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.
"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.
I'm sure there's freaks that don't use gloves.
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).
What part of we don't have to explain it to you do you not understand? In fact, we have explained it to you.
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.
You love editing your post when I'm in the middle of making one....
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.
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.
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).
I'm not entirely sure of what I said there, but I'm guessing dog drool looks like human drool...
. When you are deleting a post with a tg/... username, always put the username in the search box as well.
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.@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
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.@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
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.@dogluver101 @FloofyNewfie @FoxandtheHounds @Kombajnista @Mare Lover 1975 @Oldman @RoadWarrior @thebestguy @umafera
Mods
Because usually it has been posted multiple times and quoted.
Then distribute as many points as needed.
Just a question if I may:
I'll review them. I don't believe I changed much in the media rules section, as I think that's where most were.
No you did not:
www.zoovilleforum.net
