Snuff films ok, bewbs not? - Page 3

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Snuff films ok, bewbs not? (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 7/19/2012 7:51:45 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Here is some fancy T and A:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/T.gif&http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/A.gif

banned

Posted: 7/19/2012 7:52:38 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Here is some fancy T and A:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/T.gif&http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/A.gif

Your T&A are very bouncy

Posted: 7/19/2012 7:54:48 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Guy getting head cut off with chainsaw = OK

Human nipple = NOT OK

human female nipple. I haven't opened the HOTD forum but I'm betting that topless is okay in there. Talk about unequal application of the rules...

They can't show bare ass in HOTD, it's ok in BOTD.

Aaaaa, I'll take your word on that

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:05:11 AM EDT

[#4]

Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:12:57 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

You better believe it, buddy.

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:16:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I didn't realize there was a shortage of places on the Internet where one could find pics and videos of boobs.

We need to do something about this immediately.

I know!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:19:07 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Here is some fancy T and A:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/T.gif&http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/A.gif

banned

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:20:16 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Here is some fancy T and A:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/T.gif&http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/A.gif

banned

lol

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:21:42 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

You better believe it, buddy.

IDK, The one in the back? I can almost see the top of the ankle. Should I kill the img and issue warnings for everyone who looked?

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:22:20 AM EDT

[#10]

double tap

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:25:27 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

You better believe it, buddy.

IDK, The one in the back? I can almost see the top of the ankle. Should I kill the img and issue warnings for everyone who looked?

Don't tase me, bro!

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:29:26 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
seems odd you can link to guys getting greased, but nipples are bad. Thoughts???

what were you banned for under your other username ?

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:32:33 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

Al Bundy as the Old West Sheriff: I'm gonna go get an issue of "Bare Ankle"

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:33:00 AM EDT

[#14]

Allowing photos of naked women would also add arfcom to yet another category for these category based web filters.And then there's the advertisers, the people who pay to have their name here.

It's really not some conspiracy to deprive everyone of the sweet sweet boobies.

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:33:08 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
seems odd you can link to guys getting greased, but nipples are bad. Thoughts???

what were you banned for under your other username ?

Big ole Titties

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:33:29 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
seems odd you can link to guys getting greased, but nipples are bad. Thoughts???

what were you banned for under your other username ?

pwnt!

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:33:48 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Allowing photos of naked women would also add arfcom to yet another category for these category based web filters.And then there's the advertisers, the people who pay to have their name here.

It's really not some conspiracy to deprive everyone of the sweet sweet boobies.

If it is, it fails. Since there are one or two places on the interwebz where you can find titties and stuff.

Hell, Google Titties

Hell, Search Youtube.

They got Meredith Baxter Birney Titties

And a young adult female soccer team doing breast exams on each other [I've seen almost all of that one.}

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:40:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Savoy3 one of John Waynes guys in The Green Berets. Was my call sign for along time.

In Middle School?

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:46:15 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Allowing photos of naked women would also add arfcom to yet another category for these category based web filters.And then there's the advertisers, the people who pay to have their name here.

It's really not some conspiracy to deprive everyone of the sweet sweet boobies.

That might be it, I honestly don't know about nowadays.

This is for the newbies.

Here is what I do know about how the rule came about and why we have it.

At one time, this site was fairly small revenue wise and GB had to have another job to make ends meet. He also had an understanding with his boss that there would be times when he needed to work on the site at work. Well back then when the rules on this were looser, some jackass would post a pic of a chick in a bikini just out of the blue in almost every thread. It almost never failed. There would pop up almost every time.

That couldn't happen at GB's new job, so the rules were changed, not to eliminate them, but to restrict them to one forum, that you pretty much knew if you opened it there would be a BOTD type pic in there.

this seemed to work well so even after GB left his old job, the rule remains. It helps people who surf at work. I own my place, but I don't surf BOTD forums...really ever, but certainly not at work where anyone might see what I was doing. I don't want my employees thinking that I'm watching porn while they are working. That is just a personal thing for me.

It isn't the end of the world to not to be able to post picks of chicks in bikinis. Just google image it if you feel the need to look at some. I sure you would NEVER see all of them even if you tried.

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:53:39 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Here is some fancy T and A:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/T.gif&http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y278/Dawgsquat/Dancing%20gifs/A.gif

banned

lol

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:55:04 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I posted a picture of my nipples here a couple of years ago.

Were yours the ones that were like three inches long?

