xRemx
varishangout.com
I'll reply since I am actually the faggot in question that reported the figure. It wasn't meant to mock the rules, it was meant to test "how far" the admins will go. If we take Canadian laws at face value A LOT of figs could potentially face the axe. I tried to find an example of a lewd figure of a character where a convincing argument could be made that the character is definitely underage. JK characters would have been an easy pick, but I wanted a character that's not 16 or 17 (where people could go 'She looks 18!') but younger without being an outright loli. My second intention was to pick a character that has appeal to what I believe to be the typical anti-loli crusader: Minors with a terminal TikTok addiction who like the kawaii/uwu aesthetic suffering from a major case of main character syndrome. (Unfortunately whenever I see a profile in pastel pink colours it's either the lewdest loli shrine imaginable or some moron brain whose first profile line is "proship DNI" or something like that.)Considering this users collection and some of the comments on their page. It seems to me they made this alert as a way to mock the new rules I mean I know we are living in post-irony times but Im pretty sure theyre not making that post seriously
My expectation was as follows:
a) If jannies censor the figure: It would provide a clear line of what's "too much" and by using that example other, less nice people, would probably start reporting a lot of comparable figures. The site would be in an even worse meltdown mode, hundreds of entries would burn - which could lead to a wider user revolt. Removing a figure of a character like Chocola who has such a widespread appeal could also make some of the anti-loli crusaders actually use their two braincells to realise that slippery slopes are real and that if they start going after things other people love, the pendulum will eventually swing back and they will be hurt. Badly.
b) If Jannies don't censor the figure: A standard has been set. A 14/15 yearish looking character being depicted very lewdly is okay. This could have been used to fight against other figures being censored. It could also have been used in an attempt to open the Overton window on loli expression again.
What actually happened was c, which I did not expect: jannies refusing to pass judgement. I literally did not have a plan for that case and it kinda put me in wait and see mode because until jannies start actually working, it's going to be difficult to find a way to save MFC.
Nevertheless I am feeling better about the site today than I did when I first saw the news. My current stance is that after several interactions with the main admin working on that change that his intentions are genuine. This is not anti-loli "think of the children" moral faggotery, this is someone whose hand has been forced and who needs to find a short term solution before he can consider working on a long term fix.
Last edited: