Despite the guidelines that have been more recently established on the whole topic of being "irrelevant" (which I still think is a terrible reason to delete anything, but that's not the point of this,) it seems that there still isn't quite enough consistency.

What I'm talking about this time is the following.

https://e621.net/post/show/1018584 and https://e621.net/post/show/1018551 both got deleted for being "irrelevant," despite the fact they both picture a demon-hybrid with grey skin.

Having differently colored skin has always been enough to indicate that someone isn't just human. Always been enough to be relevant to the website.

I'm not going to get super into my thoughts on /why/ this seems to keep happening, I don't want to seem hostile or anything so I'll just stick with pointing out the issue at hand.

An excellent example of non-standard skin color being okay is one from just four days ago. https://e621.net/post/show/1015351 there. All of these characters look human-esque, including Beast Boy. Yet they all have non-human skin color, including Beast Boy.

Another fine example is https://e621.net/post/show/1009956 where they're both human, everything here is human except... They have different skin colors.

Now, I'm not sure if many seem to fully realize it but, just in case some people have become desensitized to the fact, "grey" is not a natural skin color. Healthy humans aren't grey, they can be a myriad of colors, but grey is not one of them. If you don't believe me just do a quick google search for "can people have grey skin."

However in the deleted pictures the person is not only grey, they have a little head jewel, kinda like Peridot there in the last example.

Frankly it's the little things that determine whether someone is or isn't human on this site. Whether it's tiny wings that could simply be a part of a costume https://e621.net/post/show/979015, skin color https://e621.net/post/show/1009944, a single slightly pointed ear https://e621.net/post/show/998791, or pointier than normal bottom canines https://e621.net/post/show/1018141 (that's the only reason I can imagine this one was approved barring any sort of bias as it isn't "high quality or "special" in some way.")

It's always been the little things that determine whether or not things are relevant to site. Frankly, at this point, non-standard colored humans appear to be perfectly fine, especially if they have a feature other than the palette swap (such as markings, embedded jewels, etc.)

So, frankly, I can't see any reason why the two that were deleted got deleted. There just doesn't seem to be a reason for it other than a lack of consistency in what is and isn't relevant or, worse yet, outright personal bias. Truly, with how Raven is normally portrayed, skin color and head jewel, she should just /always/ be allowed on the site because she's clearly not human.

I genuinely feel that things still need work and the admins need to communicate better with each other to establish a better rule of what is and isn't "relevant," that way the members aren't stuck holding the pieces and wondering "well, this got in a couple days ago.. but I have seen others of the same character or very similar characters get deleted.. should I upload or not?"

I tried to use only fairly recent examples to help prove my points here.

Raven is a bit special because she is by all standards and accounts actually just human. Her father may have been trigon but she possesses none of his traits save for power and the occasional extra eyes. Her skin colour is also up for debate as it is often a stylistic choice from artist to artist.

Barring her magic which came from her mother's side anyway mainly. She's actually just a normal human who's dad happens to be space Satan.

Beast boy is a special case as well. He's clearly no longer human and has become a Martian hybrid of sorts. Garfield has the power to turn into a bunch of different animals as well etc because of this ane h3 has permanently green or red skin (again depending on the artist aesthetic choices)

Unlike raven. He's very clearly no longer human. He even has different ears. Fangs and other quirks.

Raven is a normy with magic and an awful parenting problem

You wouldn't upload superman here and expect it to stay under the "no humans rule" right?

AFAIK, differently colored bodies and skins is not enough for it to be relevant. The entities need to have animal traits.

Hudson said:
AFAIK, differently colored bodies and skins is not enough for it to be relevant. The entities need to have animal traits.

I've seen it go both ways. Sometimes pointy ears, fangs and such had been enough to constitute. IE: Orcs and Elves

Hudson said:
The entities need to have animal traits.

Or just traits that humans wouldn't normally have.

GDelscribe said:
I've seen it go both ways. Sometimes pointy ears, fangs and such had been enough to constitute. IE: Orcs and Elves

That's what I mean, but I guess the word "creature" would fit better in my initial post, as they aren't really "animals."

The thing is... Raven isn't unique. Not in terms of objective tagging.

Grey skin means not human.

And then there's the eye color. I mean, liberties are often taken on this kind of thing, for example https://e621.net/post/show/1007356 looks human, doesn't even really look remotely Mirialan due to it being b&w, but it looks like a human in weird armor. The only non-human attribute is the eyes.. JUST the eyes.