They were really hard too IIRC.

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:59:09 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Like my scrotum, here it is in a nutshell:

To a guy browsing at work –– titties = porn = fired. Gore = news = plausible deniability.

Shouldn't that read testicle since the scrotum is the nut shell/bag?

It's a line from a song -one from a filthy bunch of perverts.

Posted: 7/19/2012 8:59:44 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Allowing photos of naked women would also add arfcom to yet another category for these category based web filters.And then there's the advertisers, the people who pay to have their name here.

It's really not some conspiracy to deprive everyone of the sweet sweet boobies.

That might be it, I honestly don't know about nowadays.

This is for the newbies.

Here is what I do know about how the rule came about and why we have it.

At one time, this site was fairly small revenue wise and GB had to have another job to make ends meet. He also had an understanding with his boss that there would be times when he needed to work on the site at work. Well back then when the rules on this were looser, some jackass would post a pic of a chick in a bikini just out of the blue in almost every thread. It almost never failed. There would pop up almost every time.

That couldn't happen at GB's new job, so the rules were changed, not to eliminate them, but to restrict them to one forum, that you pretty much knew if you opened it there would be a BOTD type pic in there.

this seemed to work well so even after GB left his old job, the rule remains. It helps people who surf at work. I own my place, but I don't surf BOTD forums...really ever, but certainly not at work where anyone might see what I was doing. I don't want my employees thinking that I'm watching porn while they are working. That is just a personal thing for me.

It isn't the end of the world to not to be able to post picks of chicks in bikinis. Just google image it if you feel the need to look at some. I sure you would NEVER see all of them even if you tried.

Just for experimentation:

Google searched "Bikinis":

About 141,000,000 results

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:12:39 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

You better believe it, buddy.

IDK, The one in the back? I can almost see the top of the ankle. Should I kill the img and issue warnings for everyone who looked?

Wow, who knew you would get so power hungry so fast...

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:14:02 AM EDT

[#25]

I like to occasionally post this one, this seemed like a good thread for it.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:15:23 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Wow, who knew you would get so power hungry so fast...

You just don't know.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:16:26 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I like to occasionally post this one, this seemed like a good thread for it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/jmarkma/attention_whore32copy.jpg

I always loved that pic. Along with some others that I have saved on another computer.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:19:56 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Wow, who knew you would get so power hungry so fast...

You just don't know.

Deep scratchy voice> ONLY THE SHADOW KNOWS <Deep scratchy voice

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:21:30 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Allowing photos of naked women would also add arfcom to yet another category for these category based web filters.And then there's the advertisers, the people who pay to have their name here.

It's really not some conspiracy to deprive everyone of the sweet sweet boobies.

That might be it, I honestly don't know about nowadays.

This is for the newbies.

Here is what I do know about how the rule came about and why we have it.

At one time, this site was fairly small revenue wise and GB had to have another job to make ends meet. He also had an understanding with his boss that there would be times when he needed to work on the site at work. Well back then when the rules on this were looser, some jackass would post a pic of a chick in a bikini just out of the blue in almost every thread. It almost never failed. There would pop up almost every time.

That couldn't happen at GB's new job, so the rules were changed, not to eliminate them, but to restrict them to one forum, that you pretty much knew if you opened it there would be a BOTD type pic in there.

this seemed to work well so even after GB left his old job, the rule remains. It helps people who surf at work. I own my place, but I don't surf BOTD forums...really ever, but certainly not at work where anyone might see what I was doing. I don't want my employees thinking that I'm watching porn while they are working. That is just a personal thing for me.

It isn't the end of the world to not to be able to post picks of chicks in bikinis. Just google image it if you feel the need to look at some. I sure you would NEVER see all of them even if you tried.

That's a good synopsis.

So what's the official rationale for requiring removal/absence/obliteration/obfuscation of URL and copyright information on any of the photos posted in BOTD?

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:26:13 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

So what's the official rationale for requiring removal/absence/obliteration/obfuscation of URL and copyright information on any of the photos posted in BOTD?

I have no idea honestly. Probably they don't want ARFCOM to be appearing to promote a porn site. But that is a wild ass guess that I just came up with. I've never looked into it. I saw the rule once, but the chances of me posting BOTD pics are near zero honestly so I never paid much attention to it.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:28:18 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Badguys meeting a grizzly end is a good thing mmkay.

So are tits.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:35:36 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
This was only meant to be a discussion. I am happy to be a member and will abide by your rules. Just what I thought may be a interesting topic for discussion.I actually like the PG-13 approach the mods take.

