Julia13Germany PFP

Kaeru

Kaeru

Member
This user (Julia13Germany) has a background image of her “rear side” but its okay and not kickable because she has little short shorts on, many users have complained and reported it because it to a normal person is NOT OKAY!! regardless of weather its “too revealing” or “not showing underwear” the focus point and the reason that photo was chosen was for most likely an inappropriate reason, its wrong and dangerous, a 13 year old shouldnt be allowed this because its putting them in danger, NOBODY on the site wants to see it apart from the bad users and creepy guests, please admins or owner just have a think about what the intention behind the photo is, it isnt DIRECTLY against the rules but it is as close as someone can get without being kicked/banned
 
I believe that Julia's banner was inappropriate for kidschat and that kicking her is justified. Pedophiles having access to photos like that of kids is extremely dangerous. Although the picture contains no nudity, it's clearly focused on her back end. A photo of a 13 year old in a crop top and shorts wouldn't be weird from a different angle, but the photo she chose was VERY uncomfortable for me as a 17 year old to look at. I find it incredibly ridiculous that we had to fight for the removal of that banner when it's not only something that makes users uncomfortable but is a clear SAFETY HAZARD for Julia. I don't understand how someone could look at a photo like that and deem it appropriate for a site meant for kids that has issues with pedophiles trying to use it. I find whomever deemed that photo "appropriate" to be incredibly irresponsible when it comes to prioritizing the safety of children on the site.
 
It is ridiculous how you allow a child to post photos like that of themselves on this website solely because it's "not too revealing" or "doesn't directly break a rule" when this photo clearly endangers this child and showcases weird zoomed in angles on a 13 year old. You should prioritize the safety of kids over your rules. I don't believe any punishment should follow the mod who kicked her because the kick clearly expresses more concern than whoever allowed it to be posted for anyone on the site to see.
 
NYEN said:
I believe that Julia's banner was inappropriate for kidschat and that kicking her is justified. Pedophiles having access to photos like that of kids is extremely dangerous. Although the picture contains no nudity, it's clearly focused on her back end. A photo of a 13 year old in a crop top and shorts wouldn't be weird from a different angle, but the photo she chose was VERY uncomfortable for me as a 17 year old to look at. I find it incredibly ridiculous that we had to fight for the removal of that banner when it's not only something that makes users uncomfortable but is a clear SAFETY HAZARD for Julia. I don't understand how someone could look at a photo like that and deem it appropriate for a site meant for kids that has issues with pedophiles trying to use it. I find whomever deemed that photo "appropriate" to be incredibly irresponsible when it comes to prioritizing the safety of children on the site.
Click to expand...
Not to mention MULTIPLE users were actively stating their discomfort with the photo.
 
The image was of a female fully clothed, any issues of sexualization would fall more onto the viewer and not the poster. Let me ask, what if that user would have the same image but was turned facing forward, would that still be thought of as inappropriate? If the answer is no, then that tells one all they need to know
 
Arkham said:
The image was of a female fully clothed, any issues of sexualization would fall more onto the viewer and not the poster. Let me ask, what if that user would have the same image but was turned facing forward, would that still be thought of as inappropriate? If the answer is no, then that tells one all they need to know
Click to expand...
Did you actually just “youre making it weird not them”
 
Arkham said:
The image was of a female fully clothed, any issues of sexualization would fall more onto the viewer and not the poster. Let me ask, what if that user would have the same image but was turned facing forward, would that still be thought of as inappropriate? If the answer is no, then that tells one all they need to know
Click to expand...
And her being fully clothed is SO irrelevant, its the focus of the bg thats the issue you know FULL WELL what the point of the image is
 
Arkham said:
The image was of a female fully clothed, any issues of sexualization would fall more onto the viewer and not the poster. Let me ask, what if that user would have the same image but was turned facing forward, would that still be thought of as inappropriate? If the answer is no, then that tells one all they need to know
Click to expand...
You shoukd take a look at this https://ibb.co/h5rL6j7
 
Kaeru said:
You shoukd take a look at this https://ibb.co/h5rL6j7
Click to expand...
I read the uploaded image and it clearly states that if it is sexual it is illegal and I would agree on that but what is sexual about a fully clothed girl being photographed from behind? Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?
 
Arkham said:
I read the uploaded image and it clearly states that if it is sexual it is illegal and I would agree on that but what is sexual about a fully clothed girl being photographed from behind? Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?
Click to expand...
“Of private areas even if clothed” and yes, it would still be weird if it was from the front or a guy, by your logic you would allow someones bulge as their bg because theyre fully clothes and its normal human anatomy
 
Arkham said:
I read the uploaded image and it clearly states that if it is sexual it is illegal and I would agree on that but what is sexual about a fully clothed girl being photographed from behind? Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?
Click to expand...
"Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?" YES. ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD BE JUST AS UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE ITS A PHOTO OF A 13 YEAR OLD 😐
 
Arkham said:
I read the uploaded image and it clearly states that if it is sexual it is illegal and I would agree on that but what is sexual about a fully clothed girl being photographed from behind? Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?
Click to expand...
I think that the intent behind the image is clear, it's not just a picture taken from behind. If it was it would be fine. But the image is solely of her ass which is why it's such a problem. It would be just much of a problem if the person was male, or if it was just a picture of her front from the same angle. While yes, it's normal human anatomy, it's a part of the body that's very sexualized in society. I believe that not taking it down and making sure it doesn't happen again we're causing direct harm to a child. We know pedophiles are going to see and inevitably get off to it. I'd rather not let that happen when it's something so easily avoidable.
 
NYEN said:
"Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?" YES. ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD BE JUST AS UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE ITS A PHOTO OF A 13 YEAR OLD 😐
Click to expand...
Okay, so let me get this right, if a female on the chat post an image of them in jeans, standing doing nothing else they should be kicked and or banned, is this correct?
 
Arkham said:
I read the uploaded image and it clearly states that if it is sexual it is illegal and I would agree on that but what is sexual about a fully clothed girl being photographed from behind? Would it still be deemed as sexual by you all if it were a frontal view or lets say the subject was a male, would it still be sexual?
Click to expand...
Quick question, what do you think the police would think if anyone was in possession of a photo of a 13 year old girls rear in daisy dukes? So it's okay to have photos of children in revealing clothing as long as it's not "illegal"? Your point is ridiculous. Allowing 13 year olds to plaster compromising photos of themselves due to the sake of legality over safety.
 
Arkham said:
Okay, so let me get this right, if a female on the chat post an image of them in jeans, standing doing nothing else they should be kicked and or banned, is this correct?
Click to expand...
NO!!! Because thats their whole body!!! Not JUST THE ASS
 
I have sent in the image in question to the owner for his opinion, if he says it is kick or ban worthy I will take the steps necessary, if not that is the end of this discussion
 
The decision has been rendered. On images such as was reported. We are now to remove said images and warn the user not to post images like that again. If they refuse to heed the warning then they will be subject to being kicked from the chat, which in turn could lead to possibly reaching ban level, if the practice of posting images like that continued
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top