Now Viewing: Want an image restored?
Keep it civil, do not flame or bait other users. If you notice anything illegal or inappropriate being discussed, contact an administrator or moderator.
Quote
Posted on: 12/23/10 12:55AM
Kentabarou said:
Thanks for the proof.
hentaiprovisions said:
I wasn't the one that deleted it BUUUUUUUUT since you insist: kaendd.deviantart.com/art/Sexy-Tsunade-from-Naruto-55735936
Kentabarou said:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1009411
"Non-japanese artist". show me the proof.
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1009411
"Non-japanese artist". show me the proof.
I wasn't the one that deleted it BUUUUUUUUT since you insist: kaendd.deviantart.com/art/Sexy-Tsunade-from-Naruto-55735936
Thanks for the proof.
np
Also I realized the long BUT might seem like I was being a douche, but it was more like I was being goofy. Sorry if I made it seem like I was being a jerk.
Posted on: 12/23/10 10:40AM
hentaiprovisions said:
np
Also I realized the long BUT might seem like I was being a douche, but it was more like I was being goofy. Sorry if I made it seem like I was being a jerk.
Kentabarou said:
Thanks for the proof.
hentaiprovisions said:
I wasn't the one that deleted it BUUUUUUUUT since you insist: kaendd.deviantart.com/art/Sexy-Tsunade-from-Naruto-55735936
Kentabarou said:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1009411
"Non-japanese artist". show me the proof.
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1009411
"Non-japanese artist". show me the proof.
I wasn't the one that deleted it BUUUUUUUUT since you insist: kaendd.deviantart.com/art/Sexy-Tsunade-from-Naruto-55735936
Thanks for the proof.
np
Also I realized the long BUT might seem like I was being a douche, but it was more like I was being goofy. Sorry if I made it seem like I was being a jerk.
It's OK
Posted on: 12/23/10 09:30PM
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=887037
The reason given is "bestiality", but the ToS refers to photos and "photorealistic" pictures. The style wasn't remotely realistic so I'm calling this one unfair, unless there's a blanket ban on bestiality-themed hentai now.
The reason given is "bestiality", but the ToS refers to photos and "photorealistic" pictures. The style wasn't remotely realistic so I'm calling this one unfair, unless there's a blanket ban on bestiality-themed hentai now.
Amy Rose gif
Posted on: 12/24/10 10:42AM
I didn't see what was wrong with this gif image and sega is from japan plus the pic looks anime and well done. anyway see for yourself
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=982003
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=982003
Posted on: 12/24/10 11:29AM
Batsu said:
I didn't see what was wrong with this gif image and sega is from japan plus the pic looks anime and well done. anyway see for yourself
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=982003
I didn't see what was wrong with this gif image and sega is from japan plus the pic looks anime and well done. anyway see for yourself
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=982003
Apostle made that image.
Apostle isn't Japanese.
Posted on: 12/24/10 01:55PM
Posted on: 12/29/10 09:34AM
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1017680
What the reason to screencap images to be prohibited?
What the reason to screencap images to be prohibited?
Posted on: 12/29/10 12:44PM
Kentabarou said:
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1017680
What the reason to screencap images to be prohibited?
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1017680
What the reason to screencap images to be prohibited?
It's resolved already.
Posted on: 01/15/11 01:32PM
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1027865
Now the "feces" part of the Grotesque rule is the only possible reason I could think that the post was deleted. In the following image, I have highlighted the offending area, which basically boils down to a small area that contains a slight shade of brown.
imgur.com/8HWTQ
In retrospect, the scat tag shouldn't have even been there.
Now, under the absolute letter of the law, I understand the the tinge of brown is in fact a violation; however I appeal that under the spirit of the law, such a minor thing does not qualify as scat. The focus of the image is not the minute amount of feces. The eroticism of the image comes not from the feces, nor are the feces a central part of the image in any way. It is roughly a 40x60 pixel area that, if this request is denied, I could easily Photoshop out and upload the edited image with no consequences. But should that be necessary, or should the image be restored with an acknowledgement that the spirit of that rule is designed to cover things that are genuinely grotesque, not this?
tl;dr: Not really scat or grotesque.
Now the "feces" part of the Grotesque rule is the only possible reason I could think that the post was deleted. In the following image, I have highlighted the offending area, which basically boils down to a small area that contains a slight shade of brown.
imgur.com/8HWTQ
In retrospect, the scat tag shouldn't have even been there.
Now, under the absolute letter of the law, I understand the the tinge of brown is in fact a violation; however I appeal that under the spirit of the law, such a minor thing does not qualify as scat. The focus of the image is not the minute amount of feces. The eroticism of the image comes not from the feces, nor are the feces a central part of the image in any way. It is roughly a 40x60 pixel area that, if this request is denied, I could easily Photoshop out and upload the edited image with no consequences. But should that be necessary, or should the image be restored with an acknowledgement that the spirit of that rule is designed to cover things that are genuinely grotesque, not this?
tl;dr: Not really scat or grotesque.
Add Reply