Appeal Reason: They warned me because I posted moth girls with fluff covering more then just there parts in a way that in no way breaches rule 5 and in a way some bikinis do, there warning reason is “moths in bikini… the fuck man” and that is it. I would like this warning removed as it didn’t breach rule 5 and wasn’t in my opinion even close to breaching it, if a min needs to see the images I can show them via DM. I didn’t post them randomly as the convo I was having at the time with others mentioned them. I had posted them once before and mins were about at the time I got no warning or anything else so this warning is unfounded and in my opinion biased as efe claimed bikinis are a fetish.
I actually got the warning not even long after I posted them I told him to scroll up to see the convo that caused me to post them they wouldn’t and keep asking about the convo when they could of just scrolled a few times to see it
thanks for your imput to be fair I don’t understand how due to at most its bikinis I don’t see that as fetishy or anything as its clothing if it was something like a micro bikini sure but otherwise dunno I’ve only seen warnings for worse and as I said before other mods had seen those pics before with no warning I’m fine if the warning is deemed valid, but I do want to know how it breaches rule 5 in anyway as rule 5 is Do not attach or embed NSFW content. Any NSFW content must be clearly labeled, as well as spoilered or nested in < > to prevent the automatic embed. I do not see how a full covering bikini or a bikini hiding anything sexual can be deemed NSFW, hence why I ask for a explaination other then moths in bikinis…the fuck man, I don’t mind if you give me a warning because rule 5 but my issue with efes warning is its literally moths in bikinis…the fuck man nothing about breaching rule 5 or NSFW.
5. Sexually explicit/implicit content and discussions are prohibited. Is the rule specifically, what you said was different.
“Implicit” is extremely harsh criteria. For the images themselves they weren’t even bikinis, one was a leotard which is more covering, but the other two were… very impractical coverage I might say? It wouldn’t fly at work, especially because they aren’t really framed in a non-sexualized way.
Alright, let me say this.
If i was caught staring at these pictures at work, I’d be in a huge trouble both socially and professionally. I think this explains why I’m keeping the warn.
(Also it’s just a one point, you have 2 more to go)
I mean they aren’t exactly framed sexualized either they are just standing there in a bikini also theres plenty of jobs that have bikinis being fine and the only real reason they aren’t in other jobs is because they are a “distraction” I mean nobody is exactly gonna look at bikinis at work anyway unless its involved in the job the only thing I would deem actual NSFW is a micro bikini because normally everything but nips are on display at that point and theres normally a heavy outline of down under with those also straight up nudity is nsfw but in all those images not only is there covering but no outline or sexuality imho as there is no sexualizing pose or anything and well if you deem a large bust and backside nsfw well that gets into body shaming territory
Just for context: Admin decided it was appropriate with a concurring opinion from another admin. Trialmins don’t have forum perms yet so they asked me to close it.