Celebrity Videos - cleaned

[blueoystercult]

in that case the only real question remaining would be the form and parameter of the updated posting rule or guideline. The trickiest question of all.
as an example consider this posthttp://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=890103&postcount=20
No one can deny the quality of the set or the allure of both subject and content, but if we were to take this post strictly by skin exposure, most of it would be disallowed.
Similarly this post of mine of Christy Turlington [and you can include several others of her in this thread and also of Ysmeen Ghauri]
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=877401&postcount=27
would also be disallowed, but I defy you to tell me it's not one of the sexiest images you're likely to see, clothed or unclothed.
Conversely, most shots of Miley Cyrus are about as sexy as semolina unless you're 15yrs old and have never seen a pair of pubescent manboobs before. So how do we frame our minimum standard? On skin alone would seem to be too crude a measure unless we take your idea of subfora to it's logical conclusion and have similar sections for fashion models and shoots, social media releases etc.
I'm ust throwing ideas at the wall at this point to see if anything sticks. Trying to start a discussion and examination. These aren't firm proposals.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

in that case the only real question remaining would be the form and parameter of the updated posting rule or guideline. The trickiest question of all.
as an example consider this posthttp://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=890103&postcount=20
No one can deny the quality of the set or the allure of both subject and content, but if we were to take this post strictly by skin exposure, most of it would be disallowed.
Similarly this post of mine of Christy Turlington [and you can include several others of her in this thread and also of Ysmeen Ghauri]
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=877401&postcount=27
would also be disallowed, but I defy you to tell me it's not one of the sexiest images you're likely to see, clothed or unclothed.
Conversely, most shots of Miley Cyrus are about as sexy as semolina unless you're 15yrs old and have never seen a pair of pubescent manboobs before. So how do we frame our minimum standard? On skin alone would seem to be too crude a measure unless we take your idea of subfora to it's logical conclusion and have similar sections for fashion models and shoots, social media releases etc.
I'm ust throwing ideas at the wall at this point to see if anything sticks. Trying to start a discussion and examination. These aren't firm proposals.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

That I agree with completely and is along the lines of my thinking too. Most Pap shots are garbage. People wandering through carparks and streets. If you're a fanataic fine, but there are plenty of fora and newsgroups for fanatics. It's the same with red carpet shoots. Endlessly repeated frames of the same old same old. There are some notable exceptions but generally event photos are terribly dull unless the subject is wearing something spectacular.
There were pap shots of one of the Jenners a while back where she was getting into a car or something and was wearing see through leggings. It was like watching a baboon in tights flash its arse at the world and they just kept posting them. I think this is where my deep seated [no pun intended] revulsion of the term "adds" is rooted actually. Had to approve them till finally I started trashing them for adding nothing but it wasn't anything I'd care to include generally and I'd have happily limited it to one post only for "record keeping".
Perhaps that could be a new limitation? Discarding posts that add nothing to previous posts? I've already set some precedents wit that and no one challenged me.
BOC

One thing I use as sort of a personal guideline is I think less skin is almost always more acceptable when the images are from a photoshoot... I'm more likely to remove borderline paparazzi pics than ones from an actual photo session. The sexiness factor is much more likely to be present.

 

[blueoystercult]

That I agree with completely and is along the lines of my thinking too. Most Pap shots are garbage. People wandering through carparks and streets. If you're a fanataic fine, but there are plenty of fora and newsgroups for fanatics. It's the same with red carpet shoots. Endlessly repeated frames of the same old same old. There are some notable exceptions but generally event photos are terribly dull unless the subject is wearing something spectacular.
There were pap shots of one of the Jenners a while back where she was getting into a car or something and was wearing see through leggings. It was like watching a baboon in tights flash its arse at the world and they just kept posting them. I think this is where my deep seated [no pun intended] revulsion of the term "adds" is rooted actually. Had to approve them till finally I started trashing them for adding nothing but it wasn't anything I'd care to include generally and I'd have happily limited it to one post only for "record keeping".
Perhaps that could be a new limitation? Discarding posts that add nothing to previous posts? I've already set some precedents wit that and no one challenged me.
BOC

One thing I use as sort of a personal guideline is I think less skin is almost always more acceptable when the images are from a photoshoot... I'm more likely to remove borderline paparazzi pics than ones from an actual photo session. The sexiness factor is much more likely to be present.

