GENERAL STONEHAM [Closed]

by **sailorseal** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:58 am

Accused:
GENERAL STONEHAM
The accused are suspected of:

Other: Offensive avatar

Comments:
His avatar is not child appropriate and it would be best for it to be changed

by **owenshooter** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:01 am

sailorseal wrote:Accused:
GENERAL STONEHAM
The accused are suspected of:
Other: Offensive avatar
Comments:
His avatar is not child appropriate and it would be best for it to be changed

good luck with that... you are barking up the wrong tree...-0

by **mgconstruction** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:12 am

The only thing wrong with his avatar is he needs to slow it down a bit :lol:

by **Optimus Prime** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:12 am

GENERAL STONEHAM's avatar has been inspected on multiple occasions by several current moderators and has been deemed not to break any forum rules. There is no nudity, no nipples, no anus, and no private parts showing in any of the images. Therefore he will not be forced to remove it.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

by **sailorseal** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:19 am

Optimus Prime wrote:GENERAL STONEHAM's avatar has been inspected on multiple occasions by several current moderators and has been deemed not to break any forum rules. There is no nudity, no nipples, no anus, and no private parts showing in any of the images. Therefore he will not be forced to remove it.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

That's a shame but ok thanks

by **Optimus Prime** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:21 am

sailorseal wrote:
Optimus Prime wrote:GENERAL STONEHAM's avatar has been inspected on multiple occasions by several current moderators and has been deemed not to break any forum rules. There is no nudity, no nipples, no anus, and no private parts showing in any of the images. Therefore he will not be forced to remove it.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

That's a shame but ok thanks

This is not a children's website, and therefore will not cater to the standards of what a child should be exposed to. If a parent or guardian does not want their child to see certain things, they should monitor the child's internet activity more closely.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

by **sailorseal** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:26 am

Optimus Prime wrote:
sailorseal wrote:
Optimus Prime wrote:GENERAL STONEHAM's avatar has been inspected on multiple occasions by several current moderators and has been deemed not to break any forum rules. There is no nudity, no nipples, no anus, and no private parts showing in any of the images. Therefore he will not be forced to remove it.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

That's a shame but ok thanks

This is not a children's website, and therefore will not cater to the standards of what a child should be exposed to. If a parent or guardian does not want their child to see certain things, they should monitor the child's internet activity more closely.

Regards,
Optimus Prime

So according to these standards this would be o.k.?
djt5483

by **Optimus Prime** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:31 am

Yes, it isn't breaking any current rules. It is flirting with the line of what is acceptable? Yes, it certainly is, but it is not breaking a rule.

by **sailorseal** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:34 am

Optimus Prime wrote:Yes, it isn't breaking any current rules. It is flirting with the line of what is acceptable? Yes, it certainly is, but it is not breaking a rule.

*Sigh*
but thanks OP

by **Falkomagno** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:35 am

I like StoneHam avatar.....don't take it away

by **king sam** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:00 pm

Next time save yourself a post and do a search before you make a ridiculous claim like this

Settled Claim on same accusation

Funny thing is is that you posted on the above cleared report.

You just trying to add to your post count?

by **owenshooter** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:29 pm

sailorseal wrote:So according to these standards this would be o.k.?
djt5483

why does every witch hunt on CC have to involve a member of the BpB? i find your use of a large big blue vagina in your sig personally offensive, but i understand others do not, and that it does not violate any CC rules, so i tolerate it. however, the endless attacks on BpB members are becoming ridiculous... thank you prime for sticking up for DJ...-0

by **djt5483** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:44 pm

this aint the first time someones tried to get my avatar changed

by **mgconstruction** on Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:26 pm

owenshooter wrote:
sailorseal wrote:So according to these standards this would be o.k.?
djt5483

why does every witch hunt on CC have to involve a member of the BpB? i find your use of a large big blue vagina in your sig personally offensive, but i understand others do not, and that it does not violate any CC rules, so i tolerate it. however, the endless attacks on BpB members are becoming ridiculous... thank you prime for sticking up for DJ...-0

Smurf Vagina? :lol: