/b/ - Random

Quality is not guaranteed


New Reply[×]
Sage
Subject
Message
Files Max 8 files48.1MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


If (You) don't like something then post what (You) want to see.


47dde9fde7b094160921818fe07f14c544ef89d806ba155c6bba1003e308dfd3.jpg U A
[Hide] (73.4KB, 750x450) Reverse
Replies: >>6730
>>6729 (OP) 
Makes me want to put on an eye patch and set sail
>>102436
>we know that...
No, you're just assuming that everyone here knows for some arbitrary reason, as if reading that manga is a requirement for browsing the 'foo. I have no fucking idea what it revolves around or who wrote it, why should someone like me be subject to accusations and thread deletions?
People see a cute fox and they post reaction images with it, and you automatically assume they have bad intentions and wish to delete their thread using incredibly poor justification 
This thread is staying, and so is every other thread that doesn't break the rules of the site
Knock it off with the reaction images from that comic, it’s lolishit.
>>102404
Do you have any facts or is a soicvck acid reflex you have at everything and anything you don't like?
>>102406
I looked it up and the reviews say so and the author makes other shit that definitely classifies.
>>102404
Knock it off with this annoying "everything is pedophilia" thing, you should really stop browsing the sharty at some point
>>102407
What if I ignore the weirdo author and appreciate the cute character he made? A broken clock is right twice a day
>>102409
I’m not saying your a pedo but not everyone knows the context of everything. Don’t need people talking about fucking the Op because they don’t know what is.
Like here’s a mangadex forum this doesn’t instill confidence:
https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/wazawai-kitsune-no-kuzure-chan.554046/
>>102411
You have consistently been the only one bringing up this topic across multiple threads and derailing them, i think you in specific should entirely refrain from deleting or banning people for these kinds of things and wait for another mod to look at it, i'm tired of discussing this with you
>>102412
>links comments from turd worlders
>the only negative feedback is from some reddit normien and a literal soi child with his stunted speech pattern "ayo ts coal!!!!"
Yeah... so basically stop derailing my thread faggot.
>>102413
No need to use the staff code intimidation I know who you are. I have not banned anyone outside of cases we can all agree on I bring these topics up exactly for the reason so we can discuss them.
>>102417
This convo is stressing me out so much I need to go bust a nut to 'tsuki brb
>>102418
>the Nekotsuki poster is also a lolicon
Well that’s not surprising
>>102417
We've already discussed them plenty and i don't see a point in continuing, chillax with the accusations and leave normal people alone
>>102418
Patriot...
>>102411
Why are zoomers such puritans
30a3fc67-61e6-470e-acab-b6351ffcc59e.jpg U A
[Hide] (1.8MB, 2224x3000) Reverse
>>102419
That's impossible because I only find mature women attractive
>>102421
I don’t have a problem at all with OP they didn’t do anything wrong I just think should be struck in this just for qualities sake.
>>102426
strict on this*
>>102419
there's like two dozen 'tsukiposters on the foo
>>102426
Well I appreciate that you care about this site but always keep in mind anyone can come and post whatever. The only thing we can do is ignore their attention seeking and not reward it by sperging out and having a divisive shit fling. That's what they want from you
>Yes goy listen to the people who want to kill your community on what is bad for the community
>>102426
>>102427
Strict on what? An image of a small fox? Why exactly should we be "strict" on this? In what way is this thread compromising the quality of the board? 
We're not turning this place into rulecuck hell and that's final, take my advice for your own sake and stop needlessly looking for reasons to attack people based on what they post
>>102430
I still miss Germananon btw
>>102434
Maybe his Erinnerungskultur is making him uncomfortable sharing this board with actual nazis
>>102431
If it was up to me I’d just calmly say this isn’t allowed here and sweep it.
>>102433
No need to play dumb we know that comic is about a little fox girl and a little boy being lewd. I don’t see the reason to play ball and sweep anytime someone says they wanna fuck it by accident when I could just cut it at the head.
>>102436
Many characters posted on this site have a lot of porn associated with them or appear in similarly lewd material. Does that mean we need to stop posting them because nsfw is against the rules here?
>>102438
It’s not because it’s nsfw it’s because the character in question is a stand in for a 12 yo.
>>102439
If I didn’t know I’d just let it stay, but I had a feeling, looked it up, and it was confirmed. Since I know I should help my fellow anfoos not embarrass themselves.
Replies: >>6761
>>102440
Is posting children not allowed? I saw a post just the other day with a comic about a goat father and his daughter, is that disallowed now? People have been posting pictures of babies and children on the internet since it began (see: the first ever meme), for a simple reason - they're cute. Do I need to attach all this baggage to an image of a cute young fox girl just because you say so?
Replies: >>6758
>>6757
Context is key however, in those cases the reader can clearly understand that there’s a child stand in while in this one that line is intentionally blurred. People won’t know based on their first look at the picrel.
Replies: >>6760 >>6761
I feel this should have been moved to the meta thread.
>>6758
What do you mean context? I saw a thread with a cute fox girl, I don't know anything else about it. How am I supposed to know this context? If you're the one familiar with loli fur comics enough to know at a glance what it is from then I think you are the one with your mind in the gutter, not everyone else
Replies: >>6763
>>6756
They're not embarrassing themselves if you're the only one claiming they are
>>6758
>Hi, here's an image of a fox, but I AM MORALLY OBLIGATED TO WARN YOU THAT IT COMES FROM PROBLEMATIC MEDIA! Why? Well, uhhh, i dunno, our posters might inhale the virtual diddyblud particles and get infected...
>I saw a thread with a cute fox girl, I don't know anything else about it. How am I supposed to know this context?
Exactly, people don’t know the context and will say they wanna fuck it or some shit.
>what it is from
Reverse search.
Replies: >>6764 >>6766
>>6760
>If you're the one familiar with loli fur comics enough to know at a glance what it is from then I think you are the one with your mind in the gutter, not everyone else
Funny how the good guys always have gore and cp to spam the "bad" people with
>>6762
I don't think our posters should be required to do background checks on a fictional character's age before making off handed jokes, no one here actually wants to fuck children and you know it
Replies: >>6765
>>6764
Exactly so if it comes up the character is underaged why not save them the hassle and just delete it?
Replies: >>6770
>>6762
If it looks ambiguous enough that it's not possible to determine with certainty whether it's an adult or child at a glance then what exactly is the problem with people shitposting about wanting to fuck it? These aren't humans, they are anthros. Just like you can't easily tell the age of an animal you come across since you aren't the species, you can't just conjure the age of the anthro based on a look. 

