NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, as the original "New Lingerie (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465208&highlight=lingerie)" thread in this forum was closed before I had any chance at all to actually defend myself, post questions or even plead my case, I will be so bold as to open this.

I will not argue the fact that "cybersex" is indeed not allowed in this forum, a fact that I'm ok with and one of the reasons why I never ever had cybersex here. The posts in question were neither "cybersex" by any definition, nor were they sexually explicit. But then, that's for the mods to decide. However, these posts were far, far less explicit than many things that I myself (let alone others, but I don't want to drag anybody into this, it's bad enough for me already, I guess) have posted in the year that I've been here.
So far, none of these posts got me so much as a warning from any mod, ever. As a result, you will well understand, I was under the impression to be well within the limits and clear off the much-quoted "grey area". My understanding was : No nudity, no sexually explicit conversations, no language that couldn't be found outside a movie rated "12" here. And I stuck to those rules.
When Hullepupp posted his offensive post, I was the one telling him to better delete it again, as it was against the rules as I understood them. I don't think I'll bother to do that in the future, and neither will I delete any of my posts if I realise that they are offensive seconds after I posted them. If I can get banned for them anyway, there's not much point, is there?
Back on topic, I honestly didn't realise that our conversation had been against the rules up to that point, based on what I had read about the rules and based on the experiences I had made in this one year here. Getting forumbanned without so much as a warning and for an entire week came completely out of the blue and was quite a shock as I'm a person that normally will stay well within the rules. If those 4 posts were offensive enough to warrant an entire week's ban, I can' help wondering why on earth they weren't at least deleted by the mod???

So, concluding, I'd like to know if these posts were just a case of "bad luck, buddy" for attracting the attention of an mod, and bad luck again for the punishment, when none of the other mods ever issued any warning let alone a ban for similar or worse posts? I would like to know if there are rules saying that, no matter if you already saw that something you did was wrong and are trying to correct it and limit the damage, we will punish you anyway? And I'm really curious as to why these posts are still there...

I'd also like to add that according to one mod (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10307601&postcount=31) it wasn't about the pictures anyway, that it was about the cybering which I also didn't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that it was cybering (plus I did no such thing anyway)... and also wonder why the posts which were so over the top apparently, were not deleted.

Even though I was told I was posting smut (and that is what I was being banned for a week for), I didn't think I was as there was no nudity (easily PG-13 in my mind as well).

I was showing lingerie that I liked in a lingerie thread that was alread several pages in and there were several links to pics of lingerie as well as a picture of someone in lingerie posted (that person did not get banned for it for some reason). Had I (or anybody else) been asked to stop I would have. Apparently I had an official warning before which I am not even aware of. Is there some way that I can find out what that was for?

In a previous thread about lingerie that went on for over 30 pages I think, the same kinds of things were shown and there was never any kind of punishment for anyone on there, so I didn't think there were any rules against it as I had never seen anyone punished for anything like that ever in my two years here.

There was also a 'babes' thread (running over 250 pages) where much more revealing pics than I ever posted were constantly being posted or linked to, and noone ever got any warnings for that either. It was simply moved to spam.

In conclusion, I thought I was well within the rules and not walking a thin line in the grey area either and would have appreciated a warning or something as a weeks ban for doing something countless others have done without incident is a bit harsh.


Thanks for your time.

I was surprised to see a week's forum ban without warning.
I dont scrutinize the rules.

I'm not aware of the history of the posters who were banned-I dont knwo if they've been warned before and chose to flagrantly violate the rules.
I have seen outright flaming/name calling and threats get a warning or a day's forum ban-for really mean-spirited behavior.

In my opinion, all involved here could have been issued a warning and its likely they would have adhered to the advice.

No one was warned , neither me nor Cabra...

Hm. As much as I hate to jump to conclusions, somebody seems to be at loss for an explanation....

Come on, CW. Be patient. The explanation requires the mod who made the decision to explain and they are not always avaiable. I understand why you're anxious but impatiences merely obfuscates the process (not entirely sure I used obfuscates correctly there, but since most people have no idea what it means, who cares). I'm certain you'll get your answer.

