So in the most recent example of this, we have [one user] who took two (confirmed two, I'm looking at another) pictures of popular artist.

(Onta:)
http://i.imgur.com/GJlerDY.png

And
(milkcrown:)
http://i.imgur.com/ApC53va.jpg

Now both pictures have been deleted, and I knowwwwww I've seen the third somewhere:

post #501778

I just KNOW I've seen this one somewhere but whatever.

The traced posts have been deleted and a "neutral" record has been added to the account but that poses the question.

Why "neutral" how is that not a "negative" mark? Why is it not considered a BAD thing to steal someones work, copy over it and post it as your own. Why is it only "neutral" I've seen some "creepy comments" posted as a negative before but actual stealing of artwork is only classified as "neutral" I mean... It seems stealing work like this should be a negative mark not just neutral.

So why is it a "neutral" record, what makes this not bad enough to make it a negative mark?

Negative records usually come with bans.
A neutral record is a warning. It's not truly neutral, it's just less negative than a real negative record...

It's probably more of a kind warning for a first offense, there have been plenty of negative records for tracing art.

Tuvalu said:
It's probably more of a kind warning for a first offense, there have been plenty of negative records for tracing art.

This.

The order for stuff is usually neutral, negative (with varying levels of bans), and eventual perma ban if they do not stop. They can skip ahead, but it would be on major infractions.

And they usually have their eye on someone after the first warning.

As a side note, IIRC, they do not like people dragging specific members out in the forums to talk about. Tis how witch hunts begin

usually first warning is neutral and forward from that becomes negative. usually only situations where first warning is negative are when the offense is REALLY bad

Mutisija said:
usually first warning is neutral and forward from that becomes negative. usually only situations where first warning is negative are when the offense is REALLY bad

Pretty much this. Tracing art isn't something that is universally unacceptable on other sites, it just happens that it isn't tolerated here. If they upload traced stuff out of ignorance of the rules we give them a neutral to let them know not to do that. If they continue to do it we elevate it as we would anything else. If they had denied it being a trace or tried to remove the real artist's tag (whether it should be there or not is actually irrelevant) we slap them harder.

Note that tracing in this context isn't the same as art theft. For example, if I was a new user who uploaded and tagged this as parasprite_(artist):

post #691507

It would start at a neg since this is something that would be unacceptable pretty much anywhere. Occasionally the uploader is just ignorant of what the tags actually mean, but it's usually pretty obvious when it's art theft (e.g., the description says "Made this today, tell me what you think!").

If it wasn't serious, they wouldn't have gotten a record at all. We don't give them out for nothing.

The severity isn't measured by the type of rule, but by how many times that rule has been broken or how badly it was broken.

First offenses always get lighter records than repeated offenses. We have a 'several strikes before you're gone' system. This gives people who are capable of learning the rules/improving their behavior the chance to do so. Many people either never bothered to read the rules or thought they wouldn't be noticed. And in those cases one neutral is often all it takes to settle the issue. Any users which (for whatever reason) aren't getting the hang of a rule will quickly work their way up to more severe records and eventually bans. And if their behavior has been especially bad, we often keep an especially close eye on them. Rule violations tend to be caught fairly quickly on this site through a combination of staff and a very observant userbase.

We do have a system for how records are assigned when a rule is broken. This is largely for consistency and fairness from user to user, so that no one is getting banned over one stupid mistake with no chance to change their behavior. How this generally works:

• First offenses usually get a grey neutral. This is still serious and its existence will upgrade any repeated break of that rule within 6 months to a more severe record. But it is also temporary. If the person hasn't committed the same rule break within 6 months, it can be deleted by an Admin. It's an acknowledgement that sometimes mistakes happen and people are allowed to change.
• Note: On rare occasions a first offense will be upgraded to a red neg if 1, the person went above and beyond in how badly they broke the rule or 2, they managed to break several rules at once and the combination is considered to be above and beyond. This is largely based on the discretion of the Admin giving the record. But may also be the result of a multi-admin decision in Admin chat or a special ruling on the situation by the Lead Admin (EDFDarkAngel1 ).

