Sexiest NS'er?

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

I realize the mods let those threads slide in the past, but are they against the rules by technicality?
Recent rulings as to what constitutes picspam would seem to make the thread against the rules.
In addition, is it not a thinly veiled popularity contest? Does it not sexualize any minors who post within the thread, making it very sketchy?

[Dyakovo]

viewtopic.php?p=10737184#p10737184
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=197300&p=10737137#p10737137
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=197300&p=10737062#p10737062
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=197300&p=10736931#p10736931

Some are bit sketchy as to being baiting, but there has been a long-standing unwritten rule (well except in the OP) that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...
In any case the Sexiest NS'er thread is not the place for a debate about sex vs. gender.

[Dyakovo]

He continues baiting...
viewtopic.php?p=10737395#p10737395

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

In defense of my posts, while the first is admittedly a slight bit sketchy, the rest were meant to read more as advice. Sure, it was somewhat harsh, but I considered it to be a necessary sin on my part. I probably should have done it via TG, but I don't think it's worth a ruling, really...

[Dyakovo]

And trying to expand the argument...
viewtopic.php?p=10737459#p10737459

Aure, unfortunately rose to the baiting.
viewtopic.php?p=10737478#p10737478

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

I was more stating the fact that you shouldn't have been the one to boss anyone around when you contributed to kindling the flames which started the argument in the first place.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I feel obliged to defend the two posts of mine which were linked to.

The one made earlier I was necessitated to be very blunt because if I was not, it would seem to be discriminatory and then may indeed be considered flamebaiting.
The one made later was simply pointing out that the thread is about sexiness rather than personality. One's sex does not necessarily determine how one identifies and vice-versa. Homosexuals can post pictures and they're still classified under their sex because the thread is about appearance, not identification. Someone asexual can post a picture and they will be, again, classified by their sex.

[Katganistan]

They're not against the rules so long as no one posts inappropriately.

[Sedgistan]

Would this be considered inappropriate, Katganistan?

This is my entry....

[Katganistan]

Edited.

[Dyakovo]

She's fully clothed, what exactly is the problem?
All you can see is a bit of her bra.

[Reploid Productions]

She's fully clothed, what exactly is the problem?
All you can see is a bit of her bra.

The issue was less that the bra was visible and more the obviously provocative intention of the image conveyed by the whole manhandling-the-breasts bit.

[Dyakovo]

She's fully clothed, what exactly is the problem?
All you can see is a bit of her bra.

The issue was less that the bra was visible and more the obviously provocative intention of the image conveyed by the whole manhandling-the-breasts bit.

Fair enough...
Her posting that pic was my bad as she was unsure if that was across the line and I told her it was fine.

[Reploid Productions]

Well, doesn't look like there was any official warnings over it- sometimes the line is a bit hazy like that. It was pretty obvious that the intent behind the post wasn't to go breaking the rules, it just accidentally came a little too close to the line and stepped over. Now, if there had been bare breasts or something, that'd be a different matter entirely.

[Stedicules]

Well, doesn't look like there was any official warnings over it- sometimes the line is a bit hazy like that. It was pretty obvious that the intent behind the post wasn't to go breaking the rules, it just accidentally came a little too close to the line and stepped over. Now, if there had been bare breasts or something, that'd be a different matter entirely.

Someone quoted it, Reppy.

[Katganistan]

In defense of my posts, while the first is admittedly a slight bit sketchy, the rest were meant to read more as advice. Sure, it was somewhat harsh, but I considered it to be a necessary sin on my part. I probably should have done it via TG, but I don't think it's worth a ruling, really...

Vandengaarde, we are well aware of your continuing hounding of Auremena. Knock it off. I believe you've already been told this in thread.

[Katganistan]

I feel obliged to defend the two posts of mine which were linked to.

The one made earlier I was necessitated to be very blunt because if I was not, it would seem to be discriminatory and then may indeed be considered flamebaiting.
The one made later was simply pointing out that the thread is about sexiness rather than personality. One's sex does not necessarily determine how one identifies and vice-versa. Homosexuals can post pictures and they're still classified under their sex because the thread is about appearance, not identification. Someone asexual can post a picture and they will be, again, classified by their sex.

I don't believe you are the original poster of that thread, and I don't believe he or she has made the distinction you appear to be making. Let the OP handle it as he or she wishes.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

In defense of my posts, while the first is admittedly a slight bit sketchy, the rest were meant to read more as advice. Sure, it was somewhat harsh, but I considered it to be a necessary sin on my part. I probably should have done it via TG, but I don't think it's worth a ruling, really...

Vandengaarde, we are well aware of your continuing hounding of Auremena. Knock it off. I believe you've already been told this in thread.

Was it really necessary to out me in the form of my old account in a public thread? It's not that I have anything to hide, but if I wish to leave behind a reputation, I think that's kind of my own business, especially since I really do want to start anew on here, and that didn't help one bit.

Also, I wasn't "hounding" him and he was being far more rude to me than I was to him. He got off with nothing, though. I don't see how that works. In addition, I said nothing rude that wasn't true.

[Sedgistan]

Given your record of harassing Auremena, and the fact you were continuing it, yes - it was appropriate to out you. You're hardly "starting anew" if you're continuing with exactly the same rulebreaking you've been doing for well over a year now.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

I find it fairly obvious that he is being defended in a very biased way which makes it impossible for me to be acquitted from this supposed offense.

[Katganistan]

Has nothing to do with the very long record we have of you going after Auremena stretching back over a year, am I right?

Reality IS biased that way.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

The fact that you don't see that these are isolated incidents is simply confusing to an extreme level. Quite obviously I was annoyed with his whining in the thread.

[NERVUN]

The fact that you don't see that these are isolated incidents is simply confusing to an extreme level. Quite obviously I was annoyed with his whining in the thread.

Then play elsewhere. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, a year of constant butting heads and rule breaking is a clear pattern and we don't care if you were annoyed or not.

[Katganistan]

Repeated incidents with the same person is what we call a pattern of behavior.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

I'm glad to know that I can never argue with someone twice, according to you all. Worst mod decision I've ever seen.