It is true that sometimes things which should be Moderated go unnoticed by us; we are, after all, only human, and cannot be everywhere. We are trying to cut down on this, so as to provide even and fair Moderation for all - but still, we cannot be everywhere. Things will be missed at times.

In this case, your thread was Moderated, and you and Hullepupp were found to be in violation of the "obscenity" clause of the Terms of Service. You were forumbanned for this, as is only proper - cybersex is not something we want on our forums.

You say that you are aware of this, that you have not posted anything that would not be found in a movie rated "twelve" - now, admittedly it has been a few years since I last saw one of those, but I do not recall such behaviour in them.

~ Tsar the Mod.

wow this was my first post to read, since signing up for the game(2 days ago) and this looks already looks like a completely ridiculous abuse of power. If the link above led to the comment for which you guys have been banned, then the moderators here need to have their powers examined and limited cuz that just seems like a complete abuse of it.

and the one mod who commented on that sentence in the link sounds like a real moron.

wow this was my first post to read, since signing up for the game(2 days ago) and this looks already looks like a completely ridiculous abuse of power. If the link above led to the comment for which you guys have been banned, then the moderators here need to have their powers examined and limited cuz that just seems like a complete abuse of it.

and the one mod who commented on that sentence in the link sounds like a real moron.


Wow. Calling a moderator a moron on your first post isn't exactly the most brilliant move.

Tell you what, Sparky. Protect yourself from such abuses of power. Boycott this site.

wow this was my first post to read, since signing up for the game(2 days ago)Then perhaps you should read a little more before jumping to conclusions.

I have observed (and most likely participated) in several topics that seem to waver on the borderline of "sexually explicit" and it seems to me that, for the sake of our younger participants, most NSers including Cabra West try very hard to avoid crossing that line. My question is not regarding the appropriateness of the comment/s as that is per mod judgement. The question I have is this: Why was there no warning?
Just curious, because I would certainly like to avoid such an incident myself. Even though I try to avoid being overtly explicit, many topics are of a suggestive nature. Shouldn't at least one warning be given to any offenders prior to a forum ban considering this?

It is true that sometimes things which should be Moderated go unnoticed by us; we are, after all, only human, and cannot be everywhere. We are trying to cut down on this, so as to provide even and fair Moderation for all - but still, we cannot be everywhere. Things will be missed at times.

In this case, your thread was Moderated, and you and Hullepupp were found to be in violation of the "obscenity" clause of the Terms of Service. You were forumbanned for this, as is only proper - cybersex is not something we want on our forums.

You say that you are aware of this, that you have not posted anything that would not be found in a movie rated "twelve" - now, admittedly it has been a few years since I last saw one of those, but I do not recall such behaviour in them.

~ Tsar the Mod.


I never said you could be everywhere but a quick glance at thread titles should be enough to warrant a glance at the content in instances like the earlier babes thread I mentioned before that definitely had mod attention and noone was ever asked to stop posting pictures. Had I ever seen anyone else get reprimanded or even asked to not post pictures of girls in lingerie, bikinis or whatever, I wouldn't. Currently there is a thread title that should have gained attention to this sort of behavior where there are in fact two pictures way more revealing that anything I posted, yet nothing has come of it. The pictures I posted could never be considered rated R. Though I will never do such a thing again, I still think I was treated unfairly for not even being warned.

I also still wonder why those apparently offensive posts have not been deleted, as well as what my first official warning that you said I had was and if there is a way I can find out.

