OK great, that's 2 names, thanks, that helps. Just 2? It shows just what a nontroversy this is.
Growly's record is more than enough to meet a standard of a formal policy. "Not everyone agrees" or "some evidence" doesn't set aside that fact or help re-litigate his case. He already had a lawyer for that. You can disagree with facts, heck I don't think he's malicious either, but they're facts. Laws were broken no matter what the intentions are now, and disagreement about intentions doesn't rebut the concern of people who wouldn't want to bring their kids in presence with sex offenders. If there is a policy it needs to be decisive and not inconsistent lip-service.
Which leads to a great example for why to be decisive:
Calling Sangie "a juicy target" is nonsequitur and dodges the issue, it doesn't matter if he's the president of the USA. He appears in the zoosadist chat logs, and what's there is horrifying. If you read between the lines of what he did, to ask why, you can get a picture of a sophisticated manipulator using a tag-team grooming strategy to evade liability. Levi Simmons (the ringleader, who was arrested for raping a drugged 12 week old puppy which was possibly killed afterwards) was doing the grooming, so no touching. He was showing nude photos of Sangie to his young nephew. Then molesting of a groomed-by-proxy target could be done with more plausible deniability and lower chance of getting caught. That's only one example of many more. (I haven't even published other tips I get because victim ID's are sensitive.)
That's why a policy needs to be decisive with no prevarication about it. Because the worst % of predators know the lines and are sophisticated about evading them.
These are examples who were convicted with evidence of continuing concern, not "creepy feelings". 2 names is not "half the fandom". Stop stretching...
Animal abuse comes up because it's relevant to what's illegal. People complaining here want to erase the actual reasons and replace them with vague hypotheticals and dodges, but that falls apart when we look at the 2 (and only 2) names anyone has named.
OK great, that's 2 names, thanks, that helps. Just 2? It shows just what a nontroversy this is.
Growly's record is more than enough to meet a standard of a formal policy. "Not everyone agrees" or "some evidence" doesn't set aside that fact or help re-litigate his case. He already had a lawyer for that. You can disagree with facts, heck I don't think he's malicious either, but they're facts. Laws were broken no matter what the intentions are now, and disagreement about intentions doesn't rebut the concern of people who wouldn't want to bring their kids in presence with sex offenders. If there is a policy it needs to be decisive and not inconsistent lip-service.
Which leads to a great example for why to be decisive:
Calling Sangie "a juicy target" is nonsequitur and dodges the issue, it doesn't matter if he's the president of the USA. He appears in the zoosadist chat logs, and what's there is horrifying. If you read between the lines of what he did, to ask why, you can get a picture of a sophisticated manipulator using a tag-team grooming strategy to evade liability. Levi Simmons (the ringleader, who was arrested for raping a drugged 12 week old puppy which was possibly killed afterwards) was doing the grooming, so no touching. He was showing nude photos of Sangie to his young nephew. Then molesting of a groomed-by-proxy target could be done with more plausible deniability and lower chance of getting caught. That's only one example of many more. (I haven't even published other tips I get because victim ID's are sensitive.)
That's why a policy needs to be decisive with no prevarication about it. Because the worst % of predators know the lines and are sophisticated about evading them.
These are examples who were convicted with evidence of continuing concern, not "creepy feelings". 2 names is not "half the fandom". Stop stretching...
Animal abuse comes up because it's relevant to what's illegal. People complaining here want to erase the actual reasons and replace them with vague hypotheticals and dodges, but that falls apart when we look at the 2 (and only 2) names anyone has named.