Oh look, these discussions again. We've had these discussions multiple times over multiple months now. I won't bother repeating myself yet again.
I will, however, go for some points I haven't talked about yet.
> Tatwuyan
I've cleaned up the approvals to be better coherent and more readily reflect our (now better outlined) quality requirements for traditional art. A couple posts got restored, some got deleted. All in all more are restored than deleted now.
> The Weaver's
I actually liked his old stuff and he displayed being able to stay within his picked style of art, which takes a good deal of skill. But he seems to have gotten lazy recently and now we're deleting large parts of his art that is submitted.
Auto approval because of the user's level. There is literally no approver visible on that image because no one on staff ever approved it.
This kind of fully ignoring part of the facts is why we're getting increasingly annoyed that you drag these things up time and time again.
Should not have been approved by myself, is now deleted.
Also, humanized only if the character still retains some sort of anatomical animal feature that is distinct from normal humans. And not just a different skin color, we ignore skin colors.
This image is not, in any way, shape, or form "photorealistic". The deletion is correct. I am completely at a loss how you think that is a ban reason.
Grandfathered in from post #538377. However, that old one should not have been approved either, so they're all deleted now.
I don't know what species that character is supposed to be but it most certainly doesn't look like any type of dragon in existence. It looks more like a donkey with horns and a thick tail. Tag removed again and locked, unkown species added.
> [Favoritism and gender tagging]
We favor the arguments of the person who knows the rules, knows how anatomy actually works, and knows how art works over the person who does not. Absolutely shocking.
> [GameManiac's ban]
I'm going to break the rule on not discussing another person's ban with a 3rd party because this is just getting ridiculous. All of those cited tag edits have been from just 3 days. Extrapolate that number from the 3 days to the 329 days of his last record for tagging vandalism.
We stopped citing incidents of those happening because it was a ridiculously large number. On top of that he got warned about his tagging abuse from 4 different admins, and chose to ignore those warnings.
It is absolutely saddening how people didn't report his atrocious tagging simply because he was popular. If someone had reported him earlier he would have been banned much, much sooner.
Updated by anonymous