As for PG-13 and scantily cladness, I've seen plenty but don't take my word for it:
http://www.kids-in-mind.com/b/breakinalltherules.htm
Breaking All The Rules
A woman describes a sexual fantasy where a stranger kisses her neck, breasts and belly, she appears aroused and the man she is talking to begins to kiss her, she pushes him away then she climbs on him and they kiss. We hear moaning and kissing and see a man sit up on a couch where a woman lies (his shirt is partly unbuttoned). A man and a woman dance and kiss, a man and a woman kiss in several scenes, and a man and a woman hug. A woman wears a short skirt and a bikini top, she asks a man to rub her thigh, he does (we hear him moaning) and she places her foot on his crotch. A man polishes a woman's boots and she pushes him back onto a bed with her foot (there is the suggestion of a dominatrix situation). A man and a woman lie in bed together and it is implied that they have just had sex (he is bare-chested and she has bare shoulders and is wrapped with a sheet). A man and a woman sleep in bed together (the man is bare-chested and the woman wears a camisole that reveals cleavage and pajama pants). A woman takes off her jacket (she is wearing a low-cut short top that reveals cleavage, bare abdomen and bare shoulders) and the man in the room misunderstands her intensions and makes remarks that suggest that he will pay her for sex. We see through a not totally transparent pane of glass that a woman's leg is bare to the thigh, she is lifting it in the air and the man who is in the office with her is seen later with lipstick on his cheek. An elderly man makes suggestive remarks to a younger woman in several scenes; in one scene he sits nude on a bed with a towel over his lap and asks her to hold his private parts, in another scene he holds the woman's hand and pulls it toward his crotch. A man and a woman hold hands. A man talks about his sexual exploits. Three women talk about their involvement with a man (one is his fiancée, one is his girlfriend, one just has sex with him). We see a woman's hand gestures as she describes to a police officer when a man has molested her (she puts her hand on her breast). A man toasts to a man, "having sex with the same woman..." at an engagement party and the other man talks about there being "so many positions." A man talks about wanting to play "naked twister." A man talks about wanting a groupie who "will do anything." A woman admits to a man that she is having an affair. A woman leaves a message on an answering machine saying that if a man "wants more than sex..." A woman talks about wanting to find a "grand passion" in her relationship. A remark is made about a man running around "half naked." A woman sits in a bath tub with bubbles to her shoulders. Women wear dresses that are low-cut and reveal cleavage, bare backs and shoulders in many scenes. We see a man's bare chest when his robe hangs open. We see a statue of a man with exposed genitals. We see a dog licking his crotch.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/s/starwarsepisodeiii.htm
Star Wars Episode III
An alien being with a humanoid form (except for the head) wears a very low-cut dress that reveals cleavage and the side of bare breasts. A woman wears dresses that are off the shoulder and reveal cleavage, bare shoulders and back. A bare-chested man gets out of bed where he had been sleeping with his wife. Two gilded statues of nude women adorn an entryway (breasts are evident).

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2001/crazybeautiful.html
Crazy/Beautiful
Crazy/Beautiful has teens cutting classes and educating the youthful masses that it is OK to smoke pot and bring spiked Gatorade to school. Drugs and alcohol are glorified throughout this appalling movie. Nicole is attracted by this hunk and we all begin to connect the dots. She throws herself at Carlos in a reckless and sexually bold manner. Carlos plays his predictable role of hormones-over-intelligence. After all, he is going to try and help Nicole find her way. It isn’t long before we have the obligatory bedroom scene. Teens undressing and crawling into bed with cutaway shots of partial nudity. Let’s not forget to throw in a steamy shower scene. The dialog between the two is, after all, politically correct. Carlos does insist on using a condom and Nicole reassures him that her father (who is outside by the pool) would be "proud that we are using protection".


http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2000/coyoteugly.html
Coyote Ugly

COYOTE UGLY
Rated PG-13 for sensuality

Here's what we've heard about this film...

"...female bartenders who dance, strut and occasionally sensuously dance on top of a bar in front of rowdy and inebriated men..."
-ScreenIt!

"...the good girls want to be bad (or, at least, to bare enough body parts to qualify), the bad girls want to be role models..."
-Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

"...The montages of navel-gazing and wet T-shirts are cut so fast and furiously that the film squeaks by with a PG-13..."
-Kevin Maynard, Mr. Showbiz

"...unabashedly and unapologetically arouses baser thoughts for men in the audience..."
-Preview Online


http://www.screenit.com/movies/1999/my_life_so_far.html
My Life So Far
The following is a brief summary of the content found in this PG-13 rated drama/comedy. The rating comes from sexually related material and nude pictures of women. The former involves some discussions of sex, "wet dreams" and the boy's curiosity about that adult subject, while the later includes drawings, paintings or engravings (but no photos) of naked women that Fraser ogles.

