Just asking...

[crispus]

...but is there any chance the Dogerator was a little too quick on the trigger finger with https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/showthread.php?t=100848 (and can I get a little credit for resisting the ruder second-amendment metaphor)? While the wording of the rule seems pretty clear, the request appears to have been to "fix," not to fake, a picture; I've seen hundreds if not thousands of pictures here that have had some work done, e.g. to obscure faces, identifying details, or underage spectators, to say nothing of ones lightened or darkened to enhance quality, and surely none of those are disallowed simply for helpful, or even necessary, alteration. Shouldn't there be some discretion about the intent and effect of the modification?

[dognheat]

I always enjoy a good debate over line drawing and semantics, but you already know my position, so I'll ask the other mods to weigh in here as they see fit.

I don't know what the rude second amendment reference means, but if credit is due for not making a rude comment, consider it given.

[admin]

crispus,

Since this was not your thread that was closed, I see no reason to try to start a public debate here.

I stand behind all of our moderators and trust their decisions.

If cators wants to contact me about this thread for any reason, feel free to send me a PM.

Thanks,
Alex

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by crispus

(and can I get a little credit for resisting the ruder second-amendment metaphor)?

you can't say Dognheat didn't "stick to his guns...."

KLondike