So what you are telling me is that regardless of age or breed that any form of contact with any animal is then defined as cruelty and abuse. This is regardless of whether or not both parties are consenting.
What? No, quite the contrary. ?
There are more-or-less (aside a clear minimum age number) clear factors, variables and those define which material is acceptable for ZooVille.
And still random (often new accounts) people (re)post abuse up to cruelty quite regularly, get reported and in the best cases banned.
But: this case we discuss about
doesn't even reach the borders of "
cruelty" or "
abuse", it's "
unnecessary risks and a young dog with unclear minimum age @ rules" due to a missing minimum age clarification in the rules. Not even a direct rule break, but a grey area, as many have stated - which gets grey area handling (individual decisions by those that decide), that's to expect.
Nothing more, nothing less. Independently of not being "cruelty" or "abuse", it's still something which people (user) don't necessarily want to get presented on this site. That's all.
You will never end cruelty or rid it from the face of this planet no matter how hard we try.
That's self-explanatory. But it doesn't imply that people
have to accept it here on this forum, even if at the end the abusive crap will forever stay in the .nets. And it's somewhat off-topic here in this thread due to the specific grey area discussed about.
Unfortunately even if ZV bans people from this site they will only return under a different user name.
Probably. Some do, some don't. It's still no option to "just accept everything and let the whole forum get a dumpster fire". That's what rules and handling of those breaking them are for.
Nothing is fool proof but I think its sad that innocent people have been judged and banned or had their posts removed for following rules which arent clear and concise.
Which case do you talk about? As you can see: we (including original OP) actively discuss the topic and just the specific thread was removed. Granted, removal of the specific grey area posts would've been enough and
I even support a partial deletion instead, but depending on how much work this generates or how confusing the remaining posts might be, it's the less problematic effort to remove it wholly.
Always remember one thing in life. What one person sees as being wrong doesnt always mean that it is wrong.
That is correct, but in this case it's to this time a grey area and the problematic age range is as well a given - not just a guess. Why else would the OP understand and actually support a clear age number limitation? Why would this thread with a discussion exist?
Answer this question for me.... Whats the definition of cleanliness?
In written text? Surely paragraphs and readability. ?
We need to be more open minded and accepting of people and what they do or say. We cant just pigeon hole people. Show some compassion. There are people here who have good intentions and do things without any malice. Its hard enough with general society crucifying ZOOs without us outing ourselves as well.
That's basically the standard (non-)argument of all those which are outlined by rules: pedophiles, abusing or torturing enthusiasts, incest enthusiasts, those that think BDSM is fine with animals, those which want body modifications on their animals and so on.
No, just because "Zoophilia" is not accepted widely it doesn't mean that "anything should be accepted and welcomed". We as loving zoophiles are not the shit and waste of humanity, but for those with mentioned interests that's a different topic. And I am happy that they're mostly kept outside. ?
Those which are respecting the rules instead partake in a discussion about why it was problematic or unclear, as
@SaltyDog does.
All Im asking is that moderators/administrators be more clear and concise with the rules of this site and not to just delete posts because one person in the forum decides the post doesnt fit or suit their way of thinking. Thats just closed mindedness by one person.
There's a two person system established from what I've read in the past. And as you can see in regards of reports: there are more people than "Just one" which actually found the specific intercourse with copulation to be too far on the "not acceptable" side of rules grey areas.
Read through the forum and see what the general reactions towards a post is before deleting it.
Uh. Should I state it in easier words? "That's hot!" "Such a nice girl!" "A lovely pair!" and so on.
The same sort of comments you find under quite clearly abusive videos quite often. Like bound horses. Leashed dogs which are pulled on their tails (a sensitive extension of the backbone!). And so on.
It's impossible to judge based on the comments coming out of horniness of random fappers. ?
.. and start to accuse them of being a rapist (as in the case of SaltyDog).
Where?
I love nature and I love animals and Ive saved many creatures in my life and I will continue to save them. So what I have written does come from a good place without any malice. It does bring a tear to my eye knowing that there is so much cruelty in this world.
A good stance of mind if you mean it like you write it. Then you should understand why grey area rules are problematic and lead to unclear outcome. ?
No one and I mean NO one had any issue with the thread ..
Uhm. It got reported multiple times, as you can read a bit earlier. ?
One liners dont explain what Im trying to say or the point im trying to make.
That's fine, but one empty line between paragraphs would ease up the readability by universes.
