HES CONFIRMED DEAD OMG

[Gengar’s Ghost]

Right…

Yeah, you’re cooked ngl.

Ironic coming from you. I just checked your IP. Wait till I inform your government of your postings!

 

[Deleted member 110192]

You’re just saying that because he was always sucking Israel’s cock

Maybe, but I don’t think you need to put a dead man with a wife and two kids as your avi, ESPECIALLY not with that avi

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

You’re just saying that because he was always sucking Israel’s cock

What does that have to do with this?

 

[Deleted member 104869]

Who are the certain people here?

Lifeless

You can’t use sources from outside the forum on how to operate this forum.

"anything SHOCKING" is stated in your rules. The other source was to simply reinforce what gore actually meant, not your description.

And similarly, if I were to listen to you, would I not be bending it to suit certain people (i.e. you)?

That would be the case IFFFFFF it wasn't adhering to YOUR OWN RULES. There's no such thing as bending rules to fit certain people (say, me) if the RULES ARENT BEING BENT OR CHANGED.

Again, I say this will all due respect, but it really seems unacceptable.

 

[lifeless]

Lifeless

"anything SHOCKING" is stated in your rules. The other source was to simply reinforce what gore actually meant, not your description.

That would be the case IFFFFFF it wasn't adhering to YOUR OWN RULES. There's no such thing as bending rules to fit certain people (say, me) if the RULES ARENT BEING BENT OR CHANGED.

Again, I say this will all due respect, but it really seems unacceptable.

cry harder fag

 

[WKW]

Ironic coming from you. I just checked your IP. Wait till I inform your government of your postings!

Morals over beliefs.

It’s actually fucking wild you wouldn’t celebrate the death of a war criminal.

Just shows how retarded this site is.

 

[Deleted member 51358]

O

Maybe, but I don’t think you need to put a dead man with a wife and two kids as your avi, ESPECIALLY not with that avi

blud werent you just celebrating the deaths of Palestinian kids not too long ago

 

[Deleted member 104869]

cry harder fag

eh, no one's crying

 

[Deleted member 51358]

worst pfp on org

Blud hasn’t seen my avi

 

[WKW]

cry harder fag

Bro these Hindu cucks are really going for it huh?

 

[Deleted member 110192]

O

blud werent you just celebrating the deaths of Palestinian kids not too long ago

Idk maybe

 

[anthony111553]

Blud hasn’t seen my avi

top 3

 

[WKW]

O

blud werent you just celebrating the deaths of Palestinian kids not too long ago

There is a reason why he is a popular choice when people show their ignore list

Just some lowlife Hindu zio apologist.

He literally has nothing going for him apart from getting reactions on this site.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

Lifeless

"anything SHOCKING" is stated in your rules. The other source was to simply reinforce what gore actually meant, not your description.

That would be the case IFFFFFF it wasn't adhering to YOUR OWN RULES. There's no such thing as bending rules to fit certain people (say, me) if the RULES ARENT BEING BENT OR CHANGED.

Again, I say this will all due respect, but it really seems unacceptable.

“Shocking” it says, but that’s quite open to interpretation, isn’t it?

You can ask other staff members what they think but personally I wouldn’t remove it since I don’t think it’s shocking. I don’t mind if other staff members disagree and do remove it, so you can ask for a second opinion from other staff members. Or we could take a vote and see what’s up.

Of course the context is shocking but if shocking avis are against the rules then my avi should be removed also because the background story is way more disturbing than what took place today.

 

[Roquefort]

tbh charlie cuck didnt deserve this ending, he was a pure israeli glowie fs but he never killed anyone, he even debate most people while getting fisted most of the time but still

 

[FiendFiend]

YESSSSS

dont fall for ragebait goyim

 

[FiendFiend]

tbh charlie cuck didnt deserve this ending, he was a pure israeli glowie fs but he never killed anyone, he even debate most people while getting fisted most of the time but still

he stood up against white genocide, the last thing he posted was standing up for that white girl who got murdered by that nigger. Despite being an israeli glowie, he has been matryed by the right.

 

[Mansur]

What does that have to do with this?

User is a jew

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

User is a jew

Copercel?

