|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:24 pm
Phoe said I got nailed for pantyshots and harrassment.
The harrassment I guess I understand because I used Kansai_Gal's avatar.
But I don't see what's wrong with COVERED UP panties.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:47 pm
Sir Ichigo Phoe said I got nailed for pantyshots and harrassment. The harrassment I guess I understand because I used Kansai_Gal's avatar. But I don't see what's wrong with COVERED UP panties. Well even with the avatar in front of the picture the panties were still visible. Maybe it's just full blown panty shots = non PG-13, and that one was pretty much a full blown shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:51 pm
Uncle Kenny Sir Ichigo Phoe said I got nailed for pantyshots and harrassment. The harrassment I guess I understand because I used Kansai_Gal's avatar. But I don't see what's wrong with COVERED UP panties. Well even with the avatar in front of the picture the panties were still visible. Maybe it's just full blown panty shots = non PG-13, and that one was pretty much a full blown shot. But you could barely see the panties. For all anyone who hadn't seen the original knew, it was a white hippo stuck to something pink. I'm still miffed over the panty thing. That's just taking it a bit far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:56 pm
Sir Ichigo But you could barely see the panties. For all anyone who hadn't seen the original knew, it was a white hippo stuck to something pink. I'm still miffed over the panty thing. That's just taking it a bit far.  You can still see it pretty clearly, even if you didn't see the first one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:02 pm
Uncle Kenny Sir Ichigo But you could barely see the panties. For all anyone who hadn't seen the original knew, it was a white hippo stuck to something pink. I'm still miffed over the panty thing. That's just taking it a bit far. You can still see it pretty clearly, even if you didn't see the first one. All I care about is that the part they originally said to cover up is covered up. If that much underwear showing violates the TOS, then Gaia's avatar system violates it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:23 pm
NONONO. I asked Q&A.
They told me that if an atomical structure was showing, it was a against the TOS. There is no way you can see anything.
Would it be harassment if she used another Mods picture and said, 'MODS HATE US?' Not to mention underneath she said it was a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:28 pm
3.14 NONONO. I asked Q&A. They told me that if an atomical structure was showing, it was a against the TOS. There is no way you can see anything. Would it be harassment if she used another Mods picture and said, 'MODS HATE US?' Not to mention underneath she said it was a joke. There wasn't anything showing in the first place. Fabric wrinkles. You couldn't call it an "outline" more than you could call it a meteorite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:35 pm
You should tell them to start banning everyone who's avatar is naked or in underwear. Same thing really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:36 pm
Gamashinoch You should tell them to start banning everyone who's avatar is naked or in underwear. Same thing really. Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:36 pm
Sir Ichigo 3.14 NONONO. I asked Q&A. They told me that if an atomical structure was showing, it was a against the TOS. There is no way you can see anything. Would it be harassment if she used another Mods picture and said, 'MODS HATE US?' Not to mention underneath she said it was a joke. There wasn't anything showing in the first place. Fabric wrinkles. You couldn't call it an "outline" more than you could call it a meteorite. The image was pretty risque before. But now it's barely PG. It's nothing more than what you see at the beach. As for the harassment, I can understand I guess. Although it seems like sour grapes to me. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:37 pm
Sir Ichigo Gamashinoch You should tell them to start banning everyone who's avatar is naked or in underwear. Same thing really. Exactly. The avatars show more that the picture does. Just for that. I am going to run around as naked as I can get.
Get a picture of avatars in panties and make into a banner, close up's mind you, they b***h, tell 'em exactly what it is. Use your own avatar ever. Use mine for all I care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:39 pm
Gamashinoch Sir Ichigo Gamashinoch You should tell them to start banning everyone who's avatar is naked or in underwear. Same thing really. Exactly. The avatars show more that the picture does. Just for that. I am going to run around as naked as I can get.
Get a picture of avatars in panties and make into a banner, close up's mind you, they b***h, tell 'em exactly what it is. Use your own avatar ever. Use mine for all I care. I love you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:41 pm
Sir Ichigo Gamashinoch Sir Ichigo Gamashinoch You should tell them to start banning everyone who's avatar is naked or in underwear. Same thing really. Exactly. The avatars show more that the picture does. Just for that. I am going to run around as naked as I can get.
Get a picture of avatars in panties and make into a banner, close up's mind you, they b***h, tell 'em exactly what it is. Use your own avatar ever. Use mine for all I care. I love you. Join the club. wink heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:42 pm
I'll go nakkers for Ichi. scream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:44 pm
Sir Ichigo Phoe's the only mod I know, and I don't think I'm on either Ichigo's or Morbie's good sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