I also still wonder why those apparently offensive posts have not been deletedPlease, give us more irrelevent links as opposed to linking to these offensive posts.

As for PG-13 and scantily cladness, I've seen plenty but don't take my word for it <snip>

Yes, and Titanic has full nudity and is PG-13. What are you trying to prove? Dredging up examples of exceptions the MPAA has made doesn't mean the NS moderation staff will make the same exceptions.

@the mods , who have tried to explain anything :

1. You could surely not everywhere at everytime , but you are quick enough to bann 2 user without warn them and for no reason...

2 .Yes i have written something and after a small talk to Cabra I have deleted it...It was visible maybe 20 seconds...

3. Cabra has done nothing in my opinion...I am sure you make excuses for her

4. I am sure, if you want, you find every day more post, that are harder than this

@Tsaraine
Ihave my doubts that your even have a definition of what cybersex is.
So here is my Suggestion:
You are defined by some people to me a mod, but in a good goverment, there is ever the possibility to abdicate. Personally, I have serious doubts about your qualification as mod and about the way you seem to abuse your powers

It is true that sometimes things which should be Moderated go unnoticed by us; we are, after all, only human, and cannot be everywhere. We are trying to cut down on this, so as to provide even and fair Moderation for all - but still, we cannot be everywhere. Things will be missed at times.

In this case, your thread was Moderated, and you and Hullepupp were found to be in violation of the "obscenity" clause of the Terms of Service. You were forumbanned for this, as is only proper - cybersex is not something we want on our forums.

You say that you are aware of this, that you have not posted anything that would not be found in a movie rated "twelve" - now, admittedly it has been a few years since I last saw one of those, but I do not recall such behaviour in them.

~ Tsar the Mod.

I'm well aware of the fact that not everything can be moderated and that you are, after all human beings. That wasn't my problem here.
My problem was rather that I was forumbanned for 2 posts, after haven posted a very, very large number of similar or even more explicit posts in the last year. I find it hard to believe that the mods didn't even look into threads with titles like "Cybersex", "Who is your favourite porn star" or "When was your first time?" (I tried to find those old threads again, but failed.) Many of these had comments in them that were a lot closer to actual cybersex than the comments in the New Lingerie thread. All of them were active for a few weeks, and had 20+ pages.
I posted in them myself a lot. And considering that I wasn't so much as warned in any of them, I was under the impression that what I did in the New Lingerie Thread didn't even touch the grey area.
I'm not talking about single instances, I've been here over a year, and most of my posts would be found in threads of similar nature.

Suggesting that you take it on your to watch a 12-rated movie might be a bit too bold, so I searched the web for definition of PG13, or rather R. Movies get R rating if they use ""one of the harsher sexually-derived words", which I'm sure you will agree wasn't the case here. A second criterium is reference to alcohol, drugs and tobacco, but I think we can safely ignore it. The last two are nudity (again, nobody in this thread violated that) and explicit sexual contents.
Now, that is where our opinions seem to differ, as I regarded what was posted as a heavy flirt, nothing more. It didn't use sexually explicit language, and I can't help wondering if you had reacted the same way if you hadn't known that it was actually a man and woman posting there. Had it been two guys, the whole thing would have been regarded as just what it was : kidding and fun.

However, you only answered part of my question. I had also asked why Hullepupp was banned after doing the right thing and deleting the one post that actually crossed the line of PG13? Will I leave all my posts, even after I realise that they are inappropriate and offensive, as I will get banned anyway, even if I do try and correct my error and display better judgement?

And why were the posts not deleted if they were that incredibly offensive? All of the posts are still there, including our flirt, including the links to the lingerie catalogues and including all the pics....

Now, that is where our opinions seem to differ, as I regarded what was posted as a heavy flirt, nothing more. It didn't use sexually explicit language, and I can't help wondering if you had reacted the same way if you hadn't known that it was actually a man and woman posting there. Had it been two guys, the whole thing would have been regarded as just what it was : kidding and fun.