 

[blueoystercult]

Perhaps instead of looking for a new "rule" we should consider the creation of an unofficial consensus "guideline" or "benchmark", for our consultation only rather than general publication, so that all our decisions are more or less in line? This might solve the conundrum of the impossible to formulate rule while at the same time resolving any discrepancy or inequality in our collective decision making.
Then, as you suggested previously, if any of us are confronted by something we can't decide upon, we could bring it here for a consultation-cum-vote and the consensus would decide if it stays or goes.
Might that be a way to resolve this problem?
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

Perhaps instead of looking for a new "rule" we should consider the creation of an unofficial consensus "guideline" or "benchmark", for our consultation only rather than general publication, so that all our decisions are more or less in line? This might solve the conundrum of the impossible to formulate rule while at the same time resolving any discrepancy or inequality in our collective decision making.
Then, as you suggested previously, if any of us are confronted by something we can't decide upon, we could bring it here for a consultation-cum-vote and the consensus would decide if it stays or goes.
Might that be a way to resolve this problem?
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

I tried it once before if you recall. The result was not ideal.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

I tried it once before if you recall. The result was not ideal.
OK. Let's give this a try. All input welcome.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

Infraction for underground1970: Posted Prohibited Content

Post: Madison Beer
User: underground1970
Infraction: Posted Prohibited Content
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Why you have just been infracted

Message to User:

She's SIXTEEN and underaged you flipping idiot!
BOC

Original Post:

Madison Beer in Black Swimsuit in Miami x 8

 

[blueoystercult]

Infraction for sleazyguy: Comments In Content Threads

Post: Maitland Ward
User: sleazyguy
Infraction: Comments In Content Threads
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Why you have just been infracted

Message to User:

I may not have the inclination to remove the damned panda head but I do have the inclination to infract you for posting an idiot comment in the content thread.
Please read the rules and don't break them again
Happy New Year
BOC

Original Post:

Who has the ability to remove the damn panda head? Happy New Years all...

 

[rvin82]

File Name : Taylor-Swift-Welcome-To-New-York-Shake-It-Off-Dick-Clarks-New-Years-Rockin-Eve-2015-12-31-14-720p-HDTV-010116.mkv
File Size : 619 MiB
Duration : 00:07:11.942
Video Resolution: 1280 x 720
Codec : MPEG-2 Video Main@High
Bitrate : 11.4 Mbps
Framerate : 60.000 fps
Aspect Ratio : 16:9
Audio : 384 Kbps CBR 6 channels AC3
Password : xxxcollections.net



Taylor-Swift-Welcome-To-New-York-Shake-It-Off-Dick-Clarks-New-Years-Rockin-Eve-2015-12-31-14-720p-HDTV-010116.part1.rar
Taylor-Swift-Welcome-To-New-York-Shake-It-Off-Dick-Clarks-New-Years-Rockin-Eve-2015-12-31-14-720p-HDTV-010116.part2.rar

 

[Deleted member 270556]

Candice Swanepoel Meets the Royal Fantasy Bra 10 million (2015)








http://dfiles.eu/files/almtc81ik
35 MB - 1280x720 - 01:25 - MP4​

 

[Deleted member 270556]

Giulia Michelini - Immaturi (2011)






http://dfiles.eu/files/2nrfojirs
98.2 MB - 1920x1080 - 01:29 - MP4​

 

[blueoystercult]

Brooke Shields

Thread started as a holding pad for images that may or may not be underaged. Should they prove to be OK they will be restored.
Despite lengthy research I've been unable to find provenance of this shoot beyond it's appearance in an article on Shields in Blue Lagoon when she was only 15.
This history of Brooks early modelling life
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/models/g5785/vintage-brooke-shields-photos/?thumbnails
does however give a timeline of looks and her post 1983 looks (when she turned 18) are very different to this. By 1983 she'd become leaner and had more defined cheekbones and chin.
This is by no means definitive, but under the circumstance I'm reluctant to continue to "chance it" without a citeable source confirming the date of this shoot.
Apologies to posters for any inconvenience nd many thanks for understanding
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

Removed by poster after discussion but archived here just in case

#735361

 

[Deleted member 270556]

Kelly Brook - Reebok Easy Tone (2015)








http://dfiles.eu/files/v3rfww2nf
37.7 MB - 1280x720 - 02:59 - MP4​

 

[Deleted member 270556]

Milo Moiré - Making of Calendar, shooting month 07 The Narcisisst (2015)







http://dfiles.eu/files/h8coagzem
62.6 MB - 1920x1080 - 01:39 - MP4​

 

[blueoystercult]

Applying new standards to old posts is not fair; leave them alone.

See-thru only is acceptable if you can see something good, not bra or bathing suit. Alba post removed.

I would draw my learned friend's attention to post #5.
As to the rest, highly amusing, especially in terms of the precedent set. The children in the sandpit will not be happy.
Is it wrong that that this has cheered me up?
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

Hell, we can't even come to a consensus on how to fairly apply the old standards to new posts.

Precisely, young Padawan. Precidely.
BOC

 

[mainly]

00:01:08 - 1920x1080 - 42MB - MP4

Depositfiles

anyone have the bedroom scene in 1080p??