

We do it because, deep down, we're all candy colored equines.

 

Unrelated: /Check the latest message of your PMs.

[Panne 1,342]

Unrelated: /Check the latest message of your PMs.

Sorry I haven't been getting PM notifications lately and my content page is still broke... sorry that you had to come all the way out here to notify me.

[Mlpfan185 1,763]

I've read through this, and here is my 2 cents for what it's worth:

 

I have a wildly varied 1200+ post on these forums. I've never received a single warning point. Not once. This is not something I would normally talk about, but I think the situation warrants it. How have I avoided staff action against my account? If it doesn't belong on the show, don't post it. Simple.

 

In both the case of the dog and the Nazi picture. Neither of those two things belong on the show, and they certainly don't belong on a forums dedicated to MLP. There exist a board for every type of content, and if you want to discuss Nazi crap or violent expressions of animal rights, take it to those boards.

 

I see allot of chatter about "loosing faith in MLP Forums," and "not coming back." The staff here work for free, no, they work overtime for free. MLP brings allot of hate (I know this is surprising), most of the users here wouldn't believe the tremendous amount of straight up trash that the moderators remove daily.

 

Some might just see this post as the massaging or brown nosing staff. I have no reason to do this, as I haven't made MLP Forums a staple of my life like some of ya'll have.

 

To the MLP Forums moderators:

 

These people want a rule, a line drawn in the sand for media content including pictures. Obviously this wouldn't apply to discussion topics so much, just media. OK, I've got one for ya.

 

"If it doesn't belong on the show, it doesn't belong here."

[Jeric 46,835]

 

"If it doesn't belong on the show, it doesn't belong here."

Well, that is actually more vague than the current rule, especially considering the complaint and scenario shared by a specific user who posted in this forum using a show asset. Also, some of the screen caps definitely lend themselves to inadvertent suggestive meme's, which would likely find us right back where we started. You are not going to please everyone as SCS has already stated, but if the grievance is aired and discussed thoughtfully (as was the intention of EBP) it can have a constructive conclusion.

 

Just don't listen to my ideas on this ... been working for large corporations for way too long. O-0

[Mlpfan185 1,763]

Well, that is actually more vague than the current rule, especially considering the complaint and scenario shared by a specific user who posted in this forum using a show asset. Also, some of the screen caps definitely lend themselves to inadvertent suggestive meme's, which would likely find us right back where we started. You are not going to please everyone as SCS has already stated, but if the grievance is aired and discussed thoughtfully (as was the intention of EBP) it can have a constructive conclusion.

 

Just don't listen to my ideas on this ... been working for large corporations for way too long. O-0

Therin lay the problem. This rule has been working for me, but may be confusing to someone else. There shouldn't need to even be a rule on this. As a general guideline, if you question it, don't post it.

 

Would they show a dog being shot on the show? No. Don't post it.

Would they show Nazi anything on the show? No. Don't post it.

 

If I posted a video of someone hunting deer - while I personally have no problem with people hunting for food - I would expect at the very least, a warning. Why? Simply because I wouldn't expect to see it on the show.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

"If it doesn't belong on the show, it doesn't belong here."

While that's restrictive as balls, that would still be an "improvement".

 

It has too many loopholes and is still free for too much interpretation, though.

The show itself has ponies walking around "naked". Where do we draw the line on fan content that has the same ponies in the same "nakedness"? Am I to assume that ANY picture that has show-quality pony butt is no-good?

Because one man's "picture of pony butt" is another man's "sexual intent".

 

At it's very core, we come back to individual preferences and sensitivities again.

 

As it is now, if you question something that may not seem "that bad" for you, you show the media in question to a moderatorm and he/she okays-it, then goochie. You post it.

But if another mod sees it and thinks it's an offence worthy of a BNSFW warning and warning points, you're f*cked.

It is my hope that this thread will produce ideas that will reduce incidents like this from happening due to different desensitivites and tastes.

[Shanks 10,811]

"If it doesn't belong on the show, it doesn't belong here."

