Music Talk Board
Oh Thrill-House...KEEP MOSCAESPANOL BANNED
inst wrote:I guess n8 confirmed it.
New Earl Sweatshirt album.
Why are you banned on UGmoscaespañol wrote:Maybe this one will be the length of an actual album rather than 25 minutes and contain more than two good songs.
Because I had a warning and apparently I posted gore. Which I think is a pretty fucking weak excuse for a ban, but I don't give a shit enough to contest it, because I think the rules pertaining to gore and images like that are flawed.behind_you wrote:Why are you banned on UGmoscaespañol wrote:Maybe this one will be the length of an actual album rather than 25 minutes and contain more than two good songs.
moscaespañol wrote:Because I had a warning and apparently I posted gore. Which I think is a pretty fucking weak excuse for a ban, but I don't give a shit enough to contest it, because I think the rules pertaining to gore and images like that are flawed.behind_you wrote:Why are you banned on UGmoscaespañol wrote:Maybe this one will be the length of an actual album rather than 25 minutes and contain more than two good songs.
It is a warning on UG, but I still think it's a weak rule because if a mod sees it, they can edit it out and give the user a verbal warning rather than fucking banning them over an image they end up taking down anyway.Grungie wrote:moscaespañol wrote:Because I had a warning and apparently I posted gore. Which I think is a pretty fucking weak excuse for a ban, but I don't give a shit enough to contest it, because I think the rules pertaining to gore and images like that are flawed.behind_you wrote:Why are you banned on UGmoscaespañol wrote:Maybe this one will be the length of an actual album rather than 25 minutes and contain more than two good songs.
I might add gore to the list, but leave it to the moderator's digression, but have it mainly as a warning instead of a ban.
moscaespañol wrote:
It is a warning on UG, but I still think it's a weak rule because if a mod sees it, they can edit it out and give the user a verbal warning rather than fucking banning them over an image they end up taking down anyway.
Certainly. In the same way that a pic that shows atinybit of a nipple shouldn't be construed as porn, in the same way that what Kelly/Keith Lemon posted was porn.Grungie wrote:moscaespañol wrote:
It is a warning on UG, but I still think it's a weak rule because if a mod sees it, they can edit it out and give the user a verbal warning rather than fucking banning them over an image they end up taking down anyway.
I think it really is a case by case thing. Some gore is more severe than other gore. A spider bite would be a verbal warning, but posting this or this is a straight up warning.
Grungie wrote:moscaespañol wrote:
It is a warning on UG, but I still think it's a weak rule because if a mod sees it, they can edit it out and give the user a verbal warning rather than fucking banning them over an image they end up taking down anyway.
I think it really is a case by case thing. Some gore is more severe than other gore. A spider bite would be a verbal warning, but posting this or this is a straight up warning.
nastyn8 wrote:Grungie wrote:moscaespañol wrote:
It is a warning on UG, but I still think it's a weak rule because if a mod sees it, they can edit it out and give the user a verbal warning rather than fucking banning them over an image they end up taking down anyway.
I think it really is a case by case thing. Some gore is more severe than other gore. A spider bite would be a verbal warning, but posting this or this is a straight up warning.
WHY DID I CLICK THAT LINK
I suppose it's the interest I have in Abrahamic beliefs coupled with how I would like to be able to talk of thing most people in my town know nothing about.Grungie wrote:I don't really have much interest in religion, but stuff like that is always fun
Go to page : 1, 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|