[ZOOVILLE RULES]

EXIF Data:
Removing EXIF data.
This is data used in photos and videos to detail specifications, such as the camera used, GPS (If enabled/equipped), serial number of the device used, etc.
It's easy to remove EXIF data by using the right software.

EXIF Purge (Windows & Mac)
www.exifpurge.com
A simple, to-the-point EXIF remover.
For Linux users. I'm sure there's something for Linux users... But I'm not aware of any software. If anyone does. Let me know!

REMOVING EXIF DATA FOR VIDEOS. THE SIMPLE WAY. How to view, edit, and remove EXIF Data, including location on Windows
  1. Go to the folder where your image is located.
  2. Right-click the image > click Properties.
  3. Click the Details tab.
  4. Click Remove Properties and Personal Information.
  5. Then you can click Create a copy with all possible properties removed for a copy of the photo with EXIF data stripped.
  6. Alternatively, you can edit metadata by clicking Remove the following properties from this file OK.
Alternatively, make sure location tagging is disabled on the device you're using.
 
dogluver101 said:
EXIF Data:
Removing EXIF data.
This is data used in photos and videos to detail specifications, such as the camera used, GPS (If enabled/equipped), serial number of the device used, etc.
It's easy to remove EXIF data by using the right software.

EXIF Purge (Windows & Mac)
www.exifpurge.com
A simple, to-the-point EXIF remover.
For Linux users. I'm sure there's something for Linux users... But I'm not aware of any software. If anyone does. Let me know!

REMOVING EXIF DATA FOR VIDEOS. THE SIMPLE WAY. How to view, edit, and remove EXIF Data, including location on Windows
  1. Go to the folder where your image is located.
  2. Right-click the image > click Properties.
  3. Click the Details tab.
  4. Click Remove Properties and Personal Information.
  5. Then you can click Create a copy with all possible properties removed for a copy of the photo with EXIF data stripped.
  6. Alternatively, you can edit metadata by clicking Remove the following properties from this file OK.
Alternatively, make sure location tagging is disabled on the device you're using.
Click to expand...
You already have this in the 5th post of the rules titled "helpful tips".
 
billyk9 said:
Is it possible to remove any kind of politic at this forum?!.
This is not the place i guess, it ruin the atmosfere here.

Thx..worknin progress ?
Click to expand...
Why does the post you're replying to say no scat, but not the pinned? I wonder if they changed the rule.
 
Oldman said:
There is no scat. Ever. Period. That will not change. We are not a shit forum, we are a zoo forum.
Click to expand...
Zoo includes scat, and keeping a closed mind to content with animals that is even less dangerous than the regular old bestiality stuff here is dumb. Your staff can't even explain your reasoning. Human on animal isn't my thing, but I'm not asking it to be banned. Why ban scat because it's not the admins' thing? Zoo means sexual attraction to animals, and that includes their feces and them dedicating. This reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. At least make sense if you're going to impose such an arbitrary restriction.
 
BeastMelon said:
I'm glad scat/incest/loli isn't allowed here. All these arguments about how they should be allowed because "they're more accepted/legal than zoo anyways!!!" are just proving the point we don't need it here. There's plenty of other places to access that content, there's not plenty of other places to mingle with other zoos so let's stick to that...
Click to expand...
Even fewer places to mingle with zoos who like scat for no known logical reason whatsoever, no? And these arguments don't prove any point.
 
pissyfart said:
Zoo includes scat, and keeping a closed mind to content with animals that is even less dangerous than the regular old bestiality stuff here is dumb. Your staff can't even explain your reasoning. Human on animal isn't my thing, but I'm not asking it to be banned. Why ban scat because it's not the admins' thing? Zoo means sexual attraction to animals, and that includes their feces and them dedicating. This reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. At least make sense if you're going to impose such an arbitrary restriction.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me where the fuck anywhere in the definition of zoo says scat..
 
dogluver101 said:
Can you tell me where the fuck anywhere in the definition of zoo says scat..
Click to expand...
Zoophilia means sexual attraction to animals. Sexual attraction to animals pooping is sexual attraction to animals, as I've sought content of animals pooping: not humans. Coprophiles aren't inherently zoophiles, and zoophiles aren't inherently coprophiles, so enjoyment can be separate. Like not all coprophiles are turned on by animals popping for a variety of reasons, one of them being because they're not zoophiles.

No scat isn't a reasonable rule. It's kink-shaming something totally harmless that any pet owner will have to deal with at one point or another, and AFAIK, jurisdictions that outlawed bestiality porn don't cover porn with scat contact. Likewise, no bestiality laws I know of cover contact with feces. Likewise, if bestiality harms animals psychologically (I'm not entirely sure), playing with their poop sure as hell doesn't. An act that reduces the risk of abuse to animals beyond anything that could legally be defined as bestiality ever could shouldn't be banned. Make a separate subforum if you must.