I will admit that that would be a lot more consistent than the current rule however it is very easy to simply say "if it dosen't belong in the show it dosen't belong here" but the fact is that the rules of this site do allow for many topics which will never ever be addressed in the show. Sex, violence, drugs, politics, death none of those things will ever be addressed in the show yet the rules here allow those subjects to be discussed so long as they don't get too graphic which is reasonable but the problem lies in that sort of area in between SFW and NSFW called "borderline NSFW". The fact is that the only way we could have a rule like that in effect is to ban all discussion of those subjects that I mentioned which is actually a bit too stringent than is comfortable for the staff as well as for more of the users even if as I have said before it is far more consistent and leaves much less room for misterpreation than the current policy.

 

The fact is that so long as these subjects are allowed on here we need to have a clear guidline on exactly how far is too far which we clearly do not. There is the stuff like visible gentalia, sexual acts, decapitations and stabbings which are so obvious that pretty much everyone with half a brain knows they don't belong here but there is also material that while it may not approach that level of severity still exists. There is obvious stuff even among that but there is also I have mentioned before inconsistency on what is considered "borderline NSFW" and what is not leading to some things of similar explicitness being let go while other similar things are removed or even some things that may not be as explicit.

 

While these topics are allowed for discussion on here which they likely will be I think it is within the best interest of both the staff and the users that the guidelines be made more clear and there is more consistency on what is and isn't considered "borderline NSFW". Believe it or not most of us here aren't looking for some excuse just to try to find loopholes and get away with stuff and that even includes some of us that may have been cited before for "borderline NSFW". We just want to know what the score is so that we don't inadvertantly end up getting in trouble for something similar that someone else didn't get in trouble for. I also want to stress that while it is great that you are yet to get any warning points that NSFW and "borderline NSFW" aren't the only potential things that users can get in trouble for. My first warning which I will not go into detail about in respect to the rules here about that was not for either but it was the one I actually feel the worst about.

Edited July 18, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[Thrashy 2,799]

Disclaimer: This post and the content contained therein has been admin approved.

 

As a general guideline, if you question it, don't post it.

 

What one person considers "questionable" may differ drastically from what another person subjectively determines to be "questionable". While it's pretty much universally agreed that any images depicting genitalia or overt sexual acts are too graphic for sharing over these boards, that's about where the agreements end.

 

Point is, arbitrary judgment simply doesn't work out. I've seen the mods take down (and in one instance, hand out WPs for) images that are really no more suggestive than the following:

 

 

 

 

 

...all of which are from the show, per your own guideline of not posting anything you wouldn't find in the show itself. I'm sure you could argue that none of these was intended to be an actual innuendo by the writers, but A.) many could argue otherwise, citing various other kids' cartoons that slipped in far more risqué adult humor that went undetected by parents for years [see Animaniacs]; B.) I could argue that whether or not innuendos were intended, people could still find them "questionable" nonetheless, hence the argument at hand - should the staff's method of dealing with BNSFW content really hinge on judgment calls based on what people may find objectionable, or should there be a more concrete definition of exactly what constitutes NSFW?

 

Whatever's really going on behind the mod panel, it simply isn't working...at least, not in a way that most people would consider "fair". The global rules of the site state the following of sexual content:

 

[...] we politely ask that you keep all fetishistic, pornographic, and other "not safe for work" material off of here, whether it is art, fan fiction, or otherwise.

 

These terms are vague beyond reason. It's been explained to me that specifics create loopholes, but if anyone here is at all familiar with law, it is usually the vaguely-worded documents like SOPA and PIPA that get struck down by legislators. Vagueness doesn't mitigate the problem of loopholes, but exacerbates them.

 

Pray tell, what constitutes "fetishistic"? Whips and chains? Hell if I know...perhaps I should report myself for this pic I drew. I mean, it does look an awful lot like bondage, dunnit?

 

What constitutes "pornographic" or "not safe for work"? Well, to me, NSFW constitutes explicit nudity, depiction of "unspecified" bodily fluids and porn. And porn (again, to me) constitutes any form of sexual intercourse, masturbation, or situation in which such sexual activity appears to be imminent. But again, quite a few removed pics don't seem to depict any of this.

