I just noticed Ratte permabanned at least 10 users for bestiality. That wouldn't be too unusual here, except he retroactively banned them for offenses as old as 3 years:

https://e621.net/user_record?page=3

The bans can be recognized by the "Blocked: See records." line. What was the point of this? And why do it after such long time?

from rules:

Admitting to partaking in arson, bestiality, kidnapping, manslaughter or other similar serious crimes will lead to the permanent closure of your account.
Being a convicted felon for any of the above crimes may also lead to the permanent closure of your account.

so p much they were already supposed to be permabanned but for whatever reason they were not and now this was fixed. or maybe the rules changed and they were banned to reflect this change. dunno.

Lord_Eggplant said:
from rules:
so p much they were already supposed to be permabanned but for whatever reason they were not and now this was fixed. or maybe the rules changed and they were banned to reflect this change. dunno.

Well, except that same section says "Suggested Suspension Length: 3 to 7 days", not immediate permaban. Well, at least I understand it as such.

ConsciousDonkey said:
Well, except that same section says "Suggested Suspension Length: 3 to 7 days", not immediate permaban. Well, at least I understand it as such.

this part states that if the crime is bad enough, it can actually result to instant permaban instead of standard suspension.

Wouldn't want convicted arsonists on e621.
Non-furries already think we're into bestiality, let's not give them the impression that we're all firebugs , too.

Munkelzahn said:
Wouldn't want convicted arsonists on e621.
Non-furries already think we're into bestiality, let's not give them the impression that we're all firebugs , too.

*shrugs* I live pretty close to an area that got seriously damaged by some of the forest fires last year. for a while, it was thought that some kids who did it on purpose.

I"m not saying "hey, they don't deserve porn." or anything, but if they want to hang around here and talk about how they burnt down part of a forest, or some people's homes or their school or whatever, I don't really want to be around them.

We all do bad things, but that doesn't mean we should talk about it.

Plus, that list is in alphabetical order.

The rules about illegal activities, and talking about them on here, have changed more recently than those initial records have been issued. With those new records we're just cleaning house, so to speak.

The differences in suggested ban times and the permanent ban for more serious offenses is just that, the time gets escalated on severity. We're not going to ban people for admitting that they got caught speeding, or that they use weed recreationally, but we will ban people for talking about how fun arson is or if they would try to sell drugs through our page.

NotMeNotYou said:
The rules about illegal activities, and talking about them on here, have changed more recently than those initial records have been issued. With those new records we're just cleaning house, so to speak.

The differences in suggested ban times and the permanent ban for more serious offenses is just that, the time gets escalated on severity. We're not going to ban people for admitting that they got caught speeding, or that they use weed recreationally, but we will ban people for talking about how fun arson is or if they would try to sell drugs through our page.

I'll go ahead and ask: what if a comment that is regretful, or cautionary in some respect, rather than boastful or something?

(y'know, like "prison's really awful. I did 2 years (or whatever) for assault. Worst decision I'd ever made. It wasn't worth it. Beating him up felt good for about 2 minutes after, and everything was just... awful after that. Don't do it. Walk away, man.")

NotMeNotYou said:
The rules about illegal activities, and talking about them on here, have changed more recently than those initial records have been issued. With those new records we're just cleaning house, so to speak.

I see. Still, personally, I really don't see much point in banning someone after 3 years had elapsed. After all, this is a friggin' Internet porn site, not some real-world justice or security organisation. And... putting bestiality (which usually doesn't hurt anyone) on the same level with violent crimes kidnapping or manslaughter? That sounds odd, to say the least.

ConsciousDonkey said:
I see. Still, personally, I really don't see much point in banning someone after 3 years had elapsed. After all, this is a friggin' Internet porn site, not some real-world justice or security organisation. And... putting bestiality (which usually doesn't hurt anyone) on the same level with violent crimes kidnapping or manslaughter? That sounds odd, to say the least.

Doesn't matter if it hurts someone or not. Since bestiality is illegal, no surprise that it gets compared with other illegal stuff.

ConsciousDonkey said:
And... putting bestiality (which usually doesn't hurt anyone) on the same level with violent crimes kidnapping or manslaughter? That sounds odd, to say the least.

Here's the thing. we furries through much of our history have had kinda a bit of a reputation. I think we're a little more accepted these days, but for a lot of our history most people had no idea what a furry was, and most people either walked away with "so you want to be an animal?" or "So... you're sexually attracted to animals?"

So, this is, to some degree, about not perpetuating a very harmful stereotype.

but even past that... there's no reason to be discussing this. I don't want to hear about how Bob Fox is turned on by this picture. I don't want to hear about how Bob Fox had sex with his girlfriend last night. and I definitely don't want to hear about Bob Fox's sexual conquests of the local wildlife. Most furries do NOT Want to scroll down and see some guy talking about his dog's pussy, or anything like that. It's inappropriate.

as for the 'usually doesn't hurt anyone' part... well..

