Take more care!! [UPDATED 19th OF SEPT] : General > The Office

#4749286

Lvl 17

Paddy! 11 years ago

What about fat chicks? I mean grossly fat chicks. Surely we shouldn't discriminate, fattys need love too, but should I allow them thru, providing hey don't break any rules.....

#4749288

Lvl 70

omuh 11 years ago

Quote:
Originally posted by Paddy!
What about fat chicks? I mean grossly fat chicks. Surely we shouldn't discriminate, fattys need love too, but should I allow them thru, providing hey don't break any rules.....

You should I think as we're not here to judge beauty.

#4749289

Lvl 17

Paddy! 11 years ago

Will do. Might even stick it on the favourites, just to see the reaction!

#4749292

Lvl 59

EricLindros 11 years ago

Quote:
Originally posted by omuh
...
Even if important parts of the girl are cropped like her face or half her body for example ?
It's not the case in the example I gave and I have no problem with removing the landscape or extra "blank" space for example but when the girl herself is cropped, I feel it's altering the original.

Well, there are a lot of pictures out there of girls that don't even include their face, just a body shot or whatever. We should probably allow those, right?

#4749297

[Deleted] 11 years ago

I would tend to agree with EL. Yes...cropping could be a way of removing a watermark, but then again it might just be to make the pic smaller to be able to host it somewhere. Also...as a woman, if I were to post noodies of myself...you can sure bet that I'd be cropping out or blurring my face, so this is likely a major reason for pics with cropped faces...doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept them. Besides...we have an entire gallery dedicated to close ups, in which only part of the body is showing.

#4749304

Lvl 70

omuh 11 years ago

Of course picture with no face, or close-ups, are and should be allowed.

I'm just talking about pictures that had a face (for example) which have been cropped and uploaded to WBW.
So we would en up with a no-face picture on the gallery but the original is supposed to have the head (and can be found on the web).
Same with, let's say, a picture of an upper body but the original was displaying the full body from head to feet.

Basically, should we allow a picture that is, in fact, just a part of the original one (even if the original is not yet on WBW) ?

(I'll see if I can find an example in the queue so that it's clearer)

* This post has been modified : 11 years ago

#4749305

Lvl 70

omuh 11 years ago

Ok here's an example :
Here what's on our gallery : http://whatboyswant.com/babes/show/1524224/user/605166
And here's the original picture : http://motherless.com/GDA715B3/DA6D8C6
So, even through the girl seems amateur and the first one is ok by the rules, we miss the whole bottom part of the girl that have been cropped for some reason. Is that ok ?

#4749311

[Deleted] 11 years ago

I would say it's ok.

However, in the case of both pics being on wbw, I would delete the cropped one in favor of the full version.

#4749322

Lvl 70

omuh 11 years ago

Quote:
Originally posted by Sugarpie
I would say it's ok.

However, in the case of both pics being on wbw, I would delete the cropped one in favor of the full version.

Ok, thanks (the second part is also something I was wondering).

#4749383

Lvl 40

BWT 11 years ago

Yeah I don't see any problem with that pic .... If there is already a better version of the same pic then sure delete it .. But one similar or that isn't on here yet shouldn't be deleted just because its cropped.
I don't have the inclination to check every pic uploaded with google Image search to see if there is a better version so most of the time we would never know anyway

#4749392