 

I generally dislike having to use my own personal experiences as examples, but the lines are so blurred that I've felt the need to consult a mod or admin on numerous occasions - often "off-duty" on Skype - as to whether or not it's wise for me to share a pic. The responses I get are normally within my own realm of common sense, ranging from "Nothing I'd hand out WPs for" to "Sexual humor is fine. We're not a bunch of prudes here. :P" And although these responses are in line with my own common sense, I can't rely on common sense when I've seen people get punished for sharing pics that I've thought were pretty benign. And I just feel like I shouldn't have to pester a staff member every single time I want to share something that might qualify as even remotely risqué.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do see the drawbacks of what we're asking here. But I personally feel the pros of clarifying the rules, as well as clarifying the mod team's guidelines by which NSFW and BNSFW content are to be approached, vastly outweighs the cons.

 

Just my 2/100s of a dollar.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Applethrash

[SCS 7,443]

I've already posted my thoughts here, I just want to briefly mention that this has now been brought up for discussion among the staff. This rule does need more clarification and more consistent enforcement, and we're going to try to make sure that's done sooner rather than later.

[Jeric 46,835]

I've already posted my thoughts here, I just want to briefly mention that this has now been brought up for discussion among the staff. This rule does need more clarification and more consistent enforcement, and we're going to try to make sure that's done sooner rather than later.

 

 I appreciate the update and transparency, as I am sure others will too.

[yeet 2,026]

I think maybe there could be different levels of warnings for NSFW content.

Say for instance my warning, I think Dawn Rider gave me the warning. I got that amount of points because one, I haven't really had any warnings regarding this issue before, and two, because it wasn't really that bad was it.

So say if it's just something like that, and it's the first time, i'd say 50 warning points just to show to try and get a point across that it shouldn't be done, or maybe 100. Then if they do it again go up some more or what ever.

Then there's images, if there is an image that is borderline then I guess 250. But if there is an image that is completely NSFW (e.g. anthro pony completely nude, everything can be seen or something) Then I think an immediate suspension, like 5-10 days. That is if they aren't perma banned for it. I realise that NSFW content like that is a seven day ban or something as well.

 

Also, if i'm not allowed to talk about my warnings, could a staff please either remove that section, or tell me in a PM so I can change it. Thanks.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Brechard

[Shanks 10,811]

I've already posted my thoughts here, I just want to briefly mention that this has now been brought up for discussion among the staff. This rule does need more clarification and more consistent enforcement, and we're going to try to make sure that's done sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the update, Artemis told me in PM form as well as a few of the other users I have spoken with on this matter however either way the update is appreciated and it is good to know that this matter is being discussed amongst the staff as a matter of fact that was one of the main reasons I checked back in this thread actually.

 

 

I think maybe there could be different levels of warnings for NSFW content.

According to site rules "borderline NSFW" content is typically given 250 warning points however based on what I have heard moderators say this is a guideline which is adjusted according to circumstances you have mentioned like the users warn history, if they have done this sort of thing before ect. The only "borderline NSFW' warning I have had which I won't go into detail about was 100 points though it was a fairly obvious case and the moderator in question did treat me fairly. Full blown NSFW content will get you 800 warning points and a 7 day suspension at bare minimum and a strong possibility of a perma ban. The issue is not full blown NSFW content, the enforcement of that has been for the most part consistent except for that one case I mentioned in the OP where as I have said it was bad judgment on the users part to post a video of a dog getting shot but not something that deserved a 7 day suspension and near banning especially with an otherwise clean record while someone who posts Nazi Rarity and Rarity gore pics to troll only gets a 2 day suspension.

[yeet 2,026]

@, Yeah, I understand that completely. And at some point I say that I know NSFW content is 800 points and probably perma ban.  

And yeah, that dog thing and those rarity pics. Everyone makes mistakes. But I think it could have been looked at again. But meh, staff are usually right in their judgments.

[baltoist 303]

I almost got in trouble for NSFW once. How do I know? 

[Jeric 46,835]

I almost got in trouble for NSFW once. How do I know? Capture.PNG

Well I don't know if that signifies anything. I've seen mods and admins pop in my profile and I didn't jump to the conclusion that I did anything inappropriate.

 

maybe you said something interesting or amusing

 

Shrugs

[baltoist 303]

Well I don't know if that signifies anything. I've seen mods and admins pop in my profile and I didn't jump to the conclusion that I did anything inappropriate.

 

maybe you said something interesting or amusing

 

Shrugs

I posted a status that said "Lets see how long it takes."