[RESOLVED] Nekkid human

[Grave]

Dunno if this is beyond the rules or not but, here it is anyway...

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/49721/

[uncia2000]

Heh, that's "no bits showing", Dragoneer...
Don't think that quite comes under "explicit and/or sexual situations" (the latter is still vague, IMO, and neither is yet incorporated into the formal TOS).

I know the artist, and yes those were indeed posted on SA, previously.

*waits*

[Grave]

Heh, that's "no bits showing", Dragoneer...

I know the artist, and yes those were posted on SA previously.

*waits*

I figured id post it anyway, just in case.

[uncia2000]

Heh, heh... Can't you wait for me to edit my own post ;)

Yes, a good test image, I think. Will see...

[Dragoneer]

Heh, heh... Can't you wait for me to edit my own post ;)

Yes, a good test image, I think. Will see...
I'm going to allow it, being that it's more tasteful. I don't think it violates the rules.

[uncia2000]

Thumbs up for that call, 'yena... 8)

Thanks for the post, Grave. We can now mark this one as a reference point and wait for a similar image of someone lying on a bed, instead of a table... *erm*

[Dragoneer]

Thumbs up for that call, 'yena... 8)

Thanks for the post, Grave. We can now mark this one as a reference point and wait for a similar image of someone lying on a bed, instead of a table... *erm*
Well, I think tasteful photography is fine (read: not showing bits). The moment bits are there...

[uncia2000]

Well, I think tasteful photography is fine (read: not showing bits). The moment bits are there...
Good, good... thx.

In theory we'd be cutting a finer line on the "Dost test" depending on the context, pose, etc., but I'd trust no-one would push those criteria to their limits... and it must help that we have a clear dividing line written into our TOS (forum version).
("Explicit and/or sexual situations" might be better reworded, in that case, since the latter is definitely ambiguous)

(jm-understanding, anyhow...)