We still don't know it was a man and a woman, this is the internet, remember. Playing out 'naughty schoolgirl needs to be spanked' nonsense is cybersex, and if doesn't matter if the participants are two men, a man and a woman, two women, a man and sixteen drunken fratboys yelling suggestions at a guy typing, one guy talking to his own multi, a sausage and an orang-utan, or AI and a sentient candlestick. If you want to play naughty schoolgirls, use something other than this forum.

However, you only answered part of my question. I had also asked why Hullepupp was banned after doing the right thing and deleting the one post that actually crossed the line of PG13?

Because he posted it at all.

Because he posted it at all.

Fair enough, I shall not ever bother to correct myself again, then. Thank you.

It does sound an awful lot like you're not trying to teach or enforce the rules, but to get people banned, no matter what.

Fair enough, I shall not ever bother to correct myself again, then. Thank you.

That would be a strawman fallacy there. Posting something illegal on the forum and then taking it back down still involves posting something illegal on the forum. That he ever felt it legal at all is ban-worthy in itself.

It does sound an awful lot like you're not trying to teach or enforce the rules, but to get people banned, no matter what.

Hullepupp violated his forumban with a puppet. Procedure is deletion of the main and the puppet for all such violations.

If we're trying to oppress, we're really fucking it up.

Hullepupp violated his forumban with a puppet. Procedure is deletion of the main and the puppet for all such violations.

If we're trying to oppress, we're really fucking it up.

I ONLY WANT TO KNOW YOUR REASONS !!!

I ONLY WANT TO KNOW YOUR REASONS !!!

You've got them. That you don't seem to like them is irrelevant to the fact that you have them. You were banned for cyb0ring on our boards.

It doesn't matter that people have done worse. The man holding a dripping knife doesn't get off by pointing out the guy next to him has a bloody chainsaw. You were handed a forumban, which is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. You broke that forumban and were not deleted, which is actually going against our own procedure for such things.

You are still here. You can still post. Stop acting like we hacked off your leg and get on with doing whatever it is you were doing before, as long as unlike before it's within the bounds of the site rules.

ok ... i understand ... it´s not what i wanted to hear . but its ok ...

That would be a strawman fallacy there. Posting something illegal on the forum and then taking it back down still involves posting something illegal on the forum. That he ever felt it legal at all is ban-worthy in itself.

So, all errors in judgement, even if corrected almost immediately, are banworthy?
"That he ever felt it legal" makes it sound an awful lot like thought-police now.
My idea was that warnings and bans are to try and teach people the rules and correct bahaviour, otherwise everybody breaking the rules simply ought to be banned entirely, or am I wrong there?
So, what's the point in saying "We don't care if you already saw that you made a mistake and corrected it, we are going to punish you just as hard anyway, just because we can"?


Hullepupp violated his forumban with a puppet. Procedure is deletion of the main and the puppet for all such violations.

If we're trying to oppress, we're really fucking it up.

That was lenient, I'm well aware. Thank you for that.

So, what's the point in saying "We don't care if you already saw that you made a mistake and corrected it, we are going to punish you just as hard anyway, just because we can"?

Well, not so much that as:

1. The general tone of the postings in that thread by two posters was thought to be unacceptable.

2. Those two posters were roughly equal in terms of conduct except a deleted post which went somewhat further over the line.

3. Because that post was deleted, it represented a lesser offence than if it had not been. However, it still represented an offence because we had no means of determining how long it had been visible.

[You seem to be assuming we can tell if it was removed immediately, rather than hours / days after the fact.]

If it had been visible Hullepupp would have been given a longer forumban than he was. It was taken into account that it was no longer visible.

Well, not so much that as:

1. The general tone of the postings in that thread by two posters was thought to be unacceptable.

2. Those two posters were roughly equal in terms of conduct except a deleted post which went somewhat further over the line.

3. Because that post was deleted, it represented a lesser offence than if it had not been. However, it still represented an offence because we had no means of determining how long it had been visible.

[You seem to be assuming we can tell if it was removed immediately, rather than hours / days after the fact.]

If it had been visible Hullepupp would have been given a longer forumban than he was. It was taken into account that it was no longer visible.

