Are images of underage cartoon characters now permitted on the

drew70 · Nov 13, 2008

Are images of underage cartoon characters now permitted on the TMF?

This is not any attempt at stirring trouble. I just need clarification on what's permitted and what's not permitted, as there seems to be a discrepancy.

The stickies in the Art Forum clearly indicate a no tolerance policy with regards to posting images involving underaged cartoon characters. The reason for this policy is that nobody wants the TMF to become a place where pedophiles look for pictures of kids involved in fetish activities.

It's a good policy and I support it wholeheartedly.

Recently, a cartoon was posted in General Discussion depicting one of the Powerpuff Girls in dominatrix attire licking her riding crop in anticipation. Behind her, the Powerpuff Girls' nemesis Mojo Jojo is chained to a wall.

According to Wikipedia, the Powerpuff Girls are "three girls in kindergarten with super powers."

When I brought up concerns over this pic, the original poster said, "The characters are adult in the pic." I asked her how she came by this determination, as the girl had no breasts, curves, nor any physical attributes to indicate adulthood. She looked like the exact same character with the exception of her attire. The original poster declined to offer an answer.

Still, even if the character's adulthood were established (which it surely was not), would that make a difference? Not according to the following, which I quote from one of the Art Forum stickies...

I have heard the arguements/complaints that ageing minor characters is an inalienable right of free expression and that it doesn't hurt anyone. These arguements are not being dismissed, they are simply being disagreed with by the Administrators and Staff of this Forum. Here is why:

There is no way to enforce a No Minors rule, especially a Zero Tolerance one, if we allow this loophole to be exploited. We all agree that we do not want the TMF to become a place for pedophiles to go to see/read about kids getting tickled. However, if we take a 14-year-old character and allow him/her to be "aged" arbitrarily, we all know that people are still thinking of the character as they've become accustomed to them....a 14-year-old. The character has been drawn as a kid, been created as a kid and it's a very thin and weak stretch to just say "Oh, just imagine they're older." Now, we know that in the realms of fiction and artwork, there are no real people involved, but this is not the point and will not be debated. This is not the Supreme Court, this is a privately owned (and free to join) website with rules of its own that supercede people's rights of expression when those rights interfere with the overall mission of the site. We strive to allow people to express themselves however they want, but as in any civilised society, there must be limits.

When I pointed out the flaw in the original poster's defense ("The characters are adult in the pic."), I was told by Jeff to discontinue the "off-topic" conversation. I was furthermore invited by Jeff to debate the issue in PM. When I took him up on this offer, he told me privately, "I was lying when I said that. I have no interest in discussing this with you."

So the issue is as yet unresolved. Since I was told not to continue the discussion in the thread in which the incident occurred, I'm asking the question here, as it's own topic.

Why is this picture in question allowed to remain when it violates the rules regarding the posting of underage characters?

Can the rest of us start posting similar pictures?

And please. Let's not turn this into a discussion of my behavior, okay? The topic of THIS thread is the cartoon in question. If you want to discuss my behavior, send me a PM and I'll gladly respond. FYI, unlike some, when I say I'll respond, I actually mean it.
__________________

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

One picture being allowed to slide because a judgement call was made, doesn't indicate a titanic shift in policy. The posted rules stand as written, and the exception stands as it is. End of story.

Dr. Vollin · Nov 13, 2008

How typical.

ViperGTS · Nov 13, 2008

Waah, they made an exception I don't agree with, waah.

The TMF is not a democracy - it is a dictatorship. The moderators make and enforce the rules as they see fit.

That's all there is to it.

slacker2114 · Nov 13, 2008

Well, to be fair, it's a friendly dictatorship. Unless you piss off the mods.

Then shit gets ugly.

As far as the pic goes....I've seen worse. I'd look at it more as a joke than an attempt at being pornographic or pushing underage crap. Personally, I thought it was funny, which was the intent.

I just don't get what the big deal is. The mods made a judgement call. End of story because that's how it is.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

So an exception was made when a mod wanted to post a picture that clearly violated the rules of the forum. I wonder what would have happened if a non-mod had done the same. My guess is a certain select group of non moderators could have posted this with no problem.

