Keep it civil, do not flame or bait other users. If you notice anything illegal or inappropriate being discussed, contact an administrator or moderator.
Also I realized the long BUT might seem like I was being a douche, but it was more like I was being goofy. Sorry if I made it seem like I was being a jerk.
Also I realized the long BUT might seem like I was being a douche, but it was more like I was being goofy. Sorry if I made it seem like I was being a jerk.
The reason given is "bestiality", but the ToS refers to photos and "photorealistic" pictures. The style wasn't remotely realistic so I'm calling this one unfair, unless there's a blanket ban on bestiality-themed hentai now.
Now the "feces" part of the Grotesque rule is the only possible reason I could think that the post was deleted. In the following image, I have highlighted the offending area, which basically boils down to a small area that contains a slight shade of brown. imgur.com/8HWTQ In retrospect, the scat tag shouldn't have even been there.
Now, under the absolute letter of the law, I understand the the tinge of brown is in fact a violation; however I appeal that under the spirit of the law, such a minor thing does not qualify as scat. The focus of the image is not the minute amount of feces. The eroticism of the image comes not from the feces, nor are the feces a central part of the image in any way. It is roughly a 40x60 pixel area that, if this request is denied, I could easily Photoshop out and upload the edited image with no consequences. But should that be necessary, or should the image be restored with an acknowledgement that the spirit of that rule is designed to cover things that are genuinely grotesque, not this?