Actually, yes, I was under that impression. Especially as there are generally timestamps whenever a post is edited and deleted. I know my word is nowhere good enough, but the post was online no longer than 60 seconds.

Which brings me directly back to one of my original questions : If the tone was utterly unacceptable, why were the posts not deleted by the mod?
And if the tone was just slightly offensive to the more puritan souls here, but not bad enough to delete the posts, why a ban of an entire week with no warning at all and no chance to correct anything?

Which brings me directly back to one of my original questions : If the tone was utterly unacceptable, why were the posts not deleted by the mod?

Full-thread deletion is only generally done for truly heinous threads [as in 'people get deleted on the spot for the stuff in them'], since otherwise we get accusations of hiding evidence instead.

That and peaople ignoring the bigass allcaps warning and posting region ads in the RP forums.

Full-thread deletion is only generally done for truly heinous threads [as in 'people get deleted on the spot for the stuff in them'], since otherwise we get accusations of hiding evidence instead.

I wasn't talking about full-thread. The thread was locked.
I was talking about the 4 offensive posts. Well, and the other offensive posts containing the offensive pictures of women in underwear....

I wasn't talking about full-thread. The thread was locked.
I was talking about the 4 offensive posts. Well, and the other offensive posts containing the offensive pictures of women in underwear....

Generally if a thread is locked for sub-legal posting said sub-legal posts remain unless they're really bad and the poster is Moderated for making them.

Sort of like fining for vandalism but not cleaning up the grafitti, I know, but without again generates allegatons of hiding evidence. Locked threads sink and that's generally thought of as disposal enough.

Generally if a thread is locked for sub-legal posting said sub-legal posts remain unless they're really bad and the poster is Moderated for making them.

So, really bad would only be instant deletion? Given the contents and the general efforts to keep this forum PG13, I would have assumed that it was in the interest of moderation not to let any underage persons see those posts in the first place?


Sort of like fining for vandalism but not cleaning up the grafitti, I know, but without again generates allegatons of hiding evidence. Locked threads sink and that's generally thought of as disposal enough.

You know, people who get fined for vandalism in this country are generally handed a bucket and a brush and are told to remove their grafitti again. ;)
Again, I understand that the term "cybersex" is up for some interpretation, yet I find it inappropriately hard to come down on a person with an entire week's ban without explanation, without warning, without any chance for that person to defend him/herself...

So, really bad would only be instant deletion? Given the contents and the general efforts to keep this forum PG13, I would have assumed that it was in the interest of moderation not to let any underage persons see those posts in the first place?

The purpose was more to give you two a heads-up that you were going over the line. 'No cybersex' is a rule in itself, and includes the stuff that doesn't need to be removed immediately. Had you gone so far as stuff that did need to be removed immediately we wouldn't be having this conversation, at very least not for another couple of months.

[...]yet I find it inappropriately hard to come down on a person with an entire week's ban without explanation, without warning, without any chance for that person to defend him/herself...

The no-cybersex rule is fairly harshly enforced, I'll agree, which is overspill from the times when it was a bad problem in several forums. Nevertheless, you can hardly argue you don't have a chance to defend yourself when that's exactly what you are doing.

If you'd had severe issues with the forumban, there's the Getting Help Page and Emailing admin to ask for a review. If you want an explaination, likewise there's the GHP.

I know the Mods try to be fair and issue warnings to offenders, Especially when the offenders are doing so for the first time. I always thought that posters, who do strive to stay within the rules, get warnings first, when they crossed (or crossing) the line.

in a high intesity area like NS General, tempers and emotions in general can cause posters to drift over "The Line" unintentionally. Is it fair for people with clean histories of mod action, to be banned without warning?

I know the Mods try to be fair and issue warnings to offenders, Especially when the offenders are doing so for the first time. I always thought that posters, who do strive to stay within the rules, get warnings first, when they crossed (or crossing) the line.

It depends which line they're crossing. Some lines are indeed soft and fluffy and floaty and have angels to push you back to your side and assure you it's not that big a deal.