Because it's never ever been mentioned before. Ever. Not once. Nope. Totally original. Never before has someone compiled a sentence to the effect of "Hey, how come we can post pictures of Taliban fucktards getting their heads exploded but we can't post boobs?" in GD. Congratulations, you've discovered new ground!

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:37:19 AM EDT

[#33]

Well...is this song COC compliant?
no, it isn't

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:51:55 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So what's the official rationale for requiring removal/absence/obliteration/obfuscation of URL and copyright information on any of the photos posted in BOTD?

I have no idea honestly. Probably they don't want ARFCOM to be appearing to promote a porn site. But that is a wild ass guess that I just came up with. I've never looked into it. I saw the rule once, but the chances of me posting BOTD pics are near zero honestly so I never paid much attention to it.

Actually it would've surprised me if you did know because none of the staff or mods that I've previously asked has ever given a reasonable explanation, which leads me to believe there isn't one.

I find it operating in bad faith to allow posting of content but at the same time requiring that visible author/owner attribution information be removed. It's like being able to post a movie as long as I remove the title and credits beforehand.

Again that's some bullshit right there.

Posted: 7/19/2012 9:59:56 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This was only meant to be a discussion. I am happy to be a member and will abide by your rules. Just what I thought may be a interesting topic for discussion.I actually like the PG-13 approach the mods take.

Because it's never ever been mentioned before. Ever. Not once. Nope. Totally original. Never before has someone compiled a sentence to the effect of "Hey, how come we can post pictures of Taliban fucktards getting their heads exploded but we can't post boobs?" in GD. Congratulations, you've discovered new ground!

you felt a need to come in and put in your 2 cents. good foryou

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:08:36 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Women in CoC Compliant Swimsuits

http://www.globalfashionreport.com/inline/fashion/en/9508307ac7089757fab09f30628e0e20.jpg

You better believe it, buddy.

I demand that this post be edited. You can see their feet

For shame

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:09:04 AM EDT

[#37]

you aint from around these parts are ya.

This here river don't go to Aintry

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:14:46 AM EDT

[#38]

Probably has something to do with the fact that distributing porn to minor is a crime in some areas. Having a kid watch a gory movie is not a crime AFAIK.

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:15:03 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
10000000000 porn sites and he wants nipples here.....

Jim

We feel like the odd one out.

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:16:55 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
seems odd you can link to guys getting greased, but nipples are bad. Thoughts???

Watching war porn vids will not get me fired.

Watching kate uptons gorgeous tata's won't get me fired.

Watching her nipples dance, oh yeah, that's a no no.

TXL

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:18:48 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

So what's the official rationale for requiring removal/absence/obliteration/obfuscation of URL and copyright information on any of the photos posted in BOTD?

I have no idea honestly. Probably they don't want ARFCOM to be appearing to promote a porn site. But that is a wild ass guess that I just came up with. I've never looked into it. I saw the rule once, but the chances of me posting BOTD pics are near zero honestly so I never paid much attention to it.

Actually it would've surprised me if you did know because none of the staff or mods that I've previously asked has ever given a reasonable explanation, which leads me to believe there isn't one.

I find it operating in bad faith to allow posting of content but at the same time requiring that visible author/owner attribution information be removed. It's like being able to post a movie as long as I remove the title and credits beforehand.

Again that's some bullshit right there.

I would think it is because ARFCOM doesn't want to be sued for intentionally allowing members to post copyrighted images. If the copyright has been removed the site has plausible deniability should a problem arise. How freaking hard is it to respect the site owners and your fellow members and follow the rules?

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:21:57 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Recently I had a long time out and was not allowed to login to my account here on AR15, Well I don't know if you know it or not but they have commercials that play on this site for non team members to enjoy. One of the ads was for a Hot Tub and it featured a big tittied model in a skimpy bikini

I thought that was kind of odd considering the rules here.

thats come up with staff more than once

Posted: 7/19/2012 10:29:32 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Actually it would've surprised me if you did know because none of the staff or mods that I've previously asked has ever given a reasonable explanation, which leads me to believe there isn't one.

I find it operating in bad faith to allow posting of content but at the same time requiring that visible author/owner attribution information be removed. It's like being able to post a movie as long as I remove the title and credits beforehand.

Again that's some bullshit right there.

OK I went and looked and here is the actual rule.

