>>136642
>this nostalgia """oldfags"""... have for a brief moment when the catalog looked immaculate, is based upon a false memory... It was never worse.
Your screenshots were meant to prove that, right? That the supposed golden age was actually, post for post, worse than what we have now? Eh. Not really. I'll admit there isn't really much change. It was better in the sense that there was more interesting activity, perhaps.
>Again, may I see some case studies proving this to be the case. Where are you getting this from?
No, you're not going to get any peer-reviewed Snopes fact-checked papers on the matter. However, I have an anecdote I've told before. There was a brief window of time a while ago during which nipples were technically allowed. Period. I was in favor of this because-- personally-- I think even full nudity isn't inherently pornographic. So I posted what I deemed a non-pornographic piece that happened to have female nipples to test this (in the previous fitfag thread). I remember the immediate response was negative. Clearly not everyone shared my view on the matter and some threatened to leave should the rules not be reverted. So I conceded (not that I had a say in the matter) because holding on to the community here is more valuable than my personal definition of what constitutes "pornography".
The point being: the userbase would absolutely be shaken were the rules to be "loosened".
>"If (You) don't like something then post what (You) want to see." That was a nice motto to go by...
Sure, but the presence at all of the images which make this portion of the userbase uncomfortable is the problem. This, as Purrgem has noted, can be resolved simply by spoilering them. That was the point of this entire ordeal-- all in an effort to hold on to what Frog seems to perceive as a dwindling userbase. The fact that you are forced to see them is the issue to these people.
>>136661
I apologize. Your whole fixation with the beans shit was pissing me off, hence the passive-aggression in that post. Sorry.
>What message are you talking about here exactly?
The message. As in: the literal post I was responding to. I didn't mean it in the rhetorical sense. lol. soz.
>Unless you count a silent edit...
The administration is not very good with words. You have a point there. Actually, I think we're in agreement on most things but I still think spoilering is for the best so long as a setting is provided, insofar as we share the goal of not losing this community.
>you are my only lifeline and a window into the mind of someone who is a part of the nostalgia death cult.
Read the RULES before posting. Current Announcement: Chapter update for Immiscible >>>/anthro/136266 Make or change an announcement