{"views":["
\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 193273<\/a><\/small><\/header>

libraryfire<\/a> Discourage? I want more people to help out when they can\\want actually! With the purity, I mean if they have nothing really showing, I personally think it's Sketchy. Bent over while having panties or something doesn't need NSFW rating to me. You're correct in most cases, just for some I'm like "strange." Seriously, I do appreciate you for doing something in your free time or if you're just bored.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"libraryfire\"<\/a>
libraryfire<\/a> \u2013 193274<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Trevbloom<\/a> Sorry for the assumption and thanks. Then I'll keep bent over ones sketchy more often depending on where the view comes from. I haven't contributed for a while, but among thousands of flagged wallpapers, there's bound to be a few mistakes or some disputable judgement. Better to flag up and eventually fix, than to push porn to public when there's a category for it and hardcore stuff isn't even allowed on the platform. Have a nice one<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"libraryfire\"<\/a>
libraryfire<\/a> \u2013 193769<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Trevbloom<\/a> I've been banned for false reports for 6 days. Do you or other staff members know which reports warranted this? It boggles my mind that wanting to help leads to bans. What is going on with this site?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 193770<\/a><\/small><\/header>

libraryfire<\/a> I'd assume reporting wps with large watermarks. Nothing wrong with helping obviously. It's not like we're super mad, we don't mind.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"libraryfire\"<\/a>
libraryfire<\/a> \u2013 193783<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Trevbloom<\/a> Well thanks for clearing that out. It's not specified what large is though. Some of those wallpapers have big watermarks repeating in different spots all over the subject of the "wallpaper". Would be better to update the rules than to ban a contributor who can't tell what's currently on your minds or what has changed. Not seeking appreciation, I wasn't asked for any of it, but the ban still feels like being spat in the face. By the way, some of the wallpapers from cleared reports ended up deleted anyway. Seems dishonest. <\/p>\n

Also some purity reports were ignored (purity locked by staff) but the rules are clear there in that my reports were correct. If rules are not to be followed, then what do we follow? Can't staff acknowledge that there is confusion here?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 193785<\/a><\/small><\/header>

libraryfire<\/a> Some were deleted since they were low quality. I can just ask for you if there can be an update in the rules. Also, just make sure to leave a question in the reports you send just in case you're not sure. That way someone can clear up confusion at least.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"libraryfire\"<\/a>
libraryfire<\/a> \u2013 193797<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Trevbloom<\/a> I did add quality to the report. Frankly I'm wondering whether I really want to risk bans for contributing again. Obviously, staff wants to hear none of it. If you don't see a problem with the rules then I have nothing else to add here. Anyway, thanks for responding.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"libraryfire\"<\/a>
libraryfire<\/a> \u2013 193807<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Trevbloom<\/a> Who the hell is handing me these bans? My purity settings followed the rules.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 193822<\/a><\/small><\/header>

libraryfire<\/a> I don't think I can say who. Although for your recent changes, no explicit body part was showing and they were still covered even though it seemed censored or they were slighty taking it off. So having it in NSFW is a bit overkill.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","