Sacred Haven of Debauchery

Well, that's a twist! Actually, you should be the one answering this question, since you're the one saying you lowered the rating specifically because of the costume, even though you initially claimed it was due to the character's perceived underage appearance.

The rating isn't lowered based on just one reason, if that's what you're asking. The original version would have received a 3-4 rating, but based on what? The main issue is the face, which I don't find appealing, due to the perceived "age" and/or other factors (face shape, etc.). We could argue about this endlessly. Most likely, each detail played a partial role, taking away 1-2 points, and it wouldn't be entirely accurate to separate them. The rating dropped from 3-4 to 1 not because of the costume, but because of its absence, and the perception of the image as a humorous variant. These factors are related. I've been evaluating humorous variants in a similar way for a while.

So, is that how you phrased your joke? And there's no need to ramble on about "this was after my post on the contest" - if it were a joke, you would have said, "Siver, you're getting worked up over nothing, I was just kidding." But that didn't happen; instead, we see something close to an outright accusation of something that people in our country could be beaten, urinated on, imprisoned, castrated, or killed for.

I shouldn't have added the part about children to the sentences with memories; I separated them for a reason. It was a humorous way of addressing everyone. I'm also not entirely clear about what you mean with the other sentences. I mentioned Klov in my previous evaluations, comparing his content to yours. I simply pointed out the fact that there is a similarity in tastes. In any case, I observe some similarity. The rest of the conclusions are based on each person's attitude towards Klov, and so on. I think the rest is clear. Nothing special about the names. The same goes for last year's contest.