Also, I don't fw this attitude. This is like the people who say "animals can't consent because of pheromone signals". It's vague and not debate logic.
 
pissyfart said:
Zoophilia means sexual attraction to animals. Sexual attraction to animals pooping is sexual attraction to animals, as I've sought content of animals pooping: not humans. Coprophiles aren't inherently zoophiles, and zoophiles aren't inherently coprophiles, so enjoyment can be separate. Like not all coprophiles are turned on by animals popping for a variety of reasons, one of them being because they're not zoophiles.

No scat isn't a reasonable rule. It's kink-shaming something totally harmless that any pet owner will have to deal with at one point or another, and AFAIK, jurisdictions that outlawed bestiality porn don't cover porn with scat contact. Likewise, no bestiality laws I know of cover contact with feces. Likewise, if bestiality harms animals psychologically (I'm not entirely sure), playing with their poop sure as hell doesn't. An act that reduces the risk of abuse to animals beyond anything that could legally be defined as bestiality ever could shouldn't be banned. Make a separate subforum if you must.

Also, I don't fw this attitude. This is like the people who say "animals can't consent because of pheromone signals". It's vague and not debate logic.
Click to expand...
Did you know most bestiality laws include "anal" in their laws? They don't have to say scat or feces. They say anything with the animal.
Of all the time I've been in the zoo scene, I haven't known the ones I've known to be into that.
If we're kink shaming, I guess we should allow incest, and pedo? I guess you consider zoo is the same as pedo?
 
dogluver101 said:
Did you know most bestiality laws include "anal" in their laws? They don't have to say scat or feces. They say anything with the animal.
Of all the time I've been in the zoo scene, I haven't known the ones I've known to be into that.
If we're kink shaming, I guess we should allow incest, and pedo? I guess you consider zoo is the same as pedo?
Click to expand...
It's odd to compare pedophilia and incest with scat, as the first two can cause severe psychological (and possibly physical) trauma to unwilling victims, whereas the ladder only offers diseases given unsafe practices. I'd get banning humans eating or touching animal scat (without some kind of protection [like gloves]) videos from the forum, as it's dangerous, human on animal scat is morally dubious, and human-only scat would be off-topic (and IDK why we even have a human-only channel), but solo animals pooping without human interference? This is so safe that it's allowed on YouTube, but not on the zoophile site that potentially endangers animals (not confirming 100% that bestiality is harmful in all cases, but I can't confirm 100% that it doesn't have deeper effects. It's a debate for a different day, but case-in-point, watching animals poop has less potential to be exploitative or harmful to the animal than straight-up bestiality).

Bestiality laws include anal in the laws, but this refers to anal sex, humans making contact with the animal's anus, or contact with the mouth, not turds being pushed out of the anus with no human interference. Some people's interests lie more in material where a human doesn't interact with the feces.
 
Last edited:
Oldman said:
Discussion...... I'm thinking we will allow. If there are pics, then the entire thread gets deleted. If it's animal pee in the pics, it will be a pass as well. Watersports encompasses everything related to human pee visually. Now, I could be over ruled, or if other mods vote that it needs to go then it's gone.
Click to expand...
And dog cum looks like human cum, so we should ban all videos with semen, as this is a zoophile forum: not a semen forum!
 
Oldman said:
Did you seriously call it bandwagon fallacy after posting this:
Click to expand...
Not only is that a fallacy fallacy (meaning a fallacy doesn't intrinsically take away from certain arguments), but you didn't even get your fallacies right, for nowhere did I make the argument that scat is liked by more people, therefore it is right (example of a bandwagon fallacy).
 
pissyfart said:
Even fewer places to mingle with zoos who like scat for no known logical reason whatsoever, no? And these arguments don't prove any point.
Click to expand...
Here is our reason. It's our website, we don't want it here, we talked about it and everyone voted no. Create your own website. We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you.
 
Oldman said:
Here is our reason. It's our website, we don't want it here, we talked about it and everyone voted no. Create your own website. We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you.
Click to expand...
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
 
Last edited:
Elven&Werewolf said:
You joined yesterday and you trying lecture long term users on this community and forcing/advertising your scat/shitty kinks. Don't you see that nobody wants that kind of content here? Is not related with animals and relations with animals (active, exclusive or fetishists) so stop it and go with your "manure" somewhere else.

Seb
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about how long members have been here. Possible appeal to authority fallacy. What matters is who you are, not how long you've been around. It's possible some "long-term members" could get exposed for heretical actions beyond the scope of even the worst bestiality. My point being that my age or the age of my account does not automatically make my argument more stupid. Some things are just common sense and universal values. Nobody's immune to a good argument.
 
pissyfart said:
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
Click to expand...
No coding is needed when forums are permissions based.
That is useless, because the admin would have to see it if something goes on. I'm sure the admin is not into it.

If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look
Click to expand...
I think preaching that we're not into every-single-thing that the media and the rest of the internet thinks is what we're going for. We have standards. I know. Shocking.
In all my time being around the community and being in other forums. Never have I seen a special scat section, or some other fetish type section. It was zoophilia oriented.
 
dogluver101 said:
No coding is needed when forums are permissions based.
That is useless, because the admin would have to see it if something goes on. I'm sure the admin is not into it.


