# Did I miss something?



## TheRealGhostbuster (Mar 16, 2006)

What happened to The big star series? I was enjoying that and now all the posts are gone.


----------



## Leonard (Mar 16, 2006)

I'm curious too. I wasn't really a fan of the series but I'm still nosy enought to want to know what happened.


----------



## BTB (Mar 16, 2006)

Probably deleted beause the protagonist was a teenager, I assume the same for the chocolate cake story posted here recently,


----------



## Culinary_Alchemist (Mar 16, 2006)

she was 18 years old in the story


----------



## Zoom (Mar 16, 2006)

Interesting. I remember her being mentioned as 17 though. Didn't I hear somewhere the protagonist couldn't be under 18 only if there were sexual themes? Maybe it was all the ass-wiping in the last chapter.


----------



## TheRealGhostbuster (Mar 16, 2006)

I could of sworn it said she was 18... also how could it have lasted 7 chapters until someone decided to delete it?


----------



## Frank Castle (Mar 16, 2006)

I think it said 17. Which I don't have a problem with, considering i'm 16.....


----------



## Quill20 (Mar 17, 2006)

I wrote the story, and I made Emily 18 on purpose just to avoid this type of thing. At age 18 you are an adult. I'm only 20 myself and when I started thinking up the idea for this story several months ago I made Emily 18 so she would be a girl _my age_, not because I'm a pedaphile or something. I put a lot of work and thought in to crafting a good, descriptive weight gain story and I wasn't nearly even finished, barely even half way. She's gonna get huge. I know you were all enjoying it so we either need to let whoever controls this story blog know that he or she made an error, or, if the young age of 18 is still to much on the cusp of childhood for some tastes, I will compromise and edit the story as to make Emily 21, then repost the deleted chapters, also adding part eight. Thank you all for your support. First Amendment Rights!!!

-Quill


----------



## isotope (Mar 17, 2006)

Now, now.

You wouldnt want to anger Big Brother.


----------



## Blackjack (Mar 17, 2006)

Quill20 said:


> First Amendment Rights!!!



I respect you and all, but just so you know- the First Amendment doesn't apply when you're on a message board run privately. It's more like you're in someone else's house; you can't really go to a stranger's house, start trouble, and then shout "First Amendment! First Amendment!" when you get kicked out.

That said, I do think that it was a good story. I look forward to seeing it again, and seeing how it ends. I'm just tired of people claiming they're protected by the First Amendment on a private messageboard.


----------



## Tenchi Saotome (Mar 18, 2006)

Hmmm, they even deleted the revenge story about the cheerleader gaining a lot of weight after making fun of a fat girl at school a lot, and under age people are fine in stories supposably, as long as they follow this rule.


> those with any references of a sexually enticing nature to underage protagonists


----------



## Culinary_Alchemist (Mar 19, 2006)

i think Quill20 should xanga the story if Dimensions will not allow for the story to be posted. I didn't find any reall sexual plots in it but i guess whoever deleted it saw other wise.


----------



## Observer (Mar 19, 2006)

As a policy statement, this story and several others were reviewd. It was determined that certain elements conflicted with stated rules. Any author desiring to discuss a specific decision is welcome to send me a PM and I'll reply privately.


----------



## Brash (Mar 19, 2006)

Observer said:


> As a policy statement, this story and several others were reviewd. It was determined that certain elements conflicted with stated rules. Any author desiring to discuss a specific decision is welcome to send me a PM and I'll reply privately.



Oddly cryptic.



Blackjack said:


> I'm just tired of people claiming they're protected by the First Amendment on a private messageboard.



Oddly cynical.


----------



## tankgirl (Mar 21, 2006)

Brash said:


> Oddly cryptic.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly cynical.


 


Oddly correct.


----------



## Blackjack (Mar 21, 2006)

Brash said:


> Oddly cynical.



Oddly clever.  That post actually gave me a chuckle.

I am a bit cynical, I suppose. That doesn't make it any less of a truth, though, that First Amendment rights (or any, for that matter) are dealt with at the whim of the board's administration.


----------



## Brash (Mar 22, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> I am a bit cynical, I suppose. That doesn't make it any less of a truth, though, that First Amendment rights (or any, for that matter) are dealt with at the whim of the board's administration.



Of course, I don't think anyone would argue with you on that. However, administrators of public forums (on or offline) are charged with a certain civic responsibility to uphold the spirit of the first amendment. It's no law, it's no requirement, and by god, it certainly isn't a big deal. However, it's a pretty nice thing to do.


----------



## masterofdisasta7 (Dec 30, 2019)

this story ever get reposted anywhere!?!?!


----------