Yet it's allowed, even called a Mirialan. Yet Raven, with a completely non-human skin color and a completely non-human embedded jewel and completely non-human eye color doesn't get the same respect?

And there's still the other examples from Steven Universe, they look human except for skin color and a little head gem.

Of course there's also the completely-human-except-for-slightly-exaggerated-bottom-canines human exampled above.

Pointy ears, fangs, skin colors, etc, have always been enough, both recently and in the moderate past, to be not-human enough for this site. So I really can't understand why those traits aren't enough here.

GDelscribe said:
You wouldn't upload superman here and expect it to stay under the "no humans rule" right?

Superman LOOKS completely human, so of course he wouldn't get uploaded.

Raven, however, while looking human-esque, has very non-human traits, namely head gem and skin color.

You'll never find a normal healthy human being with the same skin color nor will you find them with a gem that never gets removed from their forehead.

I believe OP is correct that an unnatural skin color has historically been enough to allow an otherwise human character to pass moderation. +1 to the original request.

However I disagree with this rule. I don't think a change in color justifies the inclusion of any humanoid character. The guidelines should be changed to disallow these posts.

Beast Boy = humanoid, not human, AFAIK. Raven looks human and I thought she was human, but I understand your argument. Another factor for Beast Boy is that he looks like a goblin or something in the "human form", and shapeshifts into animals, making him clearly relevant in a lot of posts.

post #1009956, post #1009944 = aliens, not humans. The posts are undertagged since they don't have gem_(species), which implies alien. Canonically, and they have traits humans don't have (beyond skin color). Posts with only Steven in them should probably be deleted even if he is canonically half-alien.
post #998791 = elf, not human
post #979015 = demon, not human

AFAIK, elves, orcs, demons, aliens, and robots are fair game to upload. Undead/zombies might be a stretch.

post #1018141 looks human and should probably go. I notice the description mentions "human form".

AnotherDay said:
Having differently colored skin has always been enough to indicate that someone isn't just human. Always been enough to be relevant to the website.

No, it hasn't. If the only visual difference to a human is the skin tone it's still considered human, and thus irrelevant. Of all your examples only post #998791 should have been approved because of the tentacles, and post #979015 because of those tiny wings.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, it hasn't. If the only visual difference to a human is the skin tone it's still considered human, and thus irrelevant. Of all your examples only post #998791 should have been approved because of the tentacles, and post #979015 because of those tiny wings.

Of all of my examples only two of them should have been approved?

That only furthers the idea that the whole irrelevant thing still needs work. It's not as cut and dry as the members simply sticking to the upload rules because there's still a lot of grey area both here and with the staff.

@Lance As for "human form" that's in the description which is, for the purposes of tagging, outside information, is it not?

In general, however, I'm not sure why the staff seems to have some sort of issue communicating enough to lay down some very firm and not wishy-washy rules so as to take out all the guess work.

Plus I have to ask since when are elves, orcs, demons, aliens, robots, etc even remotely furry related? Why are they alowed but not humans? Humans are an animal, as much of one as any of those, really.

I suppose that isn't the point of this thread, the point was to point out what I did.

And while NMNY may say that it hasn't been good enough the fact that you can see that trend through a few searches means that you only seem to be speaking on an official basis, whereas in practice it's more or less been okay, which further muddies this whole situation, at least to standard users, though seemingly to staff, as well.

AnotherDay said:
Raven, however, while looking human-esque, has very non-human traits, namely head gem and skin color.

I can't see those examples as anything but human.
The 'gem' looks like a decorative sticker to me, and humans with unusual eye and skin colors are common in comics and cartoons.

This site focuses on more... exotic content. Allowing human art would make this into yet another generic booru, and there's already plenty of those.

I actually wouldn't mind if we added more species to the 'irrelevant' list. Such as gnomes, elves, humanlike undead (zombies, vampires, etc), and gem_(species): those are all rather close to humans.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, it hasn't. If the only visual difference to a human is the skin tone it's still considered human, and thus irrelevant.

How long has this been the case? There are plenty of MLP posts like post #156364 and post #627683 and post #718160 where the only indication of non-human is unnatural skin color. Should they be deleted or have they been grandfathered in?

leomole said:
[...]However I disagree with this rule. I don't think a change in color justifies the inclusion of any humanoid character. The guidelines should be changed to disallow these posts.

Genjar said:
This site focuses on more... exotic content. Allowing human art would make this into yet another generic booru, and there's already plenty of those.

I actually wouldn't mind if we added more species to the 'irrelevant' list. Such as gnomes, elves, human undead (zombies, vampires, etc) and gem_(species): those are all rather close to humans.

