Approved lwellington316's Appeal

Your In Game Nickname:

lwellington316​

Your Steam ID:

STEAM_0:0:189878989​

Which Server:

Vanilla​

Why you should be unbanned:

Ban Reason: "Pornographic" spray
Reason I should be unbanned:
to understand the reason for this ban it is first important to understand the meanings of the two words to follow.

por·nog·ra·phy
[pôrˈnäɡrəfē]

NOUN
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
__________________________________________________________________________
art
[ärt]

NOUN
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________

Edited out by Administration

these links are all examples of one of the two words listed above. can you guess what word it is?

if you said art, you are wrong. (at least in the mind of Chastity4lyfe)

but we will get into this at a later point.
Now we all know that all those links are art... the next question is, what would make an old painting become porn? if god had been dressed like superman in "the creation" would that become porn if Mary had been wearing a wonder woman suit while nursing Jesus would that all the sudden become porn? to answer this question we must go back to the definition of pornography. the key part of the definition is "intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." this is what gives us the answer we have been looking for. in order to turn art into pornography you must have a clear intent to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings with the new edited artwork.

as part of my case I would like to provide a past case of banning that was for the same reason
https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/buttonzs-appeal.38172/#post-350696
in this appeal the member was ban for the following image
Edited out by Administration
this image, by definition, is pornography. there was a clear intent by the creator to invoke erotic feelings.
in my case it is not the intent.
Edited out by Administration
my image by definition is art. it is not aimed at invoking a sexual response.
this is nearly identical in nature to the image of the virgin Mary breastfeeding Jesus... now here me out on this one. to many Jesus is not real. he is nothing more than a hero in a movie (batman) and according to the bible he was more powerful than his mother (robin).



with all of this evidence the reason for my banning was one of two things.
1@Chastity4lyfe felt erotically aroused by the image
2@Chastity4lyfe did not know what pornography is in relation to art (in that case I hope I cleared some things up)​

Evidence of Innocence:

Edited out by Administration
these links are all examples of one of the two words listed above. can you guess what word it is?
if you said art, you are wrong. (at least in the mind of @Chastity4lyfe)
but we will get into this at a later point.
Now we all know that all those links are art... the next question is, what would make an old painting become porn? if god had been dressed like superman in "the creation" would that become porn if Mary had been wearing a wonder woman suit while nursing Jesus would that all the sudden become porn? to answer this question we must go back to the definition of pornography. the key part of the definition is "intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." this is what gives us the answer we have been looking for. in order to turn art into pornography you must have a clear intent to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings with the new edited artwork.
as part of my case I would like to provide a past case of banning that was for the same reason
https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/buttonzs-appeal.38172/#post-350696
in this appeal the member was ban for the following image
Edited out by Administration
this image, by definition, is pornography. there was a clear intent by the creator to invoke erotic feelings.
in my case it is not the intent.
Edited out by Administration
my image by definition is art. it is not aimed at invoking a sexual response.
this is nearly identical in nature to the image of the virgin Mary breastfeeding Jesus... now here me out on this one. to many Jesus is not real. he is nothing more than a hero in a movie (batman) and according to the bible he was more powerful than his mother (robin).

with all of this evidence the reason for my banning was one of two things.
1@Chastity4lyfe felt erotically aroused by the image
2@Chastity4lyfe did not know what pornography is in relation to art (in that case I hope I cleared some things up)​

 

Tagging @Chastity4lyfe for this


Also, I would like you to refer to our extended rules, where it states:

 

I actually ran this by an admin before I banned you and he said it was within the categories of inappropriate pornographic sprays. Just like I stated in the appeal you linked about similar disturbing content, if a young child were to join the server and see that content on a spray, they would see it as pornographic.

I assumed you might appeal. but I was not expecting an appeal like this, and I'm a bit confused with all this irrelevant content you've included. When it comes down to it, your image was inappropriate, and you are trying to justify that it isn't, in which case I disagree.

 

Thank you for the reference to the extended rules they are very helpful!
1)

"Porn sprays are sprays of men or women in an arousing picture depicting sexual activity or that show general nudity in them."​

to further my case:
A: this is not an arousing image.
B: breastfeeding is not a sexual act.
C: Being as robin is a male, male breasts are not nudity.​

so by the servers own standards this does obey the guidelines ​

2)

Nowhere in to linked appeal did you are anyone state "if a young child were to join the server and see that content on a spray, they would see it as pornographic"

Hello!
After seeing your response when I brought this up already, I consulted some admins on this image and we concur that this image to still fall under the pornographic/inappropriate ruling.
There is some very obvious differences between the regular Link character and this image and what it is portraying, which I deemed inappropriate and distasteful to be on the servers as a spray. This image clearly has breasts, and is in a very feminine outfit, where the character is suppose to be male. I even google imaged this image to see other sites that have this image on it and the results were disturbing. I will be denying this appeal. Please be careful with your sprays moving forward.
​

Even if you had, it would be off the assumption that a young child would find it inappropriate and it isn't suited for the age, but at the same time they must be old enough to hear the foul language of chat, and be ok with splattering someone's brain on the wall who was innocent. Gmod doesn't technically have a rating but due to its base HL2 which is rated Mature rating game in theory there shouldn't be people on that cant understand the image. but obviously that isn't the true demographic of the game​

3)

I would next like to address the reason the link character was considered distasteful.
in your words it was distasteful because there are "very obvious differences between the regular Link character and this image and what it is portraying" what were those differences? they were that link was wearing a "feminine outfit, where the character is suppose to be male"
(https://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ptqxhpYP1qbkrn7o1_500.gif)
this is an image that is quite disturbing it is a male character wearing female clothing. and there are also some differences here the match the ones that make link distasteful. such as the character being the wrong gender.
(https://49.media.tumblr.com/2e4b2ad2ebfc5dfd662ba7fbbc118325/tumblr_mg3nqosS2S1rkgpqbo1_500.gif)​

also my first questions has not been answered. are the images in the links I sent going to get people ban such as this one Edited out by Administration

 

I really don't care if I'm unbanned its only a day. I just had nothing to do right after so I decided to mess with you guys. but on a serious note. but on a serious note I still call bs on that counting everyone that walked by it laughed.

 

I am only going to reference your points that are actually referencing this ban.

Your assumption of what children or kids should find disturbing while coming into a server is an assumption. As you dont get to decide what they would or will think coming in, it is my job to prevent that kind of stuff from happening.

To your point 1, based off mine and an admins viewing of this image, and also a player private messaging me about its content being inapporpiate, I issued the ban. You state that breastfeeding isnt a sexual act, but if these characters are indeed male as you also claim, then they aren't breastfeeding - so it actually is inappropiate.

To your 2nd point, I mispoke. I had spoken to that player in the ban appeal privately after it was denied and we talked through the reasoning. Which is why I stated that.

To answer your last question, that image you linked does include nudity, so by server guidelines, we would remove this. In order to not ban for it, we would have to have discretion to just remove and warn.

 

1: a 2010 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal documented that lactation in men. Other studies confirmed this. Therefor it is indeed a picture of breastfeeding
Even if it wasn't, this painting has very poor depth value so there is no way to tell if Bateman is indeed suckling on robin.
(Also you are assuming robins gender. Smh lol)

2: so you agree with me that both point of views would be based off an assumption. Therefore neither argument is valid
I'll mark this up to being invalid
[void]

3: I understand that but nowhere is that stated publicly, in the rules or otherwise. Therefore it can not be used as the standard in wich you ban people.

4: so by stating that "the creation of Adam" would get you ban or warned, multiple things are established.
A: you very well could have sent out a warning
B: you are censoring art. (Similar to nazi Germany but that isn't my point)
C: nudity has nothing to do with sexual organs according to you. Because the creation actually only shows butts. Of flying angle babies...


Once again I really don't care if this is approved or not, I'm just saying you should clear up your rules a little

 

I understand your general concern. But based off your spray, I utilized not only the post provided by Agent A but also this category inside the MOTD as it still applies to what is allowed on our servers and forums.


Your spray made other people uncomfortable, it was considered to hold general nudity (even as a male), disturbing content, and I deemed that as reason for a ban. Now, I am going to void this ban for the mere fact of I could have given you a warning with discretion and I have seen far worse sprays, but that does not defeat the fact that I still deemed this as within the ruling.

Appeal: Approved
Thread: Locked

If you wish to discuss this further in a serious manner, feel free to message me.