This particular one has barbed wire, a minefield and specially trained killer bees with ninja moves. There are also lines like 'no threats of real-life harm to other posters' which just have a bigass pit of molten lava after them.

It depends which line they're crossing. Some lines are indeed soft and fluffy and floaty and have angels to push you back to your side and assure you it's not that big a deal.

This particular one has barbed wire, a minefield and specially trained killer bees with ninja moves.
but when posting in fun and jest, and the momentum of the thread does cross the... let's call it rating line from PG to PG-13. isn't a warning more appropriate than a ban?

Especialy with a line as fuzzy as one that is, by definition, baised on personal morals.

after all, what might be appropos for some may be pr0n for others.

Especialy with a line as fuzzy as one that is, by definition, baised on personal morals.

Well, not really. If you start pretending to have sex with someone, you're cyb0ring. Pretty much anything beyond the friendly types [*hugs you* / *snuggles you* / *kisses you*] of thing, and certainly when you get to the realm of 'I'm a naughty schoolgirl.'

Well, not really. If you start pretending to have sex with someone, you're cyb0ring. Pretty much anything beyond the friendly types [*hugs you* / *snuggles you* / *kisses you*] of thing, and certainly when you get to the realm of 'I'm a naughty schoolgirl.'

So, basically, if I had used conjuctive, I would have been on the safe side, as I wasn't pretending?

Instead of saying "I lift my skirt", "Well, in that case I would lift my skirt"?

So, basically, if I had used conjuctive, I would have been on the safe side, as I wasn't pretending?

Instead of saying "I lift my skirt", "Well, in that case I would lift my skirt"?

I'd say you'd be on the safer side...It'd depend on the content of the rest of the thread. We've always said it's ok to discuss sex in the General forum provided you're not being overly childish about it or having cybersex.

If, for example, the next reply after that was, 'I see...' and discussion, then that'd be fine. If it was 'Well, if you did that I'd have to get my wang out' then not so fine.

Well, not really. If you start pretending to have sex with someone, you're cyb0ring. Pretty much anything beyond the friendly types [*hugs you* / *snuggles you* / *kisses you*] of thing, and certainly when you get to the realm of 'I'm a naughty schoolgirl.'Ah... Ok, what I needed to know. thks.

I'd say you'd be on the safer side...It'd depend on the content of the rest of the thread. We've always said it's ok to discuss sex in the General forum provided you're not being overly childish about it or having cybersex.

If, for example, the next reply after that was, 'I see...' and discussion, then that'd be fine. If it was 'Well, if you did that I'd have to get my wang out' then not so fine.
but then, while the "Wang" person be banned, would the "I would lift my skirt" person also get... banned?

I'd say you'd be on the safer side...It'd depend on the content of the rest of the thread. We've always said it's ok to discuss sex in the General forum provided you're not being overly childish about it or having cybersex.

If, for example, the next reply after that was, 'I see...' and discussion, then that'd be fine. If it was 'Well, if you did that I'd have to get my wang out' then not so fine.

I might come across as a little pedantic now, but I'm still trying to figure out where exactly we touched grey area.
Talking about sex is ok, apparently. From that I conclude it's ok to talk about having sex as well. Talking about sexual experiences in the past is ok as well, as long as the words don't get too explicit, I assume.
So the one thing we did wrong was the pretending?

So the one thing we did wrong was the pretending?

Correct. Actually going so far as to act out having sex with another user is Not Allowed. Includes starting something going that way, and obvious situations set up to that effect.

Correct. Actually going so far as to act out having sex with another user is Not Allowed. Includes starting something going that way, and obvious situations set up to that effect.

Ok. I would suggest to point that out explicitly somewhere in the rules, as this isn't cybersex as per general definition, nor is it actually explicit. Just to avoid confusion for other unsuspecting posters in the future.

You know, it took 10 days and an awful lot of discussion for me to understand what went wrong there. Had we simply been warned and had this been pointed out to us, it would have saved eberybody a lot of time and effort...

I think we can close this issue. We all wanna have fun ... :)

@GMC Military Arms
Thank you for the time to spend trying to explain us what was wrong.

True enough.