Emphasis mine. Definitely agree with the sentiment in these posts. I feel like one of the reasons e621 was able to become as decent as it has over the years is because of it's overall focus on furry stuff and how to categorize it, and because of that focus it also typically attracts a generally more-dedicated audience that tends to care more about proper uploading and tagging and such.

IMO there's no need to turn it into (or let it become) yet another standard animu/humans/monstergirl/normie-r34 booru: People can go to an innumerable quantity of other popular sites for that content. While users on e621 have always uploaded some non-furry stuff here and there because it wasn't technically disallowed, over the past year or so I really feel like the amount of non-furry content being uploaded has been steadily increasing, and I don't think it does much good for the site personally. Would rather see e621 maintain a stricter focus.

Man y'all are going down a dangerous and frustrating road, its one thing to disallow human only art etc, but getting draconian on the policies about it is definitely not the way to go, esp considering thats what the damn blacklist is for in the first place.

Crispix said:
Emphasis mine. Definitely agree with the sentiment in these posts. I feel like one of the reasons e621 was able to become as decent as it has over the years is because of it's overall focus on furry stuff and how to categorize it, and because of that focus it also typically attracts a generally more-dedicated audience that tends to care more about proper uploading and tagging and such.

IMO there's no need to turn it into (or let it become) yet another standard animu/humans/monstergirl/normie-r34 booru: People can go to an innumerable quantity of other popular sites for that content. While users on e621 have always uploaded some non-furry stuff here and there because it wasn't technically disallowed, over the past year or so I really feel like the amount of non-furry content being uploaded has been steadily increasing, and I don't think it does much good for the site personally. Would rather see e621 maintain a stricter focus.

The biggest problem I have is that no other site has such a strict or high standard for tagging.

You go to virtually any other "booru" site and the tags are absolute shite. I mean at least a couple of them tag by GENRE. Genre! That's ridiculous. I don't care about what genre something is in. I wanna see some futa stuff or some gay stuff or etc. But instead I have to search by Steven Universe or by comics or by artist.

That's great if you know those things, but if you're just wanting to stumbleupon porn suiting your kinks? Frankly this is about the only site that catalogs content with this standard.

Frankly if an offshoot of e6 opened up that wasn't speciest and supported porn of humans, furries, gnomes, elves, or anything else along those lines and wasn't focused on just one I have no doubt that it would be WILDLY popular because then rules could be established and followed closely instead of giving staff such a braod sweeping power as deigning something "irrelevant."

The real problem with this power is that the staff can never seem to /fully/ agree on what is and isn't relevant AND that any rules they do make up are never retroactive.

They should be. If the website is going to be furry ONLY then it should retroactively go back and delete everything not furry, that way there's significantly less room for confusion.

As it stands you have stuff uploaded from just a year ago that's still all human, don't believe me? Just look up some more of the Teen Titans Raven stuff.

I don't understand the hate for humans, frankly, we're just another type of animal and frankly porn is porn, if it's hot it's hot and if it's not it's not.

Yet while I may not understand it I know that I don't have to as the policy is what it is and I'm okay with it. What I'm not okay with is the fact that the staff still can't agree on what is and isn't irrelevant. What I'm not okay with is the fact that for almost a decade this kind of stuff has been perfectly fine.

Legitimately barely more than a thousand posts in and we have ourselves a full on non-furry picture. https://e621.net/post/show/1009

This could be even earlier than that if you start considering humans with JUST animal ears and a tail not furry. https://e621.net/post/show/86

Seriously. While there's tons of other porn sites for this it can be said the same for furry stuff. There's furaffinity, there's inkbunny, or you could just google search it and find it.

No, what sets this site apart from all the others is the tagging system and how well it works. While some people may complain about it, the fact of the matter is that there is no other porn site that has a system as efficient and well maintained as this site has.

Overall, while this thread is about the issue of the staff being able to fully agree and set firm standards amongst themselves for what is and isn't irrelevant, I also have to address some of the points made.

E621 is unique, not that it caters to furries, but that it has an immensely comprehensive tagging system.

I feel that the furry-only enforcement is ridiculous because humans AND non-furry focused stuff has been around for almost a decade now. It's something that's more or less ALWAYS been here, so unless all of the non furry-only content gets deleted this issue is always going to remain an issue because people will be able to browse around and see human stuff and then promptly get confused as to why it's not allowed since it has been since nearly the start.

For clarification I'm not talking about keeping JUST furred things, obviously scalies and avians fall into the "furry" category. I'm talking content that's pretty much all human except for small details, like I see some talking about not allowing here.

This is going to be an issue until the staff makes it a non issue, and the only way they can successfully do that is to retroactively get rid of everything non-furry and disallow all non-furry stuff or get rid of the idea of irrelevancy. Because as it, it simply doesn't work.

I see so many people confused from all of the things they think should be able to be posted yet are then tagged as irrelevant. I don't blame them when just days ago similar stuff gets posted and accepted, how can I? How can anyone? Really things need to become more clear cut and not just in text, but in practice.

Things need to be deleted or irrelevancy needs to become a thing of the past, I know I said it already, yet I feel it deserves being repeated. If this isn't done things are just going to keep slipping through the cracks and keep confusing users who will keep getting discouraged to contribute at all to the website by having their contributions stricken from the site.

Most of those have been approved in error by Lance, with the pure volume of uploads we get daily I can't double check every approval done.
This has been nothing but a fail on my part to ensure that the approval guidelines I gave Lance are met.

AnotherDay said:
Plus I have to ask since when are elves, orcs, demons, aliens, robots, etc even remotely furry related? Why are they alowed but not humans? Humans are an animal, as much of one as any of those, really.

They still fit into the whole "fantastic" part of of the furry fandom. The only reason pure human artwork isn't allowed is because there is so damn much.
The content we allow makes up somewhere around 10% of all stuff on danbooru, if we allow human only stuff we'd drown in those things, and most people simply don't visit us for that type of content.
The furry fandom is a niche, and thus we need to keep things out if we want to have content that actually interests our userbase.

AnotherDay said:
I feel that the furry-only enforcement is ridiculous because humans AND non-furry focused stuff has been around for almost a decade now.

That was long before Varka obtained the page.

AnotherDay said:
This is going to be an issue until the staff makes it a non issue, and the only way they can successfully do that is to retroactively get rid of everything non-furry and disallow all non-furry stuff or get rid of the idea of irrelevancy. Because as it, it simply doesn't work.

That would punish hundreds of people who were once able to upload something because it wasn't against the rules. You can't create a law making something illegal and then punish everybody because they did the now illegal thing before it became illegal.

Being that I have a clear and obvious bias on this issue, perhaps I ought not even speak up here, but dang it I'm a user of this site too so I might as well!

Genjar said:
I actually wouldn't mind if we added more species to the 'irrelevant' list. Such as gnomes, elves, humanlike undead (zombies, vampires, etc), and gem_(species): those are all rather close to humans.

This is how I feel. I feel like a lot of that stuff is basically just human, and I don't see how it belongs. How are pointy ears (elf) enough to make an image relevant for a furry site? How is being short (gnome) enough?

I don't actually mind when something is sufficiently nonhuman, even if it's not animal. Aliens (that actually look like aliens) are fine. Skeletons are fine. Robots are fine. But if something is 99.999% human, I don't think it belongs.

Pulling up posts from longer than maybe 2-3 years ago regarding human-only posts will not get you very far since the human-only DNP was only just disambiguated and finalized around then.

We have enough trouble sorting furry content alone. We're sorry. Other boorus can and should adopt our tagging methods. We're not about to do their work for them.

I personally believe we should be even more strict and also exclude humanoids.

Can we not keep pushing to disinclined humanoids? Theyre a huge part of the fandom. That gets rid of kemonomimi, Satyrlikes and everything in between as well. It also ixnays many varieties of more humanish anthro who due to art style may look more human (IE: some dragons and other scale folk. )

Seriously that is not a road you guys wanna go down. Banning humans is one thing. Any further than that and you wipe out massive swaths of the furry subculture

GDelscribe said:
Can we not keep pushing to disinclined humanoids? Theyre a huge part of the fandom. That gets rid of kemonomimi, Satyrlikes and everything in between as well.

Those have animal characteristics. However, things like elves and whatnot, as mentioned... Those are a whole different story.

Admittedly, I don't consider myself a furry, so the threat of wiping out massive swaths of furry subculture doesn't even make me blink. If it doesn't seem like it belongs here, then that's as far as it goes for me.

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about with dragons that are somehow indistinguishable from humans.

I mean this isn't the best example but I'm a little indisposed and stuck on mobile atm.

post #986916

If it weren't for the horns really, this and literally countless hundreds of other scales and "dragons" with super humanized features? Those all would not be allowed under your proposed, pardon the joke but, Draconian measures

Ratte said:
Pulling up posts from longer than maybe 2-3 years ago regarding human-only posts will not get you very far since the human-only DNP was only just disambiguated and finalized around then.

