You whine about people criticizing you, grow some thicker skin. You sure can dish it out but it's beyond you to take it right?

And I would think most websites don't have as archaic or shitty systems of moderation as this one, most websites have outlined guidelines and rules that are pretty clear cut. For instance... no nudity would fall under that clear cut section. Since Peter's avatar is nudity, what kind of nudity are we allowed and how much? Can I just put up a naked girl? What if she's posing like for a painting - that's artistic and shit right?

I'm just curious where you draw the line here Rob.

Also I'm pretty sure 8 year olds know what the fuck a boob is. They sucked on them for a few years and if they had any younger siblings they definitely knew about breast feeding. Point is, thats something an 8 year old would be exposed to, on the other hand sexual positions is not something a little kid is familiar with and I doubt they would've been introduced to the subject.

So yeah, nice try bud. But you still fail. People can like gb's and peter's avatars all they want (I personally like them) but if you ban for one you need to ban for them all otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

Boom.

No boom......you lost already. Your logic blows as usual. You can't even form a coherent viewpoint of this. By DEFINITION you are wrong, especially since you started using definitions to make your case.

You lost. Get over it. Move on.

Yes a depiction of erotic behavior with the intent of sexual excitement. GB's avatar was not meant to sexually excite anyone, it was just stick figures.

by your logic you could argue that the discovery channel is pornographic because it depicts animals mating, which is by definition sexual.

erotic once again means:
arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.
2.
of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.
3.
subject to or marked by strong sexual desire.

By that definition I don't think you could call GB's avatar erotic, or at least not at the same time calling peter's avatar of nice-ass tit erotic.

So is the discovery channel porn to you Thraxle? If it's not then I am thinking we are in accordance and Gb's avatar isn't pornography either.

Yeah I know DDDY, a very sensible person, agreeing with you (admittedly because he likes peter's ava) may have made it seem like you had a coherent argument for a while thraxle, but what you fail to realize is. One avatar is explicit nudity that legally you're not allowed to show anyone under 18 and the other is a stick figure animation for which there is no legal regulation.

If we're using the standards of law here I'm pretty sure it's clear cut - given that moderators function as enforces of the rules (laws) of kdice it seems like a pretty applicable analogy, dont you agree?

Dude, your logic is so flawed. Yes, if someone had an avatar of a horse fucking another horse with a view of the horse's dick going into the other horse, I WOULD BAN IT.

GB's av was two people FUCKING. If it was a shadow of two human beings fucking and the shadow included a dick shadow going in and out of the ass shadow, then I would ban it. It SUGGESTS pornography. It is pornographic in nature. It depicts SEXUAL relations.

A picture of a tit dressed as a mouse is not sexual or pornographic or lewd or indecent. GB's was all of the above.

But I'm asking you from a legal perspective, is someone under 18 allowed to purchase peter's avatar as an image from a vendor?

Legally the answer is no. Because it depicts nudity. Legally does someone have to be 18 to see something like GB's avatar? No, legally they do not have to be 18. If I'd like I can wikipedia the actual statutes for you, but I assume it's state by state and not federal so you may have to take my texan word for it.

actuality: a 5 year old can go buy a Cosmo and see a tit.

KDice doesn't expressly prohibit nudity, it prohibits pornography.

Which avatar is more pornographic?

End of discussion.

by definition peter's avatar arouses more sexual excitement than a fucking stick figure animation, no matter how explicit that animation may be - it's still stick figures.

I'd fuck the girl from peter's avatar. I find GB's avatar just amusing (although I find peter's amusing as well).