Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Sacred Haven of DebaucheryAuto-translated
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.
The rating is lowered not for just one reason, if that's what you mean. The original version would have received a 3-4 rating, but based on what? The issue is with the face, which I don't find appealing, due to its "age" and/or other factors (face shape, etc.), and 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 correct 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 picture as a humorous option; these factors are related.
Interesting information! Does this mean that pedophilic images only receive a 1-2 point penalty, and it's not really a problem for you?
I mentioned Klov in my previous evaluations, comparing his content to yours. I simply pointed out the fact that there is such a similarity in tastes.
What kind of similarity? Klov liked little girls; he even read Lolita and shared his impressions with us.
I shouldn't have added the part about children to the sentences with memories; I separated them for a reason. It was a humorous remark addressed to everyone.
And you're saying that it in no way was connected to your accusations about my picture and me personally?
Added 2 minutes ago Wistrit
Baskets with what? Kittens?
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
I have already expressed my opinion regarding how people perceive individuals of different ages, the criteria by which they are evaluated, and so on.
And there is a difference between seeing just a face in a picture and seeing something that was on your own. This factor would play a role regardless of age.
What kind of similarity?
There is some, because there is a difference, but I also observe a partial similarity. You can think that it's because of the "flat-faced" people; maybe that will make you feel better.
He didn't share anything with me.
It was related to the comments that followed after the whole topic was raised and after all the opinions about it.
I have already expressed my opinion regarding how people perceive individuals of different ages, what criteria are used to evaluate them, and so on.
I'm too lazy to look for the exact quote; correct me if I'm wrong. For you, the erotic depiction of minors is unacceptable, right? And it is present in both versions of the image, it's just more pronounced in one.
And there is a difference between an image that simply shows a face and the one you had.
You can look at the body and try to estimate the age based on it in both pictures, but you say that for some reason, in one version, you won't do that, while in the second, you will, even though both pictures are erotic.
He didn't share anything with me.
He wrote about it on the forum, for example. As well as about his attraction to young girls.
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
Yes, it's more vivid. But as I said, the same situation would likely occur with any other image. There is a difference between these options, and it wouldn't be entirely accurate to perceive them as identical, in my opinion. Otherwise, we'll end up with people who see smoking propaganda in Soviet cartoons.
Who said I'm doing this deliberately? I saw it, drew a conclusion, and assessed it. Moreover, it's just one image; if I drew a conclusion based on one, I'll automatically do the same for the second.
Yes, it's more vivid. But as I said, the same situation would likely occur with any other image. There is a difference between these options, and it would be inaccurate to perceive them as identical, in my opinion. Otherwise, we'll soon have people claiming that Soviet cartoons promote smoking.
So, is it okay to send images of children dressed in revealing clothing? Is it only forbidden to send images of naked children?
Who said I'm doing this intentionally? I saw it, made a conclusion, and assessed it.
This at least means that you pay more attention to the body than you admit, which undermines your argument that "if she were dressed, I wouldn't have guessed her age."
So, you're no longer disputing the fact that comparing her to a clown is an accusation of pedophilia?
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
JUST IN CASE, I'LL WRITE WHAT I WROTE ABOUT KLOVA, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT IT, AND I'M JUST FOLLOWING THE CROWD! And a low score for the nudity; I would have given a higher score to the normal version, I like the normal version.
Everyone decides for themselves whether it is possible or not.
"If she were dressed, I wouldn't try to guess her age."
I don't know where you got that from. Estimating age always happens automatically, just like determining a person's gender, and so on. In this case, it would simply play a bigger role.
So, you're no longer disputing the fact that comparing her to a clown is an accusation of pedophilia?
The comparison was based on the specific details of the pictures he liked, not on all of his preferences.
I don't know where you got that from. Estimating age always happens automatically. Just like determining a person's gender, and so on. It just played a bigger role in this case.
So, in general, underage girls in revealing costumes are okay with you, as long as they aren't completely naked?
The comparison was based on specific details.
original post
This happens every year, for the Clover guys. Alex said it all.
Liar-liar, pants on fire! By the way, as I remember, Alex openly says that people sending such pictures need medical help, and in this post, he seems to agree with that. Or are you just remembering him wrong?
Where do we go? Where do we end up when we save the world?
Not quite a correct conclusion. You're judging based on extremes.
Who do you mean by "Klov's comrades"? Are we talking again about the similarity of tastes, which I described above? In this case, it doesn't mean that the person who sent it is identical to Klov. Alex was actually quoting Tox's post, who highly praised your picture, and they are friends with Klov. The implication was that these three people have something in common, and that's it. If you took this as an insult and accusation, then I think it's a personal interpretation. Not everyone would perceive words about their similarity to Klov as an insult.
Ment
Ple-Sen