Even if you could make an unequivocally child-like furry that everyone could agree is a child... so what? You aren't preventing people from saying they want to fuck it, people will say whatever they want and could do the exact same thing if you posted an innocuous image of a human child. What problem is this solving exactly?
Replies: >>6768
08c335c2cbb2effc3a7f1f22849283b9.gif U A
[Hide] (733KB, 900x900) Reverse
this gif is funny
>>6766
Because nobody here wants to say they’d fuck an underaged character so for everyone’s sake just prune it if the case comes up.
Replies: >>6769 >>6770
>>6768
If no one would say it then why delete it?
Replies: >>6771
>>6765
Why? 
>oh no i joked about furry sex and didn't know that the character (read: character, not a real person with an objective age) was underage, i have now magically turned into a pedophile with evil intentions 
>>6768
Again, for whose sake? Who is this hurting? Who is affected by this? Who suffers as a cause of this?
>>6769
Because back to square one, they didn’t know what they were looking at when they said so.
>Why? 
>>oh no i joked about furry sex and didn't know that the character (read: character, not a real person with an objective age) was underage, i have now magically turned into a pedophile with evil intentions 
That’s why I’m saying just delete and not ban.
> Again, for whose sake? Who is this hurting? Who is affected by this? Who suffers as a cause of this?
Gotta uphold some standards on the site no?
Replies: >>6772 >>6773 >>6776
2b49e830cedebe23bdfb11af984be491134362e7acbcd1f828edf9f639c75b60.png U A
[Hide] (322.3KB, 478x437) Reverse
>>6771
>Gotta uphold some standards on the site no?
>>6771
Okay and let's say they do end up learning that this fictional cartoon animal thing is not the cutoff age for the current human country they live in and thus they are not morally permitted to make jokes. Does this transform them into a pedophile?
Replies: >>6774
>>6773
No, I’m not saying anyone is a pedophile. I just don’t want lolis on my foo.
Replies: >>6775 >>6776 >>6777
4a023b721adec9f852f13791e733031579f96f1dc762de66bbf1f6181529e610.png U A
[Hide] (172.5KB, 400x400) Reverse
>>6774
>I just don’t want lolis on my foo.
Based.
>>6771
>That’s why I’m saying just delete and not ban.
If it's not NSFW or otherwise sexualized lolicon content it has a right to stay, deleting it will just confuse people
>Gotta uphold some standards on the site no?
Our standards are defined and very clear to all, most people find no issue with them and there's no need to shoehorn in gray areas 
>>6774
If your definition of loli is simply "any child character ever" then you're not going to get what you wish for
Replies: >>6780
>>6774
Well now we're going back to what I said initially about posting children. Does that mean posting all children is banned? What counts as loli and what counts as innocuous cute child anthros? The picture we're referring to seemed innocent enough. Does the presence of pornography of a character change how you interpret that character? Well no again because that would ban a huge number of anthro characters from this site. So what exactly is your criteria for what causes a character to be banned? If I draw a child fox and then someone else draws porn does that make it a bannable character? How do you know this character from this loli doujin you apparently read originates there?
Replies: >>6780
there are plenty of other altchans out there that are far less strict
why not go there? what's wrong?
Replies: >>6779 >>6783
>>6778
Who is this comment even directed to
>>6776
>>6777
I don’t see it being hard, a child character who’s sexualized in their source material works just fine.
>this loli doujin you apparently read
Argue in good faith please.
Replies: >>6781 >>6782 >>6790
>>6780
I think this is fair
>>6780
That's also poor criteria, because if sexualized source material is grounds for removal that also disqualifies characters poster here. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the artist who created nekotsuki draws lewds, does that disqualify the character?
Replies: >>6784
>>6778
Try to complain or call someone a fag on those "less strict" altchans and see how far you get lol
Replies: >>6785
>>6782
Nekotsuki isnt a child.
Replies: >>6786
>>6783
when I say "less strict," I mean less strict, and yes, such sites exist
why not post there? you are a free man there
>>6784
So? NSFW still isn't allowed here
Replies: >>6787 >>6788
>>6786
>NSFW isn't allowed here
Not true, read the rules they explicitly state what you can't post.
>>6786
I’m not arguing about that I’m arguing about getting lolicon characters out.
Replies: >>6791
What's the weird obsession with muh nsfw when this website isn't for kids and let's you post anything you want as long as it's not illegal in the united states or just straight up porn
Replies: >>6792 >>6793 >>6818
>>6780
>I don’t see it being hard, a child character who’s sexualized in their source material works just fine.
I MIGHT have taken you up on this had it not been for your previous crashouts aimed against the mahjong girl and Zhao, both of whom are from sfw media, so you're just straight up lying
Replies: >>6793
>>6788
Well I'm arguing for the removal of all lewd characters, why are your needs greater than mine?
945c45778995dc1eb1914a1e4b9799d6f63e46ee81061b475bbc1b79f0de0e0f.gif U A
