Alleged paedo pics in 'Best picture thread' • Eurogamer.net • The moderator batphone • Eurogamer.net

BanjoMan 9 Feb 2008 15:47:30 13,692 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

OP is refusing to mark paedo pics as NSFW, so could a mod take a look and dispense justice please. Ta.

http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?forum_id=1&thread_id=106535&start=0

deem 9 Feb 2008 15:49:33 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

They aren't actually pedo pics - they could just appear to be by anyone that happened to look.

BanjoMan 9 Feb 2008 15:50:13 13,692 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

Well I'm not clicking owt until the kiddy pics are marked as nws. But it doesn't sound like the 'funniest pic ever'.

Syrette 9 Feb 2008 15:51:29 51,181 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years ago

I'm sure they've already seen it.

jozz 9 Feb 2008 15:51:31 4,871 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

You want mods to 'dispense justice' without actually seeing what the problem is?

Psychotext 9 Feb 2008 15:51:33 70,652 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

He'd be looking at slightly more worrying things than a GI if they were really pedo pics.

BanjoMan 9 Feb 2008 15:52:14 13,692 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

jozz wrote:
You want mods to 'dispense justice' without actually seeing what the problem is?

Just want them to mark 'em up as nws tbh. It's only fair.

NewYork 9 Feb 2008 15:52:23 24,807 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 15 years ago

ecureuil wrote:
The picture isn't bad at all

Would/10

Psychotext 9 Feb 2008 15:52:40 70,652 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

Oh, and you think anything with pedo in the link is safe for work anyway? Your work filters will pick up on that shit in a heartbeat... probably have it logged just because you viewed the page.

UncleLou Moderator 9 Feb 2008 15:53:34 40,723 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

It's not really a paedo pic, but it looks like one at first glance, which is why posting it without an NSFW tag is in idiocy only trumped by his reaction afterwards.

The "funny" part is that someone in the chat there reacts just as shocked as the forum.

BanjoMan 9 Feb 2008 15:53:40 13,692 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago

I'm not at work, but my missus is behind me so I'd like some NWS tags.

jozz 9 Feb 2008 15:55:33 4,871 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

BanjoMan wrote:
Just want them to mark 'em up as nws tbh. It's only fair.

Well considering the thread has pretty much turned into that discussion already, it seems a bit retarded making another thread about it.

jozz 9 Feb 2008 15:55:55 4,871 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Post deleted

Syrette 9 Feb 2008 15:58:15 51,181 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years ago

BanjoMan wrote:
I'm not at work, but my missus is behind me so I'd like some NWS tags.

Why is she watching you post on Eurogamer?

deem 9 Feb 2008 16:02:30 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

ecureuil wrote:
The picture isn't bad at all, I don't know what the fuss is about.

The bottom line, is that it is exactly what thehat described it as - an online sex chat involving a child.

phAge 9 Feb 2008 16:10:22 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

From the other thread (wrote while kalel was busy locking):

Psychotext wrote:

phAge wrote:
LMFAO! "I won't do it cuz you didn't ask nicely...".

How old ARE you - 5?
As much as I'm not going to agree with his initial refusal, what does demanding that people are polite have to do with being 5 years old?

The problem is that HE was the one who fucked up, so HE should be prepared for the backlash. Sure, it would be better if people were polite, but refusing to correct a mistake just because someone else got (perfectly justifiably) angry, is something most children stop doing about the same time they learn to wipe their own arse.

Syrette 9 Feb 2008 16:12:06 51,181 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years ago

The actual picture isn't that bad, it's the potential reactions that people opening that link up could get from people looking over their shoulder and then RPGLord's immature refusal to simply place a NSFW tag with the link that has understandably angered people.

phAge 9 Feb 2008 16:13:19 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

foreverafternothing wrote:
The actual picture isn't that bad, it's the potential reactions that people opening that link up could get from people looking over their shoulder and then RPGLord's immature refusal to simply place a NSFW tag with the link that has understandably angered people.

Exactly.

EDIT: Even the very notion of somebody having pedophilic tendencies is enough to ruin a persons life, much less their career. I can understand why people browing EG at work would be pretty pissed at having that pic show up in their search history.

Psychotext 9 Feb 2008 16:14:05 70,652 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

phAge wrote:
Sure, it would be better if people were polite, but refusing to correct a mistake just because someone else got (perfectly justifiably) angry, is something most children stop doing about the same time they learn to wipe their own arse.

Fair enough.

thehat 9 Feb 2008 16:15:12 1,831 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Surely the kid doesn't have to be nude for it to cause concern?

Like I said in the other thread as Kalel locked, the thread was supposed to be funny pictures and I don't get the joke with that one.

NewYork 9 Feb 2008 16:15:47 24,807 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 15 years ago

TBH even without the kid you should have tagged it.

phAge 9 Feb 2008 16:17:47 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

RPG-Lord:

Can you, or can you not, understand why people browsing from work got upset by clicking on that (unmarked) link?

Deleted user 9 February 2008 16:18:03

The thread was locked for good reason, I can't actually believe you just reposted it in here...

Please pay careful attention to the PM you've been sent RPG-Lord.