• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

[ZOOVILLE RULES]

Oldman said:
Here is our reason. It's our website, we don't want it here, we talked about it and everyone voted no. Create your own website. We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you.
Click to expand...
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
 
Last edited:
You joined yesterday and you trying lecture long term users on this community and forcing/advertising your scat/shitty kinks. Don't you see that nobody wants that kind of content here? Is not related with animals and relations with animals (active, exclusive or fetishists) so stop it and go with your "manure" somewhere else.

Seb
 
Elven&Werewolf said:
You joined yesterday and you trying lecture long term users on this community and forcing/advertising your scat/shitty kinks. Don't you see that nobody wants that kind of content here? Is not related with animals and relations with animals (active, exclusive or fetishists) so stop it and go with your "manure" somewhere else.

Seb
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about how long members have been here. Possible appeal to authority fallacy. What matters is who you are, not how long you've been around. It's possible some "long-term members" could get exposed for heretical actions beyond the scope of even the worst bestiality. My point being that my age or the age of my account does not automatically make my argument more stupid. Some things are just common sense and universal values. Nobody's immune to a good argument.
 
pissyfart said:
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
Click to expand...
No coding is needed when forums are permissions based.
That is useless, because the admin would have to see it if something goes on. I'm sure the admin is not into it.

If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look
Click to expand...
I think preaching that we're not into every-single-thing that the media and the rest of the internet thinks is what we're going for. We have standards. I know. Shocking.
In all my time being around the community and being in other forums. Never have I seen a special scat section, or some other fetish type section. It was zoophilia oriented.
 
dogluver101 said:
No coding is needed when forums are permissions based.
That is useless, because the admin would have to see it if something goes on. I'm sure the admin is not into it.


I think preaching that we're not into every-single-thing that the media and the rest of the internet thinks is what we're going for. We have standards. I know. Shocking.
In all my time being around the community and being in other forums. Never have I seen a special scat section, or some other fetish type section. It was zoophilia oriented.
Click to expand...
Hire admins that could see it. And "standards" don't apply when they're subjective, like I think human-on-animal is unattractive. I wouldn't preach how high my standards are, though. :p
 
pissyfart said:
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
Click to expand...
We

Don't

Want

It

Here

You already got the reason, but choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I'm not being defensive. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions on what should and shouldn't be and I've already spent too much time on this subject. Also. Don't spread this shit to other threads, some mods with less patience than me don't take too kindly to that.
 
dogluver101 said:
How about this? What makes feces safer?
Click to expand...
Feces are safer due to the lower risk of psychological and physical damage to the animal, and no legal danger if you sniff poop from a distance. Hell, even touching it with gloves is relatively safe, whereas touching a dog's hole(s) with gloves may release unwanted material in there. The risk for humans making sexual contact with them is probably roughly the same as with sexual or fetish parts not containing feces.
 
Oldman said:
We

Don't

Want

It

Here

You already got the reason, but choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I'm not being defensive. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions on what should and shouldn't be and I've already spent too much time on this subject. Also. Don't spread this shit to other threads, some mods with less patience than me don't take too kindly to that.
Click to expand...
"We don't want it here" is a vague reason. It doesn't go into why staff doesn't want it here, or address my other points, but I guess I can't force a conversation with someone who doesn't want to speak in greater detail. It looks bad on the site, but if you have to play the bad guy, it's your site. Some sites don't even allow criticism or questioning of their rules, so the fact I've gotten this far is good.
 
pissyfart said:
Feces are safer due to the lower risk of psychological and physical damage to the animal, and no legal danger if you sniff poop from a distance. Hell, even touching it with gloves is relatively safe, whereas touching a dog's hole(s) with gloves may release unwanted material in there. The risk for humans making sexual contact with them is probably roughly the same as with sexual or fetish parts not containing feces.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's freaks that don't use gloves.
If one manages to cause phsyical damage, then there can be other reasons such as them not preparing them properly. Too small. Or trying to act like they're a male dog and pounding them fast.
 
dogluver101 said:
I'm sure there's freaks that don't use gloves.
If one manages to cause phsyical damage, then there can be other reasons such as them not preparing them properly. Too small. Or trying to act like they're a male dog and pounding them fast.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I guess all sexual or fetishistic acts with animals that make contact with them or extensions of them are pretty much just as physically dangerous. Just don't tell me rimming a dog or sticking your penis in their anus with no protection is safer. And IDK if enemas are safe for animals. Also, we haven't addressed psychological and circumstantial dangers. Dogs can be sent to shelters and killed for bestiality, but not for scat play. Additionally, a dog may respond to physical sexual contact with psychological consequences, but it has no capacity to understand what happens if a human interacts with its fecal matter in any way (unless there are olfactory triggers related to territory-marking or something if a human moves feces from the location, but at that rate, shoving your wiener in their face could be a different olfactory trigger, but IDK).
 
pissyfart said:
"We don't want it here" is a vague reason. It doesn't go into why staff doesn't want it here, or address my other points, but I guess I can't force a conversation with someone who doesn't want to speak in greater detail. It looks bad on the site, but if you have to play the bad guy, it's your site. Some sites don't even allow criticism or questioning of their rules, so the fact I've gotten this far is good.
Click to expand...
What part of we don't have to explain it to you do you not understand? In fact, we have explained it to you.

WE DON'T WANT IT HERE.
IT IS OUR FORUM

We allow questioning of the rules, but when you immediately go off the deep end with attacks on our character and our way of operating our website, you are going to get your ass handed to you by not only the mod team, but most likely by other members.
 
Oh. And side note... I don't have a problem with scat. I know someone that loves tounging my stallions butthole, but it's not for me, nor for this website as evidenced by our super secret vote we held years ago on this subject.
 