• Second offenses for the same rule get red negs. These are permanent and will usually upgrade the severity of any future records for breaking that same rule.

Third offenses for the same rule get a temporary ban with a red neg. The length of the suspension varies depending on which rules were broken, often going with the longest length if multiple rules were broken.
Fourth offenses for the same rule get a permanent ban with a red neg. Game over.

Notice these are all for the same rule. It is possible for someone to collect a couple different neutrals if the rules didn't overlap and weren't committed at the same time. Either way, a neutral record is still taking it seriously even if it's not a satisfying red color.

CamKitty said:
As a side note, IIRC, they do not like people dragging specific members out in the forums to talk about. Tis how witch hunts begin

This.

Which is why I'm editing the OP to remove the name. It's ok to ask about site policy because that's generalized. But singling out a user publicly by name for a forum thread is crossing a line towards harassment. It's also not necessary since everyone can discuss the record system and images in question without making the thread about any user specifically. If what you wanted was to discuss a very specific ruling, then that is best done through Dmail with an admin and wouldn't belong on the public forum.

furrypickle said:
Which is why I'm editing the OP to remove the name.

Ah yes, Great idea to remove the name to avoid "name and shame" but leave up the picture so people still know the username if they wanted to. Or you know they could look at my profile and see where I've been commenting and see the same person.

I don't know why people don't like "name and shame" this used to happen on the "payday" forums, where hackers would ruin the game but "name and shame" kept people from warning others about who was doing it. same thing is happening now on GTA 5 where hackers will use wallhacks and shit to fuck wtih other players but no one knows who they are cause "name and shame" is banned on the forums.

"name and shame" is a stupid rule to enforce, people should be able to know who is causing trouble. But sure, whatever I guess.

Cynosure said:
Ah yes, Great idea to remove the name to avoid "name and shame" but leave up the picture so people still know the username if they wanted to. Or you know they could look at my profile and see where I've been commenting and see the same person.

I don't know why people don't like "name and shame" this used to happen on the "payday" forums, where hackers would ruin the game but "name and shame" kept people from warning others about who was doing it. same thing is happening now on GTA 5 where hackers will use wallhacks and shit to fuck wtih other players but no one knows who they are cause "name and shame" is banned on the forums.

"name and shame" is a stupid rule to enforce, people should be able to know who is causing trouble. But sure, whatever I guess.

All records given are publicly accessible AND searchable here. There is no reason to create a forum thread in order to spread the information because the information is already public. However, harassing or singling someone out because of their record is never acceptable.

Cynosure said:
Now both pictures have been deleted, and I knowwwwww I've seen the third somewhere:

It would be nice if there were a search engine like http://iqdb.harry.lu/ that finds images with similar poses, if that's possible with edge detection or something like that.

Munkelzahn said:
It would be nice if there were a search engine like http://iqdb.harry.lu/ that finds images with similar poses, if that's possible with edge detection or something like that.

I've already searched E621 for this type of pic, mostly trying to search for specific tags (femboy, bed, solo, lion, whatever) But I can't find it anywhere. I have a personal collection of like 600 pics so I'm sure I'll find it eventually. Tho it might be from hardblush (back when I had a subscription) so I might never find it if it belonged to hardblush.

By the by, I had flagged something about a month ago with respect to the image in question being a trace. The flag is still active, but is just sitting there. Do I need to provide some form of evidence? It doesn't seem very clear.

Kaeetayel said:
By the by, I had flagged something about a month ago with respect to the image in question being a trace. The flag is still active, but is just sitting there. Do I need to provide some form of evidence? It doesn't seem very clear.

Yes, you need to link to the original image.
If the original is on e621, put the original's ID in the trace's "Parent Post ID" field.
If not, add a comment with a link to the original.

Munkelzahn said:
Yes, you need to link to the original image.
If the original is on e621, put the original's ID in the trace's "Parent Post ID" field.
If not, add a comment with a link to the original.

The original was on e6, but was deleted. I know the MD5 though, which should work. I'll go add it now.