FA+
Shop
What I have learned from the reaction to the recent rule ...
2 years ago
General
_Man_ do a lot of people post without bothering to read the rules. At least it explains all those people who were all surprised that they got in trouble for a 'totally reasonable' submission but when I looked it was at best borderline, (16-20 in human terms), and most of the time I'm like "dude, that's a twelve year old."
For the record, here is the relevant rule from the earliest I can quickly call up on the Wayback Machine:
Content featuring minors is prohibited when nudity or sexual activity is present. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.
The date on that? "Updated: 8/5/2015" (The snapshot itself is from 2015-09-08.)
IOW: We know how the mods are going to interpret the idea of "it counts as underage if it looks underage," they've been doing it for years.
For the record, here is the relevant rule from the earliest I can quickly call up on the Wayback Machine:
Content featuring minors is prohibited when nudity or sexual activity is present. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.
The date on that? "Updated: 8/5/2015" (The snapshot itself is from 2015-09-08.)
IOW: We know how the mods are going to interpret the idea of "it counts as underage if it looks underage," they've been doing it for years.
