@sirvancelot
I want to make it clear that in this post I meant repeatedly removing automatically spoilered/hidden tags (such as explicit, or in this case, human nudity) when you know you shouldn’t could end up getting you banned. Not like removing it once will make that happen.
It’s still early morning for most of the staff so they’ll come and settle everything when they can : ) Don’t worry about it too much. It’s clear there’s a lot of confusion about the human nudity tag still. It’s a new rule and the terminology/semantics seems to be preventing people from wrapping their heads around it.
Given that this series of photos involves no nudity whatsoever, I certainly hope so.
I want to make it clear that in this post I meant repeatedly removing automatically spoilered/hidden tags (such as explicit, or in this case, human nudity) when you know you shouldn’t could end up getting you banned. Not like removing it once will make that happen.
It’s still early morning for most of the staff so they’ll come and settle everything when they can : ) Don’t worry about it too much. It’s clear there’s a lot of confusion about the human nudity tag still. It’s a new rule and the terminology/semantics seems to be preventing people from wrapping their heads around it.
But she’s not nude. Exhibitionist, certainly. But not nude. Do you see naughty bits? I don’t.
Sources needed.
>possible jail-bait trap here
Seriously, as long as one does not attempt to touch, who the hell cares?
never mind then
but still, all I see is covered “naughty bits” (well, she’s 10% covered)
no nudity
Well I still think its a bit silly but alright
yes, she is legal
possible jail-bait trap here
https://derpiboo.ru/meta/poll-on-expanding-rule-5
I was feeling uppity. That tag irritated the piss out of me…