While it is true that the TMF is a dictatorship not a democracy, this still surprises me. I used to hold the TMF up as an example of a forum with much better moderation than most others I visited. I won't be doing that again.

goddess_nemesis · Nov 13, 2008

I see your point, drew. To me, that picture is violating the rules of the TMF. You have a cartoon child in an adult situation. It's funny; I get that, but it doesn't seem to be the most appropriate thing to be posting on an adult forum. I mean, would a person get away with posting it on a bondage forum? I would think the moderators would take it down instantly, despite its humorous intentions.

There are always an exception to every rule. I've seen pictures of children on here who are members' children or relatives and are harmless. For awhile one of AnnieHall's signature pictures depicted a young girl smoking. Those were exceptions that no one had a problem with.

Overall, it's the moderators decision to allow it to stay. I don't agree with it, but it's not my decision.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

jim66e said:
So an exception was made when a mod wanted to post a picture that clearly violated the rules of the forum. I wonder what would have happened if a non-mod had done the same. My guess is a certain select group of non moderators could have posted this with no problem.

While it is true that the TMF is a dictatorship not a democracy, this still surprises me. I used to hold the TMF up as an example of a forum with much better moderation than most others I visited. I won't be doing that again.

This was the most trivial imaginable rule violation that caused exactly zero harm and was controversial to nobody. I decided on the fly to let it slide because it was completely non-adult in any way, the way we might allow a picture of a minor who was feeding an elephant a peanut. Because we're reasonable people who know what matters and what doesn't and don't have to act like robots when a decision needs to be made, and there's no reason anyone should care about that. Drew just likes to nitpick and create constant problems, because we won't let him run around and harass people that he disagrees with.

Sandrock74 · Nov 13, 2008

We need Mr. Spock and his high-falutin' logic here...that's not me thou...head...going....to.....EXPLODE! *BOOM*

goddess_nemesis · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
This was the most trivial imaginable rule violation that caused exactly zero harm and was controversial to nobody. I decided on the fly to let it slide because it was completely non-adult in any way, the way we might allow a picture of a minor who was feeding an elephant a peanut. Because we're reasonable people who know what matters and what doesn't and don't have to act like robots when a decision needs to be made, and there's no reason anyone should care about that. Drew just likes to nitpick and create constant problems, because we won't let him run around and harass people that he disagrees with.

I understand exceptions for some things like your example of a child feeding an elephant a peanut.

As funny as I find that picture of the Power Puff girl, you still have a minor dressed as a dominatrix.

According to the rules:

We don't allow posts that involve any form of images, clips, or story with a minor in them as a focus for tickling or other fetish behavior. Period. Any that we find will be removed. There will be zero tolerance on this issue. No exceptions.

So, how is it excusable?

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

Also by the way, it's already pretty established that in some contexts minors are allowed here, because we let people post pictures of themselves with their kids. We have to always make judgement calls, and this one wasn't even controversial, it's just one example of many of the ways drew70 patrols the forum looking for opportunities to harass people he doesn't like. He can't wait to nitpick a rule and say, hey, jump through hoops explaining this apparent contradiction.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

ticklingnemesis said:
So, how is it excusable?

It's excusable because it's a completely trivial decision. I made it in three seconds based on the fact that it doesn't matter at all. Nobody could possibly care or consider it harmful that this picture was posted. I'm sorry that it seems like an apparent contradiction, but in all seriousness, what does it matter?

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
This was the most trivial imaginable rule violation that caused exactly zero harm and was controversial to nobody. I decided on the fly to let it slide because it was completely non-adult in any way, the way we might allow a picture of a minor who was feeding an elephant a peanut. Because we're reasonable people who know what matters and what doesn't and don't have to act like robots when a decision needs to be made, and there's no reason anyone should care about that. Drew just likes to nitpick and create constant problems, because we won't let him run around and harass people that he disagrees with.

I agree that on the scheme of things this was a very small rules violation. Of course, I'm what the RPG community would call Lawful, so the size of an infraction doesn't really matter to me. It does to other people though.

I have to disagree with your claim that the picture was non-adult however. The powerpuff girl is wearing thigh high leather boots, a garter belt, a mesh top, and carrying a riding top. You are far more experienced in the tickling and BDSM community than I am, do you really think anyone doesn't recognize that as adult? Did you keep a straight face while typing that it was non adult in any way. Sure, a kindergardner dressed as a dominatrix in a dungeon is no different than a kid feeding an elephant. Kids do that sort of thing all the time.

