Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flutter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "===Proposing a Flutter policy=== It’s no secret that Christorians have bad actors amongst their ranks. It’s only a matter of time someone figures out her identity. Given that Chris met her in Lynchburg it’s highly likely she’s mentally handicapped in some capacity due to Chris living in a group home during the time he was located there. So since she’s likely to be an innocent bystander I think we should adopt a wallflower style policy for if/when her identity i...") |
Panasonichu (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. | Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. | ||
[[User:Homsar|Homsar]] ([[User talk:Homsar|talk]]) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (EDT) | [[User:Homsar|Homsar]] ([[User talk:Homsar|talk]]) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (EDT) | ||
:Chris mentions in his [[Setting the Record straight - there never was any sex involving me in 2021|latest video]] that Flutter reached out to him while he was in jail. That doesn't make it sound like he just happened upon her in Lynchburg, hardly making her an "innocent bystander" to me. In addition, there is currently zero indication that Flutter is mentally disabled in any way besides conjecture. Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded. I don't think these reasons are a good enough argument for yet another censorship policy. [[User:Panasonichu|Panasonichu]] ([[User talk:Panasonichu|talk]]) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 11:49, 18 October 2023
Proposing a Flutter policy
It’s no secret that Christorians have bad actors amongst their ranks. It’s only a matter of time someone figures out her identity. Given that Chris met her in Lynchburg it’s highly likely she’s mentally handicapped in some capacity due to Chris living in a group home during the time he was located there. So since she’s likely to be an innocent bystander I think we should adopt a wallflower style policy for if/when her identity is revealed by either a ween or Chris himself.
Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. Homsar (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (EDT)
- Chris mentions in his latest video that Flutter reached out to him while he was in jail. That doesn't make it sound like he just happened upon her in Lynchburg, hardly making her an "innocent bystander" to me. In addition, there is currently zero indication that Flutter is mentally disabled in any way besides conjecture. Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded. I don't think these reasons are a good enough argument for yet another censorship policy. Panasonichu (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (EDT)