Doge Master wrote:


1 not everyone disagrees with me and 2 the title dosnt matter it dosnt show anything inappropriate prof titties asked for an example of a pic that i think should be allowed to be sprayed as its not nudity, it dosnt show a bulge, tits, or ass crack there fore i think its child friendly as its not explicit and i am not gona argue this here he wanted an example and i gave him one and i will leave it up to the ttt staff

Frozenglory wrote:
If you have to put a warning, then it obviously isn't appropriate.

It isn't a matter of what is being shown or what isn't. It's the suggestiveness.

This is very sexually suggestive. Pulling down panties. Pulling up bra. How the hell is that not sexually explicit?

I don't understand why you can't seem to play without referencing or showing something sexual. Can ya not go a few hours without showing sexually suggestive sprays or mentioning furry porn?

If I wanted to see porn, I'd watch porn. Not go play Garry's Mod.

Trafalgar Law wrote:


i had to put a warning cuz the last time i put pictures on here and didnt put a warning you complained, and panties are not sexual also its a shirt not a bra the fur in the pic is a guy AND my whole point is not going over board with the spray limitations again there is nothing sexual being shown no bulge, no tits, no ass and again i wont argue with you here if your ttt staff feel free to vote against the suggestion. also i go long periods without mentioning sex stuff you just dont pay attention to that part you just notice the sex stuff more then the regular.

Frozenglory wrote:

Sorry for continuing the debate, but I feel this is sexually suggestive because of the pulling down of the pants, showing of the panties, and the gaze it is giving. It's not like it's changing its clothes. It seems like something else.

Frozenglory wrote:
There should be no reason for it. WHY do you need sprays that are sexually suggestive. They're just unnecessary and cause nothing but confusion and problems. I believe nothing suggestive in the slightest should be allowed because there's simply no reason to have them be there when there are CHILDREN playing

I ask you again, would you or would you not show that spray to a child or let your parents see it? If no, then it shouldn't be allowed.

giovanniz123 wrote:


ok this is my last post on this plz save all other stuff for the ttt staff meeting i am not arguing the fact it is suggestion the whole suggestion is not to remove the rule on sprays completely but to refine it as there is a big difference to being suggestive and explicit and just being playfully suggestion - for example showing nips,bulges, ass cracks, or revealing alot flesh would be the bad kind of suggestive none of that is shown in my example another example would be my wii sports captioned pic theres nothin sexual about it as its taken more of a comedic sense thou it dose show nips i can easily photoshop those out again not saying remove the rule just tone it back theres no need to be super uptight all i am suggesting is that you take it down a notch and stop going so overboard.

I'll just wait for Pony to delete these posts except the Suggestion part. So until then, Law gives a point. Why would you try to entice kid's with suggestive pictures? That is very...very creepy tbh. I would NEVER show this to my mom, so would you? I don't think talking to voc about those nasty things you were talking about yesterday made the matter any better EVEN when Pony said to stop. You continued on a bit more then after more warnings you stopped. SO please Stop with this suggestive stuff and save it for your own time.

Frozenglory wrote:


Definition of Suggestive-Making someone think of sex and sexual relationships.
Pulling down pants gazing at the user and lifting of shirt makes me think it's sexy time wouldn't you?

Frozenglory wrote:
Why would we refine it if it's fine but you guys wanna be perverted and get away with it.

The Doge has Spoken!