 

[Roquefort]

he stood up against white genocide, the last thing he posted was standing up for that white girl who got murdered by that nigger. Despite being an israeli glowie, he has been matryed by the right.

there is no white genocide lil bro, most powerful people on earth are white and leashing other races. try getting laid you utter subhuman

 

[FiendFiend]

there is no white genocide lil bro, most powerful people on earth are white and leashing other races. try getting laid you utter subhuman

Im aware. Im just hoping shit kicks off

 

[FiendFiend]

there is no white genocide lil bro, most powerful people on earth are white and leashing other races. try getting laid you utter subhuman

isnt a genocide but yeah poor and lower middle class whites are being squeezed out and fucked up. I dont know man i live in a big metropolis, maybe u dont understand how violent and non human these deathnics are.

 

[Roquefort]

isnt a genocide but yeah poor and lower middle class whites are being squeezed out and fucked up. I dont know man i live in a big metropolis, maybe u dont understand how violent and non human these deathnics are.

Yea I understand, it's mostly a class thing not race,
keep in mind first victims of niggers are niggers themselves, it's not targeted towards whites because they live segregated from each other.
The poor becomes even poorer and more violent while the rich gets richer

 

[Deleted member 104869]

“Shocking” it says, but that’s quite open to interpretation, isn’t it?

You can ask other staff members what they think but personally I wouldn’t remove it since I don’t think it’s shocking. I don’t mind if other staff members disagree and do remove it, so you can ask for a second opinion from other staff members. Or we could take a vote and see what’s up.

Of course the context is shocking but if shocking avis are against the rules then my avi should be removed also because the background story is way more disturbing than what took place today.

You... turned this into a semantics discussion? You win.
If an avi of a guy having his throat being vividly punctured by a bullet doesn't break any NSFW "shocking" rules, then clearly nothing can. Thanks.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

You... turned this into a semantics discussion? You win.
If an avi of a guy having his throat being vividly punctured by a bullet doesn't break any NSFW "shocking" rules, then clearly nothing can. Thanks.

I clearly gave examples of what would be considered graphic. A single bullet isn’t graphic, a shotgun to the face is graphic. That said, I am not turning this discussion into anything. I’m only explaining why I don’t agree with your interpretation of “shocking.”

 

[islamiczionist]

OLD ASS BERNIE LOOKING GUY

 

[Deleted member 104869]

I clearly gave examples of what would be considered graphic. A single bullet isn’t graphic, a shotgun to the face is graphic. That said, I am not turning this discussion into anything. I’m only explaining why I don’t agree with your interpretation of “shocking.”

Gengar, are you basically admitting that your rules are written in a vacuum about what counts as "shocking" to different people and not boilerplate forum policy language in which "graphic or shocking" is CLEARLY shorthand for material most users will reasonably find disturbing, especially when tied to death, gore, etc??????

there’s no way to argue that an avi showing the exact moment a man is shot in the throat doesn’t qualify. At all.

again, i mean this with no disrespect, but you're performing rhetorical gymnastics to avoid applying your own written rule. the actual principle should be clear: if content depicts real injury or death in visual form, even if it isn’t gory by horror-movie standards, it falls under “shocking”. anything else is just you refusing to enforce consistently.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

Gengar, are you basically admitting that your rules are written in a vacuum about what counts as "shocking" to different people and not boilerplate forum policy language in which "graphic or shocking" is CLEARLY shorthand for material most users will reasonably find disturbing, especially when tied to death, gore, etc??????

there’s no way to argue that an avi showing the exact moment a man is shot in the throat doesn’t qualify. At all.

again, i mean this with no disrespect, but you're performing rhetorical gymnastics to avoid applying your own written rule. the actual principle should be clear: if content depicts real injury or death in visual form, even if it isn’t gory by horror-movie standards, it falls under “shocking”. anything else is just you refusing to enforce consistently.

No, I’m not saying any of that. I’m basically trying to say staff members interpret some of the rules in their own way, and give warnings accordingly to their own interpretation. What I think may not be the same as what another staff member might think. Everyone has a different approach. I was just saying that I personally don’t see it as something that’s graphic because in my mind, graphic means explicit visuals. Just some blood here and there isn’t graphic to me, graphic to me is when guys blow their own heads off with shotguns. And if someone had that as their profile picture then I wouldn’t hesitate to take it down due to its graphic nature, but I wouldn’t do the same here because I don’t register it as graphic. That’s why I said you are free to ask for a second opinion from other staff members, or we could vote on the matter and decide what counts as graphic and what doesn’t. Do you get what I’m saying now?

 

[snmuaen]

YESSSSS

 

[FiendFiend]

Yea I understand, it's mostly a class thing not race,
keep in mind first victims of niggers are niggers themselves, it's not targeted towards whites because they live segregated from each other.
The poor becomes even poorer and more violent while the rich gets richer

The whites are still the majority, I'm wondering if they r gonna tolerate the violence though? Remember whites have unified and make concessions regardless of class. Yes rich whites worked alongside rich jews in nazi germany, but they were tooken into the fold. Trump needs to do the same.

The richest man in the world openly talks out against the great replacement. Even the billionaires are on our side. There needs to be a race consciousness in where whites regardless of class unite and defeat a common enemy. it can be done.

 

[MaxillaMaxing]

Maybe, but I don’t think you need to put a dead man with a wife and two kids as your avi, ESPECIALLY not with that avi

Something tells me you don’t care about the millions of dead white people like JFK, black people like mlk, or sand people like the Palestinians. You only care about your filthy Jews and your shabbos goys, filthy Jew

 

[Deleted member 104869]

I’m basically trying to say staff members interpret some of the rules in their own way, and give warnings accordingly to their own interpretation.

admission of inconsistency. rules aren’t supposed to be personal mood-rings. if interpretation varies wildly, the rule ceases to exist in practice, and what you get is rule-of-whim. you've basically just told you that enforcement depends on which staff member you randomly encounter. wild.

graphic means explicit visuals. Just some blood here and there isn’t graphic to me,

Gengar, that's not what the RULE says. the rule’s language is deliberately broader:

“graphic, adult, or shocking.”

if you want to narrow “graphic” down to gore-fest material, “shocking” covers the rest.

there’s nothing more plainly shocking than the assassination of a public figure caught on camera. you've ignored half the rule text to protect your position.

graphic to me is when guys blow their own heads off with shotguns. And if someone had that as their profile picture then I wouldn’t hesitate to take it down due to its graphic nature, but I wouldn’t do the same here because I don’t register it as graphic

such a false binary set up:

either it’s extreme gore, or it doesn’t qualify.

again, the rule doesn’t say “only the most extreme content.”

a throat wound with visible bullet impact clearly fits in the spectrum that requires warnings. pretending it has to be the worst imaginable to count is such a misapplication.

That’s why I said you are free to ask for a second opinion from other staff members, or we could vote on the matter and decide what counts as graphic and what doesn’t.

WHAT???

if you were confident that it fits the rule, you wouldn’t need a staff poll to cover yourself. this is so absurd

the reason I'm even so keen on addressing this is because if you let “it’s all interpretation” slide, then the rule means nothing. once you accept that, anything can be permitted depending on who’s on duty. today it’s a man being shot in the throat, tomorrow it’s something even worse, and the excuse will always be the same: “i don’t see it as graphic.” rules stop functioning when they become private preference. that’s why i’m pressing this point.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

admission of inconsistency. rules aren’t supposed to be personal mood-rings. if interpretation varies wildly, the rule ceases to exist in practice, and what you get is rule-of-whim. you've basically just told you that enforcement depends on which staff member you randomly encounter. wild.



Gengar, that's not what the RULE says. the rule’s language is deliberately broader:

“graphic, adult, or shocking.”

if you want to narrow “graphic” down to gore-fest material, “shocking” covers the rest.

there’s nothing more plainly shocking than the assassination of a public figure caught on camera. you've ignored half the rule text to protect your position.



such a false binary set up:

either it’s extreme gore, or it doesn’t qualify.

again, the rule doesn’t say “only the most extreme content.”

a throat wound with visible bullet impact clearly fits in the spectrum that requires warnings. pretending it has to be the worst imaginable to count is such a misapplication.



WHAT???

if you were confident that it fits the rule, you wouldn’t need a staff poll to cover yourself. this is so absurd

the reason I'm even so keen on addressing this is because if you let “it’s all interpretation” slide, then the rule means nothing. once you accept that, anything can be permitted depending on who’s on duty. today it’s a man being shot in the throat, tomorrow it’s something even worse, and the excuse will always be the same: “i don’t see it as graphic.” rules stop functioning when they become private preference. that’s why i’m pressing this point.

I appreciate the depths you’re going in with this discussion but that’s honestly what it comes down to. Some things are left open to interpretation and staff members are free to interpret things as they see fit and warn accordingly. But that’s only in certain cases. Obviously there’s no interpretation when it comes to leaking private messages. We are just going to go in circles because there’s only one answer I can give you and I did that.

 

[Lookologist003]

There's a reason the Pope paraded behind bulletproof glass.

 

[unon]

10/10 ragebait

It's not