Do not post pics with watermarks

No links to, or reference to porn sites. This includes pictures withthe website's watermarks on them. IM them to each other till you'rehearts content. BUT DO NOT POST THEM!

That CLEARLY doesn't mean remove the watermark. It means don't fucking post pics with watermarks. If someone crops a pic to make it CoC compliant, how in the hell would you enforce that?

You are taking that rule and making it read something it doesn't. It means what it says, not what you think it says. just because guys are skirting the rules by removing them, doesn't mean that is what ARFCOM is asking you to do. They are saying don't post them at all, however how would you enforce a rule that said don't crop it out?

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:35:30 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Actually it would've surprised me if you did know because none of the staff or mods that I've previously asked has ever given a reasonable explanation, which leads me to believe there isn't one.

I find it operating in bad faith to allow posting of content but at the same time requiring that visible author/owner attribution information be removed. It's like being able to post a movie as long as I remove the title and credits beforehand.

Again that's some bullshit right there.

OK I went and looked and here is the actual rule.

Do not post pics with watermarks

No links to, or reference to porn sites. This includes pictures withthe website's watermarks on them. IM them to each other till you'rehearts content. BUT DO NOT POST THEM!

That CLEARLY doesn't mean remove the watermark. It means don't fucking post pics with watermarks. If someone crops a pic to make it CoC compliant, how in the hell would you enforce that?

You are taking that rule and making it read something it doesn't. It means what it says, not what you think it says. just because guys are skirting the rules by removing them, doesn't mean that is what ARFCOM is asking you to do. They are saying don't post them at all, however how would you enforce a rule that said don't crop it out?

The Pontius Pilate routine is great and all but only has that wording been ..let's call it "refined" over the years to it's current state...the facts are
1- that it doesnt say "dont post copyrighted content", it says "don't post images with watermarks" "...this includes pictures with the websites watermarks on them".
2- BOTD forum is promoted as one of the "Premium" features of the site that you have to pay to get access to (or even to see in the forum listing)
3- even the most cursory examination of images (or use of Tineye) indicates that the vast majority of these are professional images from mainstream adult oriented sites.

It's not "me making it read like something it's not", it's looking objectively at all the facts and calling it what it is.

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:45:16 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

It's not "me making it read like something it's not", it's looking objectively at all the facts and calling it what it is.

Well we are clearly a den of thieves here I guess.

The rule against copyright protection has stayed in place even after the company that started suing websites like this got it's peepee slapped by a judge. The owners of this site clearly want to protect copyrighted intellectual property. I can't answer you as to why copyrighted images are allowed to stay. I suspect it is because they have a fair use value or it could be that there simply isn't enough time in the day to investigate the origin of each photo that is posted here and there is no proof it is copyrighted..

I assume they feel that any image without a watermark is fair game so they don't allow images with watermarks. That seems like the easiest way to make it simple for everyone..

I'm WAY the fuck out of my lane here though, so i would suggest if you have a real problem with this take it up with Aimless or Striker.

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:45:57 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
.

Rather than complaining endlessly, please stay out of that forum and you will have a much more enjoyable experience on the site.

*Or start your own site, attract a bunch of members, then do anything you wish.

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:52:40 AM EDT

[#47]

cleavage, and even bare breasts do not = porn.

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:52:55 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Recently I had a long time out and was not allowed to login to my account here on AR15, Well I don't know if you know it or not but they have commercials that play on this site for non team members to enjoy. One of the ads was for a Hot Tub and it featured a big tittied model in a skimpy bikini

I thought that was kind of odd considering the rules here.

thats come up with staff more than once

That's actually hilarious.

To be sure, I support the no-bikini rules, but it's hilarious that it's somehow OK if it's from an ad.

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:56:41 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
.

Rather than complaining endlessly, please stay out of that forum and you will have a much more enjoyable experience on the site.

*Or start your own site, attract a bunch of members, then do anything you wish.

By dscotthewitt at 2012-06-25

Posted: 7/19/2012 11:57:57 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Recently I had a long time out and was not allowed to login to my account here on AR15, Well I don't know if you know it or not but they have commercials that play on this site for non team members to enjoy. One of the ads was for a Hot Tub and it featured a big tittied model in a skimpy bikini

I thought that was kind of odd considering the rules here.

thats come up with staff more than once

That's actually hilarious.

To be sure, I support the no-bikini rules, but it's hilarious that it's somehow OK if it's from an ad.

That is an outside company and the site has no control over the content.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Snuff films ok, bewbs not? (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us