Oldman said:
What part of we don't have to explain it to you do you not understand? In fact, we have explained it to you.

WE DON'T WANT IT HERE.
IT IS OUR FORUM

We allow questioning of the rules, but when you immediately go off the deep end with attacks on our character and our way of operating our website, you are going to get your ass handed to you by not only the mod team, but most likely by other members.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to attack, but rather to criticize. I don't look down on you as people, and if I get such thoughts, I don't express them. However, this site preaches character heavily (like the person who said I was a newbie speaking to long-time members and many of the rules that presumably arose from moral reasons [like incest or human-on-animal watersports]), so if it relies on it, I may as well point out how things might affect the perceived character. Not by saying you're an incel or something rude like that, but by saying that a lack of transparency and whatnot may reduce user trust.
 
Last edited:
pissyfart said:
To be fair, I guess all sexual or fetishistic acts with animals that make contact with them or extensions of them are pretty much just as physically dangerous. Just don't tell me rimming a dog or sticking your penis in their anus with no protection is safer. And IDK if enemas are safe for animals. Also, we haven't addressed psychological and circumstantial dangers. Dogs can be sent to shelters and killed for bestiality, but not for scat play. Additionally, a dog may respond to physical sexual contact with psychological consequences, but it has no capacity to understand what happens if a human interacts with its fecal matter in any way (unless there are olfactory triggers related to territory-marking or something if a human moves feces from the location, but at that rate, shoving your wiener in their face could be a different olfactory trigger, but IDK).
Click to expand...
You love editing your post when I'm in the middle of making one....

Since every dog is different, you don't know how they may be if you haven't been around them. Being around some I've done things with (not anal), they seemed fine. Treat them as any normal dog lover.
For most cases, you don't know what else that owner was doing to them. All you may hear is "a guy had sex with a dog" and claim the dog is scared, shaking, etc. You don't know what else the owner may have done. All the media will show is the dog is shaking because she was sexually harmed. Of course no one is going to say or ask him was he nice with her or him.

Personally, I knew someone who had a couple of dogs I lived with, and with this dudes abuse towards them. They mostly gave up coming to him for anything, and went to others including me. No, not for sex. But for anything else such as wanting out.
 
dogluver101 said:
You love editing your post when I'm in the middle of making one....

Since every dog is different, you don't know how they may be if you haven't been around them. Being around some I've done things with (not anal), they seemed fine. Treat them as any normal dog lover.
For most cases, you don't know what else that owner was doing to them. All you may hear is "a guy had sex with a dog" and claim the dog is scared, shaking, etc. You don't know what else the owner may have done. All the media will show is the dog is shaking because she was sexually harmed. Of course no one is going to say or ask him was he nice with her or him.

Personally, I knew someone who had a couple of dogs I lived with, and with this dudes abuse towards them. They mostly gave up coming to him for anything, and went to others including me. No, not for sex. But for anything else such as wanting out.
Click to expand...
I edit my posts because I may come off as rude or miss details, and it's considered bad etiquette on most forums to, say, necrobump or triple post. I apologize for any inconvenience.
 
pissyfart said:
I don't mean to attack, but rather to criticize. I don't look down on you as people, and if I get such thoughts, I don't express them. However, this site preaches character heavily (like the person who said I was a newbie speaking to long-time members and many of the rules that presumably arose from moral reasons [like incest or human-on-animal watersports]), so if it relies on it, I may as well point out how things might affect the perceived character. Not by saying you're an incel or something rude like that, but by saying that a lack of transparency and whatnot may reduce user trust. Also, why does it have to be a super secret vote? If you mean votes amongst mods and maybe paid supporters (who can be perceived like shareholders), that's understandable at least. But if elite members got the vote while others didn't, I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...
No, the vote was meant more of as a joke. We held a vote between mods and admin during infancy of the forum and we decided not on scat as it has nothing to do with bestiality or zoo in our collective minds.
 
Oldman said:
No, the vote was meant more of as a joke. We held a vote between mods and admin during infancy of the forum and we decided not on scat as it has nothing to do with bestiality or zoo in our collective minds.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Your reasoning makes sense, I suppose. I can get by on the content allowed here while treating the moderators with common decency, despite any disagreements. Thanks for putting up with my heated debate instead of instantly banning me. I think this conversation has naturally cooled off now. Not fully resolved, but resolved enough to satisfy me. I don't need to be nosy about every psychological nook and cranny. I've learned more already, and learning even more won't really change anything. I've laid out my best arguments, and it changed nothing. This community is largely the passion project of the moderators, rather than aiming to be an all-encompassing public service. Staff are the flesh-blood of the site, and they get to have their own opinions as opposed to the opinions of their community. I'll only intervene on "free speech forums" or communities where staff promote being run on community opinion (like Old School RuneScape with its polls).
 
Last edited:
pes said:
@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods☝️. When you are deleting a post with a tg/... username, always put the username in the search box as well.
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
Click to expand...
Whenever I report one I always check their post history too. Which more often thsn not uncovers someone else who also responded to them, or posted on the same lurker profile.
 
pes said:
@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods☝️. When you are deleting a post with a tg/... username, always put the username in the search box as well.
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I always try to remember to do so when dealing with an IM handle. Otherwise, they may end up getting an unnecessary warning strike from another mod for an infraction that occurred from around the same time as when they were first warned. I figure, delete all incidents and give warning strike telling them not to do it again would be more fair.

Although it is always funny when you search for someone's IM handle and it pulls results from a prior banned account. Lol
 
pes said:
@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods☝️. When you are deleting a post with a tg/... username, always put the username in the search box as well.
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
Click to expand...
I always check the offending users posts. That way I can delete all the instances of the idiot posting it. This usually also reveals more people doing the same, and more warnings handed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pes
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top