[Hide] (846KB, 244x234) Reverse
>>6789
>>6789
Please don’t derail this I’m arguing against loli anthros not sexy anthros.
>>6790
I’m fine with Zhao she’s just a womanlet adult, I didn’t like that tweet that was posted because that was gross and you niggas got mad at me for calling it gross. That majong girl was 16 so she doesn’t make the cut.
Replies: >>6794
>>6793
idk why anons insist on forcing this here
there are altchans out there that permit exactly what they want
Replies: >>6795
>>6794
Please read the entire thread
01aec3e0754b0965f6c17cd9d5bfd644514910483aedfc6d37f76b1bcbba8619.jpg U A
[Hide] (128.5KB, 734x800) Reverse
Posting this image does not warrant a banishment to another altchan, what exactly do you mean by "what they want"
Replies: >>6798
343f2951eaae640cb2c6d800c31cbdf543b29cd806dd0c9bc031097b390c3e4e.jpg U A
[Hide] (125.3KB, 951x951) Reverse
Did kuzure buck-break the 'foo?
>>6796
I see it as a necessary sacrifice, I believe furanon should be able to safely say he wants to tap an anthro without having to be concerned. What are you suggesting? That we just allow it and people saying they want to fuck it?
Replies: >>6800
fact.jpg U A
[Hide] (49.2KB, 534x700) Reverse
Altchans are dead because the content is too extreme for most posters. That's why the 'foo is still alive and even has artists willing too associate with it.
Replies: >>6801
>>6798
>without having to be concerned
Nothing to be concerned about if you don't give people a reason to fear condemnation, actual pedos can be sniffed out very easily and i can assure you that they are not overlapped with people making jokes about fox sex, you should not shame them and you should not delete their posts
Replies: >>6802
>>6799
Nipples are not extreme i think we should #freethenip
Replies: >>6802 >>6803
>>6800
I’m not condemning anyone, I feel I shouldn’t willfully allow lolis to be posted and for people to say they want to fuck them. I’d rather this site be easy instead of we play ball just to allow loli (which I hate) and start doing some case by case bullshit where “is this person saying they want to fuck this loli pedophillic”. Ironically there’s the moral grey area where you have to start deciding when the loli is pedophilic.
>>6801
I agree not inherently, it’s perfectly fine in some peices it just so happens it’s not in 99% of cases regarding furry art.
Replies: >>6804 >>6818
>>6801
Never use your capcode to try force an "official site" opinion because it is not and only your own. Bad.
>>6802
There's a lot of "I"s in your post here, i don't like it for reasons that you can probably deduce, the "(which I hate)" part being the worst offender
>I feel I shouldn’t willfully allow lolis to be posted
If the post follows the rules it stays up, simple
>and start doing some case by case bullshit where “is this person saying they want to fuck this loli pedophillic”.
If it's not a sexualized depiction then it's not pedophilic, i feel like this is pretty simple to understand as well
>Ironically there’s the moral grey area where you have to start deciding when the loli is pedophilic.
Refer to my previous two statements
You not liking child characters is ALSO your own opinion and you shouldn't demand that someone stop posting, in your own words, "lolishit", when it didn't break any rule whatsoever, leave it be and stop policing people for no reason
>If the post follows the rules it stays up, simple
That’s why I want an amendment.
>If it's not a sexualized depiction then it's not pedophilic, i feel like this is pretty simple to understand as well
Half the equation, there’s also furanon wanting to fuck it. Just how much of a child should it look like before that’s a problem?
Replies: >>6806
>>6805
>That’s why I want an amendment.
The rules are fine in their current form
>Just how much of a child should it look like before that’s a problem?
It should be a problem if you look through their post history and see a similar repeating pattern, an edgy joke is different from continued bad behaviour
Replies: >>6807 >>6808
>>6806
I think we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt and be much less strict on deleting but that is just my own opinion, here i am offering a compromise in the form of a mini investigation of the user before any action is taken
>>6806
I see this has evolved to a discussion beyond its original scope. I’m gonna go eat and I’ll suggest an idea for an amendment to the rules in #meta
Replies: >>6809 >>6810
>>6808
eat then*
>>6808
Unnecessary, this is such a miniscule problem that there's no need to clutter the ruleset with more stuff, sorry if i sound like a broken record but you should really start seperating the sharty and everywhere else
eae58321b8918eca167c106e20a795c8d829575f9ac432ac9189b2f719e23609.jpg U A
[Hide] (57KB, 1334x750) Reverse
I dunno sirs, on one hand being committed to the sfw nature of the place is commendable, the fox does look suspiciously child-like, the author does draw them in an odd way that can probably provoke the "uoooh ToT" types. That, and also making 3 threads with the fox in question in a row does seem odd. 
But on the other hand the comic itself doesn't cross the line (at least it didn't by the time I'd dropped it, which wasn't that far in), the kitsune herself is like 900 years old (because of course she is lmao).

