>>122882
That's a reply. There are plenty of non-anthro posts on /anthro/ as replies (eg. reaction images). I would argue it breaks Rule 2, however, which reads "You will not post NSFW content, including but not limited to..." since I'd certainly not like to be caught watching that in a typical work environment. There are two problems, though: (1) "NSFW" is poorly defined and (2) that part of the rule isn't really enforced at all to begin with. Those two krauts, for example, frequently make grotesque posts (which are anthros, at least) which I'd also categorize as NSFW and thus as rulebreaking, but nobody's enforcing that.
>Doing a months-long spamming campaign should be a bannable offense
I agree with you, but I'm just pointing out that, as they stand, technically no rules were violated... which is to say that they should probably be amended.