There are, absolutly, some people who are very kind and gentle zoophiles, who take excellent care of their animals in their care and focus entirely on understanding their animal's body language and understanding. and then there are people who are horny fuckheads who are more interested in taking rather than sharing anything. Seriously. Finding a person/being/creature sexy and attractive does not mean that you respect them. Being in a relationship with them does not mean that you respect them.

It is easy to say an animal can consent by growling, by stepping away, by showing disinterest, etc... but can they do these things if their master has shown displeasure whenever she is disobedient? If she is scolded for not obeying? Is it consent if they are bribed with peanut butter or puppy treats?

the concept of 'consent' is tricky, even between two adult humans who are both fluent in the same language. between a human and a dog, or horse, you've upped the difficulty a LOT.

Is someone harmed? well... it's debatable. I'm not getting into that debate. It's complicated. Maybe not if everything is done 'right'.... but the thing is, most humans don't do stuff 'right'... most people will talk the short route, or the easy route. and that means cutting corners.

regardless, it's illegal and makes us look bad... and the staff have decided we don't want that here. we don't want our comment threads to be a safe haven for talking about how to convince your dog to... do stuff. Just like, I'm sure, discussions about how to commit murder, dispose of bodies, how to make meth, how to find a Dealer, etc etc would be silenced as well.

besides, it's not that hard. No one's asking to see your criminal record. all we're asking is 'don't talk about it."

SnowWolf said:
besides, it's not that hard. No one's asking to see your criminal record. all we're asking is 'don't talk about it."

But that's why I started this thread in the first place. The admins invented a new rule and then retroactively banned at least a dozen users, without giving them a chance to "mend their ways". If they really want to pretend this site should have moral norms of a justice palace, this is just wrong - in the western world, a person can't be retroactively prosecuted for breaking newly written laws.

As for the bestiality points... oh well, I guess you're right.

ConsciousDonkey said:
But that's why I started this thread in the first place. The admins invented a new rule and then retroactively banned at least a dozen users, without giving them a chance to "mend their ways". If they really want to pretend this site should have moral norms of a justice palace, this is just wrong - in the western world, a person can't be retroactively prosecuted for breaking newly written laws.

As for the bestiality points... oh well, I guess you're right.

A counter-point is the fact that this isn't a free state. It's not a democracy where due process has to occur. It's a website owned and run privately by a business. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, I believe that most everyone can mend their ways, just stating the way things are.

ConsciousDonkey said:
But that's why I started this thread in the first place. The admins invented a new rule and then retroactively banned at least a dozen users, without giving them a chance to "mend their ways". If they really want to pretend this site should have moral norms of a justice palace, this is just wrong - in the western world, a person can't be retroactively prosecuted for breaking newly written laws.

As for the bestiality points... oh well, I guess you're right.

Honestly, I agree-- but I was focusing on the other part. Put bluntly, it sounded a lot like you were saying "bestiality isn't even a big deal"... perhaps it isn't compared to kidnapping of a human or murder, but it's not a victimless crime (not that it's *always* a crime, just like one can kidnap or murder for 'good' reasons... er.. sorta). So I wanted to talk about it a bit. If we can all see both sides of a problem, it becomes a lot easier to talk about it :)

Munkelzahn said:
Non-furries already think we're into bestiality--

I think the public view is unlikely to change as long as the site is owned by a company that sells anatomically correct horse dongs.

Genjar said:
I think the public view is unlikely to change as long as the site is owned by a company that sells anatomically correct horse dongs.

But they aren't real though. I remember a dirty magazine from the 70s I found that advertised a dildo modelled on a real donkey penis.

Anyhow...

Real animals have bacteria and stuff.

Genjar said:
I think the public view is unlikely to change as long as the site is owned by a company that sells anatomically correct horse dongs.

Among... other things that they've been connected to but have attempted to distance themselves from.

rhyolite said:
But they aren't real though. I remember a dirty magazine from the 70s I found that advertised a dildo modelled on a real donkey penis.

Anyhow...

Real animals have bacteria and stuff.

This is a good point. As we all know, no one has ever gotten a bacterial or viral infection from sex with another human.

Clawdragons said:
This is a good point. As we all know, no one has ever gotten a bacterial or viral infection from sex with another human.

Sex is pretty gross in general, when you get down to it.

Clawdragons said:
This is a good point. As we all know, no one has ever gotten a bacterial or viral infection from sex with another human.

What about STDs?

Edit: Considering the question has been answered there isn't really a reason to keep this open further.