Thus it's understandable how this could be a dilemma. Moderate the provocateur or those who take the bait? I'd aim to base the judgement on experience and precedent. The core userbase of the place cannot be that big and there shouldn't be that many trolls around. Is this a known troublemaker? Basic janitor tools are probably limited but those with full access can probably see the whole shebang down to the gpu model in case of some browsers (*cough*brave*cough*), so they can profile for users to pay attention to and hand down the bulletins. Malicious intent → moderate thread; no sign of malicious intent but questionable taste/quality → moderate responses. Presumption of innocence.
If the case isn't cut&dry there ought to be time to reach consensus on things like these before acting. Maybe something good will come from this incident as it gets added to the list of examples to build a list of precedents and examples of moderation, whatever the final verdict may be.

Ideally there'd be internal moderation guidelines for borderline cases (even if they are not publicly shared on the rules page), just so that the team is more in sync. 

Last idea: the "built like a kid, acts like a kid but isn't a kid or mortal" trope isn't new or original. Surely some other sfw places (be them altchans, forums, boorus or anything of the sort) have run into a similar dilemma; how do they treat it? Can't come up with any examples atm sadly, nothing comes to mind.
Replies: >>6812
>>6811
Here, i'll break the suspension:
The thread which started this was posted by floof (the admin), and all of the other kuzures were posted by a guy with a perfectly normal post history
This whole witch hunt was started over nothing, and as a result there are now attempts to add useless shit to the rules just because of one guy's distaste
>>6789
This
>>6802
Loli isn’t inherently pedophilic, that’s kinda like saying furry is inherently zoophilic, I guess it’s ok to post it as long as it doesn’t involved with fucked up fetishes & exposed private parts. But that’s up to ya’ll to decide if it’s ok or not
[New Reply]
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.3