Why was dxjnorto banned?
- Thread starter B_RedDude
- Start date
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
"dxjnorto - posted link to medical image of minor's genitalia after warning."
That's from the thread Moderator Actions in the Questions, Comments, and Suggestions forum near the bottom of the main page.
That's from the thread Moderator Actions in the Questions, Comments, and Suggestions forum near the bottom of the main page.
dxjnorte ignored a warning given on September 1 and repeated the same violation of the Terms of Service today.
Moderator actions
http://www.lpsg.org/165602-lpsg-terms-of-service.html
Moderator actions
http://www.lpsg.org/165602-lpsg-terms-of-service.html
Not much of a shock. He and Sapian seem to have no boundaries in their quest to end circumcision throughout the land.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
Maybe it was hyperbole. But dxj was known for hyperbole. Nevertheless most, no 99% of us know, there should not even be a hint of underage material on your computer whatever the reason. But he knew it, was warned about it and posted it twice.
Last edited by a moderator:
For one, define "material". I have more pictures of kids on my computers than even I can imagine. Secondly, you're implying he just had a vast folder of underage material on his computer, which is something you don't know and can't prove. Your comment wasn't "hyperbole". Hyperbole = exaggeration. That was well more than a simple exaggeration.
^ I didn't see what the moderators objected to and glad I didn't but it was of 'minors'. But apparently it was enough for his banning and Sapien's as well.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
There's a big difference between, say, a 17 y.o. and a 9 y.o.
I don't want to push this because, while I think you were a bit injudicious, I've been there too.
That send key does irretrievable things.
Let's make it clear, then. Posting pictures of an underage child is against the rules of the site. It could be someone's completely clothed 2 year old nephew with birthday cake on his face. As innocent as can be. However, we can't assume everyone on this site is innocent. That child, by having their picture posted here, could become the object of some sicko's perverted thoughts. That child could now be endangered. The subject matter after such a picture had been posted could quickly become something disgusting, illegal, offensive, and against the rules of the site. Therefore, we allow ZERO pictures of underage kids to be posted on the site, I don't care what it is. What he got banned for wasn't "kiddie porn". It was pictures of minors.
crescendo69
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Posts
- 7,786
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 163
- Points
- 283
- Age
- 70
- Location
- Knoxville (Tennessee, United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I found him a little insensitive to new members with comments like, "Too bad you're circumcised."
Yes, this seems a rather clear cut case to me.
There was nothing sexually untoward in what he posted. I saw the image he got warned for (and, in fact, I reported it as being inappropriate for the site). I did not see that which he got banned for, from the wording of the mod actions thread I believe it is a safe assumption that it was a very similar, if not the same, medical image of an infant circumcision being performed.
However, he was warned it was not on and he chose to ignore that warning and is now banned. Can't say I'm anything other than 100% behind the mod team on this one.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
I presume that you can link to bona fide material directly relevant to a discussion between adults?
I also presume that those seeking kiddie porn have far better sources than browsing this entire site for the odd snippet that may include an image that whilst clearly not pornographic may be taken as such by someone with an illness.
I would like to defend DX more, but I don't know what images he was warned not to post. It wasn't that much linked video of the poor baby screaming during circumcision was it? Because that has been linked here many times.
I also presume that those seeking kiddie porn have far better sources than browsing this entire site for the odd snippet that may include an image that whilst clearly not pornographic may be taken as such by someone with an illness.
I would like to defend DX more, but I don't know what images he was warned not to post. It wasn't that much linked video of the poor baby screaming during circumcision was it? Because that has been linked here many times.
The image I saw, that he got the warning about, was an image of an infant circumcision in progress - operating sheet cut-away, showing an infant's penis and testicles, with the foreskin in a clamp about to be cut.
While I agree that we should be able to have an adult discussion of matters such as circumcision I also understand that this site has a rule of no images of minors, at all. Uploading or linking to an image of a minor or part of a minor is not allowed on this site. dx was clearly illustrating a point and there was no dubious sexual intent behind the posting of that image. The mod team, fairly I thought, removed the image and warned him that it was not allowed on this site. He then linked to the same or similar image. That time he knew he was not supposed to - what did he expect the mod team to do?
That image was not a required part of the discussion and even if it was that's just tough - the no images of minors rule is clear.
While I agree that we should be able to have an adult discussion of matters such as circumcision I also understand that this site has a rule of no images of minors, at all. Uploading or linking to an image of a minor or part of a minor is not allowed on this site. dx was clearly illustrating a point and there was no dubious sexual intent behind the posting of that image. The mod team, fairly I thought, removed the image and warned him that it was not allowed on this site. He then linked to the same or similar image. That time he knew he was not supposed to - what did he expect the mod team to do?
That image was not a required part of the discussion and even if it was that's just tough - the no images of minors rule is clear.
