Difference between revisions of "Talk:DeviantART"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*The panty shot wasn't it. If you could be banned for something like that, a lot more people would be gone. The face rape is more likely; but even then one piece being removed, even for something like pornography, isn't enough for a ban. What would have done it was probably a report for a questionable and/or truly against policy piece which informed the admins that this was a ban-evading account. Ban evaders are immediately re-banned when they're discovered. --[[User:LizardPie|LizardPie]] 05:13, 29 August 2009 (CEST) | *The panty shot wasn't it. If you could be banned for something like that, a lot more people would be gone. The face rape is more likely; but even then one piece being removed, even for something like pornography, isn't enough for a ban. What would have done it was probably a report for a questionable and/or truly against policy piece which informed the admins that this was a ban-evading account. Ban evaders are immediately re-banned when they're discovered. --[[User:LizardPie|LizardPie]] 05:13, 29 August 2009 (CEST) | ||
* For the record: When I saw Cheguevaraplz's comment, I checked Chris's gallery, and lo and behold, the aforementioned washing-machine pantyshot was definitely deleted from the gallery. Of course, one can't say it's the sole reason they banned him. It could have been a factor. I definitely think that the combined fact that Chris admitted to evading a ban in his journal and people flagging his most questionable pictures left and right could have resulted a ban. --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' <span style="font-size:smaller;">([[User talk:Wwwwolf|wake me when you need me]])</span> 21:27, 29 August 2009 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 15:27, 29 August 2009
A pedofork drawing?
I didn't get to see CWC's dA soon enough, and am wondering about the pic that Chris was banned for. The poster of this comment leads me to believe that it was some sort of Rosey pantyshot, but the main article calls it the Rosechu washing-machine (maybe facerape?) pic. (If it was the facerape, Rosechu was 18, so it wouldn't have been child porn, although . If it wasn't facerape, then I'd like a better description of the pic.)
Not that I want to see the pic or anything if it is child porn (which disgusts me). However, I would like to know more about this "washing-machine pic," whether or not Cheguevaraplz was right about it/lying/whatever, and (most importantly) whether or not this means that perhaps Chris is a pedofork after all. --Spandam-sama 00:35, 29 August 2009 (CEST)
- The Pantyshot...I don't think the pantyshot is enough to get him banned, but with my understanding of DA's sometimes arcane policies (and observations as a long time Deviantartfag myself), the facerape would DEFINITELY get him banhammered. Plus, probably twenty people reported him. -- Needlepants 00:40, 29 August 2009 (CEST)
- The panty shot wasn't it. If you could be banned for something like that, a lot more people would be gone. The face rape is more likely; but even then one piece being removed, even for something like pornography, isn't enough for a ban. What would have done it was probably a report for a questionable and/or truly against policy piece which informed the admins that this was a ban-evading account. Ban evaders are immediately re-banned when they're discovered. --LizardPie 05:13, 29 August 2009 (CEST)
- For the record: When I saw Cheguevaraplz's comment, I checked Chris's gallery, and lo and behold, the aforementioned washing-machine pantyshot was definitely deleted from the gallery. Of course, one can't say it's the sole reason they banned him. It could have been a factor. I definitely think that the combined fact that Chris admitted to evading a ban in his journal and people flagging his most questionable pictures left and right could have resulted a ban. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (CEST)