{"views":["
\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181881<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I will stop with the wrong reports when all the admins agree on what is SFW and what is Sketchy. Cause one admin knows what is what, and one doesn't.\nAnd I am removing "valid tags" as the one called "bottomless" for example, isn't always correct, specially when it applies to complete nudity.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181883<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> Sometimes the line is fine, yes, but if a wallpaper has already been reported and cleared you don't have to report it again.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181888<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> Except for the example of one wallpaper being locked as SFW by a trigger happy staff member, and I reported it, it got locked as Sketchy instead.\nYou would think staff members would have to agree on some things, specially that.\nI don't want to argue about it, but I think some things should be clear between you good folks, before anything gets locked.\nTo the point of what probably started this comment section, an English dictionary CLEARLY states what is low cut tops and what is not, hence why I report some as Sketchy, as stated in the rules.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181890<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> It's also about the angle, how provocative the pose is etc.. Some cases are judged individually, but not ignoring the rules, of course.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181891<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I get that, I just don't get how 1 image can be locked as SFW at first, probably by staff 1, and then locked as Sketchy, probably by staff 2, then maybe staff 1 was wronged at first, thinking he was right.\nI'm just saying maybe some cases should be considered twice before hitting the lock button.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181892<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> Also, a low cut top is a low cut top, no matter the perspective, just saying.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181895<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> Well, there are more levels of "low", depending on how deep the cleavage is.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181896<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/low-cut<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.collinsdictionary.com\/us\/dictionary\/english\/low-cut<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181897<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> So you mean to say that any type of cleavage is Sketchy?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181898<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I mean to say that what I posted, is the definition of low cuts, and according to the rules, those are Sketchy, otherwise the rules need to be adjusted accordingly.\nI didn't make up the rules, hence why I have reported low cut tops that I thought was sketchy.\nBut again, I don't understand how 1 staff can say it's SFW, and another say it's Sketchy. There must be different personal opinions, instead of going for how the rules were written. :)<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181899<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> Reports are reviewed by humans after all, not bots. But my issue was not to re-report a wallpaper for the same reason if it has already been cleared.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181901<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I know this and I know you have got a lot to look out for. I am just saying a second opinion wouldn't hurt anyone, since 1st staff have one opinion, and 2nd staff has another, as with my example earlier.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181903<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> So you re-report a wallpaper hoping that it will be another staff member who reviews it next time?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181904<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> Well, if it gets me in trouble, which it kinda sounds like to me, then I won't.\nI'm just hoping that it'd be reconsidered, instead of instantly being smacked with a lock.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 181905<\/a><\/small><\/header>

CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> It's ok, just don't make a habit of it.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"CyberEnemyDreamer\"<\/a>
CyberEnemyDreamer<\/a> \u2013 181906<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> Just to clarify, it's okay I report it once, to have a second set of eyes on it, or do you want me to just not report anything at all?\nYou know my opinion on low cut tops by now, so I'd think it's only fair that other people have their opinion on things, before it get an instant lock.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","