Just as troubling is your defense of Bella's aging of the subject. She claimed multiple times that the powerpuff character in the pic was an adult. Since (as far as I know) no incarnation of the show has the characters as adults, this is an example of aging, which is not allowed. It is my understanding that moderators exist no only to enforce rules, but also to be good examples. Allowing a moderator to age a subject, even if it is funny, sends a troubling message. You are of course, free to send whatever sort of message you want, but given you denials of cliches and preferential treatment on the TMF you surly realize this could seems like a mixed signal.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
It's excusable because it's a completely trivial decision. I made it in three seconds based on the fact that it doesn't matter at all. Nobody could possibly care or consider it harmful that this picture was posted. I'm sorry that it seems like an apparent contradiction, but in all seriousness, what does it matter?

I would say that since there are several people who agree that it is a rules violation your claim that no one cares is wrong. Unless of course, our opinions don't matter in considering who cares. What does it matter? Consistency and hypocracy matter a great deal to certain people, less to others.

Another reason it matters to me is, as I've said, I used to hold this forum up as a model of good moderating. Other forums I've been to had mods who ignored violations or used their powers punativly, or to promote the interests of the forum owner. The TMF didn't do that. The moderators played by the same rules and worked to enforce and build a strong community. I see this as a move away from the TMF I used as a good example towards a more common approach of moderating.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

jim66e said:
I would say that since there are several people who agree that it is a rules violation your claim that no one cares is wrong. Unless of course, our opinions don't matter in considering who cares. What does it matter? Consistency and hypocracy matter a great deal to certain people, less to others.

Hold on just a second. Watch who you call a hypocrite, that's a pretty goddamn offensive thing to say considering what a ridiculously trivial issue this is. I made a judgement call, and the fact that it's not the same call you'd make, doesn't make me a hypocrite.

goddess_nemesis · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
It's excusable because it's a completely trivial decision. I made it in three seconds based on the fact that it doesn't matter at all. Nobody could possibly care or consider it harmful that this picture was posted. I'm sorry that it seems like an apparent contradiction, but in all seriousness, what does it matter?

Hmm, to start this is a fetish site and there's a picture posted of a cartoon child being depicted as a dominatrix, I think that does matter.

Obviously it's not a trivial thing. I care because to me it's not an appropriate thing to be posting on a fetish site. It's one thing for a member to post a picture of their child feeding an animal at the zoo and it's another to be posting a picture, no matter how humorous it is, that depicts a child in a fetish portrayal. It shouldn't be excusable.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

ticklingnemesis said:
Hmm, to start this is a fetish site and there's a picture posted of a cartoon child being depicted as a dominatrix, I think that does matter.

Obviously it's not a trivial thing. I care because to me it's not an appropriate thing to be posting on a fetish site. It's one thing for a member to post a picture of their child feeding an animal at the zoo and it's another to be posting a picture, no matter how humorous it is, that depicts a child in a fetish portrayal. It shouldn't be excusable.

You disagree with the decision that I made, and I completely understand why.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
Hold on just a second. Watch who you call a hypocrite, that's a pretty goddamn offensive thing to say considering what a ridiculously trivial issue this is. I made a judgement call, and the fact that it's not the same call you'd make, doesn't make me a hypocrite.

In post #8 you call it a rules violation. You chose to make an exception to the rules because in your judgment it was such a trivial violation.

Professing rules or standards then not upholding them is the definition of a hypocrite.

Is it a major life altering example of hypocray. No, not at all. But using your own admission that you recognized it as a rules violation but chose to allow it, it is hypocracy.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

jim66e said:
In post #8 you call it a rules violation. You chose to make an exception to the rules because in your judgment it was such a trivial violation.

Professing rules or standards then not upholding them is the definition of a hypocrite.

Is it a major life altering example of hypocray. No, not at all. But using your own admission that you recognized it as a rules violation but chose to allow it, it is hypocracy.

As you proved in your earlier post with your insane babble about being "lawful," you're a social retard, and you really should shut the fuck up.

That said, I will now educate you on the difference between your role playing games, and reality. The real world, as opposed to your basement-dwelling fantasy world, is composed of shades of grey. I had to decide where on the color spectrum this particular post fell, and the decision that I made was one that you happen to think is a contradiction of some statement that you've chosen to interpret in a particular way, in a particular context.

You've got some real balls to think you're so worldly that on the strength of your interpretation of this situation, you can declare me a hypocrite.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

I wanted to clarify my position on hypocracy a little, because it can be an insulting accusation.

If a person professes a set of rules, looks at a situation and determines it doesn't violate the set of rules its not hypocracy.

If a person professes a set of rules, looks at a situation, determines it is a violation but of a trivial mannor and therefore ignores it, that is hypocracy.

Based on your statements in posts 2 and 8 I judged that you addmitted the pic violated the rules and therefore fell under the second situation. More recent posts have confused the issue due to shifting the call from being about whether to act on the violation to whether it was a violation. If that is the case than it would not be hypocracy.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
As you proved in your earlier post with your insane babble about being "lawful," you're a social retard, and you really should shut the fuck up.

That said, I will now educate you on the difference between your role playing games, and reality. The real world, as opposed to your basement-dwelling fantasy world, is composed of shades of grey. I had to decide where on the color spectrum this particular post fell, and the decision that I made was one that you happen to think is a contradiction of some statement that you've chosen to interpret in a particular way, in a particular context.

You've got some real balls to think you're so worldly that on the strength of your interpretation of this situation, you can declare me a hypocrite.

Wow, a bare knuckled attack on me, my living condition and my personal character. I'm honestly not sure how to respond. I could list how you misrepresented me, but what would that really accomplish. I could point out your crude vocab and foul language, but again I don't think that would really accomplish anything.

In fact I would say we are stuck. You appear to be too angry to think rationally, and too caught up in stereotypes to have a useful discussion. Therefore I will ignore your insults. I would attempt to proceed with a logical argument, but apparently we've moved beyond that into inflammatory insults.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

jim66e said:
Wow, a bare knuckled attack on me, my living condition and my personal character. I'm honestly not sure how to respond. I could list how you misrepresented me, but what would that really accomplish. I could point out your crude vocab and foul language, but again I don't think that would really accomplish anything.

In fact I would say we are stuck. You appear to be too angry to think rationally, and too caught up in stereotypes to have a useful discussion. Therefore I will ignore your insults. I would attempt to proceed with a logical argument, but apparently we've moved beyond that into inflammatory insults.

That's right, we have, from the moment you called me a hypocrite, we moved from rational discussion to name-calling and accusations. If you don't like it, learn how to discuss things in a civilized manner.

jim66e · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
That's right, we have, from the moment you called me a hypocrite, we moved from rational discussion to name-calling and accusations. If you don't like it, learn how to discuss things in a civilized manner.

Because calling people social retards and telling them to shut the fuck up are the cornerstones of civil discussion. You should teach classes on it.

goddess_nemesis · Nov 13, 2008

MTP Jeff said:
That's right, we have, from the moment you called me a hypocrite, we moved from rational discussion to name-calling and accusations. If you don't like it, learn how to discuss things in a civilized manner.

Jim made a good argument on how he found your decision to be hypocritical, not outright calling you a hypocrite. And you respond by cursing and insulting him as you refuted his assessment.

As a moderator I would think you would hold yourself on a higher level and not fall so easily with breaking the golden rule.

TMF Jeff · Nov 13, 2008

jim66e said:
Because calling people social retards and telling them to shut the fuck up are the cornerstones of civil discussion. You should teach classes on it.

I'm responding in kind. I asked you to moderate your language and not be so quick to call me a hypocrite, and you chose to reply by repeating the insult instead. If you're offended by how mad that made me, then I've accomplished my intentions.

Are images of underage cartoon characters now permitted on the

Guest

TMF owner and co-founder

TMF Master

Guest

3rd Level White Feather

1st Level Red Feather

Level of Quintuple Citrine Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

4th Level Green Feather

Level of Quintuple Citrine Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

TMF owner and co-founder

1st Level Red Feather

1st Level Red Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

Level of Quintuple Citrine Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

1st Level Red Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

1st Level Red Feather

1st Level Red Feather

TMF owner and co-founder

1st Level Red Feather

Level of Quintuple Citrine Feather

TMF owner and co-founder