I think preaching that we're not into every-single-thing that the media and the rest of the internet thinks is what we're going for. We have standards. I know. Shocking.
In all my time being around the community and being in other forums. Never have I seen a special scat section, or some other fetish type section. It was zoophilia oriented.
Click to expand...
Hire admins that could see it. And "standards" don't apply when they're subjective, like I think human-on-animal is unattractive. I wouldn't preach how high my standards are, though. :P
 
pissyfart said:
Everyone voted no, and you host the site? Those are more logical reasons. "We don't have to explain a god damn thing to you." Even sites Zoovileforum considers unethical have transparency logs. Also, that response is not PR-friendly for a site that boasts stricter moral standards.

However, there's an easy solution. You make a separate subforum, and you hire a staff member or a few for that specific subforum. That way, the sensitive people who are disturbed by what you see as a part of being around animals regularly (including staff members who dislike it) can have their way, and the arbitrary censorship is gone. The main challenge should be finding the mods who could mod a scat subforum and maybe making changes to code, but it's actually that staff acts extremely closed-minded against it for no good reason, not even considering compromises.

I can't even get a hint of the psychology here. Do you find it gross, immoral, or what? Why are you so defensive about answering that? Vagueness helps nobody. If this is a forum seeking to preach that bestiality can be ethical, hurting US by lacking transparency and being rude is a bad look.
Click to expand...
We

Don't

Want

It

Here

You already got the reason, but choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I'm not being defensive. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions on what should and shouldn't be and I've already spent too much time on this subject. Also. Don't spread this shit to other threads, some mods with less patience than me don't take too kindly to that.
 
dogluver101 said:
How about this? What makes feces safer?
Click to expand...
Feces are safer due to the lower risk of psychological and physical damage to the animal, and no legal danger if you sniff poop from a distance. Hell, even touching it with gloves is relatively safe, whereas touching a dog's hole(s) with gloves may release unwanted material in there. The risk for humans making sexual contact with them is probably roughly the same as with sexual or fetish parts not containing feces.
 
Oldman said:
We

Don't

Want

It

Here

You already got the reason, but choose to ignore it.

Oh, and I'm not being defensive. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions on what should and shouldn't be and I've already spent too much time on this subject. Also. Don't spread this shit to other threads, some mods with less patience than me don't take too kindly to that.
Click to expand...
"We don't want it here" is a vague reason. It doesn't go into why staff doesn't want it here, or address my other points, but I guess I can't force a conversation with someone who doesn't want to speak in greater detail. It looks bad on the site, but if you have to play the bad guy, it's your site. Some sites don't even allow criticism or questioning of their rules, so the fact I've gotten this far is good.
 
pissyfart said:
Feces are safer due to the lower risk of psychological and physical damage to the animal, and no legal danger if you sniff poop from a distance. Hell, even touching it with gloves is relatively safe, whereas touching a dog's hole(s) with gloves may release unwanted material in there. The risk for humans making sexual contact with them is probably roughly the same as with sexual or fetish parts not containing feces.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's freaks that don't use gloves.
If one manages to cause phsyical damage, then there can be other reasons such as them not preparing them properly. Too small. Or trying to act like they're a male dog and pounding them fast.
 
dogluver101 said:
I'm sure there's freaks that don't use gloves.
If one manages to cause phsyical damage, then there can be other reasons such as them not preparing them properly. Too small. Or trying to act like they're a male dog and pounding them fast.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I guess all sexual or fetishistic acts with animals that make contact with them or extensions of them are pretty much just as physically dangerous. Just don't tell me rimming a dog or sticking your penis in their anus with no protection is safer. And IDK if enemas are safe for animals. Also, we haven't addressed psychological and circumstantial dangers. Dogs can be sent to shelters and killed for bestiality, but not for scat play. Additionally, a dog may respond to physical sexual contact with psychological consequences, but it has no capacity to understand what happens if a human interacts with its fecal matter in any way (unless there are olfactory triggers related to territory-marking or something if a human moves feces from the location, but at that rate, shoving your wiener in their face could be a different olfactory trigger, but IDK).
 
pissyfart said:
"We don't want it here" is a vague reason. It doesn't go into why staff doesn't want it here, or address my other points, but I guess I can't force a conversation with someone who doesn't want to speak in greater detail. It looks bad on the site, but if you have to play the bad guy, it's your site. Some sites don't even allow criticism or questioning of their rules, so the fact I've gotten this far is good.
Click to expand...
What part of we don't have to explain it to you do you not understand? In fact, we have explained it to you.

WE DON'T WANT IT HERE.
IT IS OUR FORUM

We allow questioning of the rules, but when you immediately go off the deep end with attacks on our character and our way of operating our website, you are going to get your ass handed to you by not only the mod team, but most likely by other members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top