That makes sense, but most of my examples are from the last year and there are plenty more.

Knotty_Curls said:
I personally believe we should be even more strict and also exclude humanoids.

I don't know about going that far, but disallowing not_furry stuff seems like a no-brainer. People come to e6 for furry art. I contribute my time because I like furry art. None of my 25000 tag edits or 1500 pool updates or 400 duplicate deletions are for not_furry stuff (except to tag them as such), that's just not what the average user is here for.

leomole said:
That makes sense, but most of my examples are from the last year and there are plenty more.

Just a general suggestion since this pops up often with these discussions. I'm not trying to point fingers.

GDelscribe said:
I mean this isn't the best example but I'm a little indisposed and stuck on mobile atm.

post #986916

If it weren't for the horns really, this and literally countless hundreds of other scales and "dragons" with super humanized features? Those all would not be allowed under your proposed, pardon the joke but, Draconian measures

Horns, a tail, face fins(?), nonhuman ears, and a nonhuman skin color.

Sure, nonhuman skin color is not enough to qualify something as not a human by itself, but beyond that, no one has proposed that any piece of art like that ought to be rejected.

I feel as though you are creating a false account of what people are trying to say ought not be acceptable, and even then I think you're stretching for this one.

leomole said:
That makes sense, but most of my examples are from the last year and there are plenty more.

Many such posts are better versions of ones that already were on the site. Those are still approved, as far as I know. ...since if it's going to be kept anyway, might as well keep the best version, no?

Genjar said:
Many such posts are better versions of ones that already were on the site.

This too makes sense, but again it doesn't apply to most of the examples I gave.

Nimmy says they just slipped through moderation, and I think that's sufficient to explain my misconception about skin color and human-only posts.

NotMeNotYou said:

That would punish hundreds of people who were once able to upload something because it wasn't against the rules. You can't create a law making something illegal and then punish everybody because they did the now illegal thing before it became illegal.

You make some good points, but this is what I really feel I need to single out.

While that may work for a government, at this point it wouldn't be punishing people so much as it would be simply cleaning up the site.

Surely you have some way of temporarily disabling the negative points, or allowing/encouraging people to appeal delete-points for something like this.

If you're going to go one way you really need to go ALL the way here. This isn't a government where you're making laws to bring order, this is an archive, and a specific one at that.

Whether I agree or disagree with the narrow view is irrelevant under that fact. While it'd take effort to hunt them all down it would be for the benefit of everyone in the long run.

Would it be difficult and make things a bit more hectic in the short term? Sure, but this site has been around a fairly long while in terms of websites. It's been updated, upgraded, and taken care of very well and it's aged marvelously.

At this point in its life the administration has figured out firmly what it wants the identity of the site to be, yet things slip through the cracks, keep doing so, and people keep getting confused due to what has been allowed in the past.

The best remedy for this is to prevent it in the future. We've all seen that most people don't even care to read the most basic of rules until they get informed of them by other users, yet it does seem pretty clear that many look around a decent deal and that they see all this exclusively-human content and think "Oh, this must be okay here, too!"

It isn't, and they only find this out after their contributions have been deleted.

I fully realize that it seems extreme to just outright delete human-centered content, but I do really believe that it's in the best interest of this website to do so in order to firmly plant in the minds of past, current, and future users what content really is and isn't acceptable.

Will people still try to post human-centered content? Sure, no doubt, because many will still choose to remain oblivious until actions are taken against them, yet I believe that fewer will do so AND that the site's staff will have a better go of it convincing users that said content is unacceptable with the content in question having been outright purged.

AnotherDay]

No, god please no. There is no need for sucha extreme catastrophe.

Mighyenta said:
No, god please no. There is no need for sucha extreme catastrophe.

I wouldn't call it a catastrophe. It's more along the lines of... You wouldn't expect vaginas at the museum of penises, would you?

Of course not, similarly there shouldn't be non-furry porn here now that the staff have firmly decided the site is for furry-only.

Indeed, we need to get our priorities straight. At this point we're still toying with the idea that "Hey, we have SOME human stuff. Why not come inside? ;D" The website and its staff are being just misleading in that regard.

AnotherDay said:
Of course not, similarly there shouldn't be non-furry porn here now that the staff have firmly decided the site is for furry-only.

So you wouldn't have any objections if they deleted all non-furry humanoids images? The thing you were trying to defended in this very topic.

You seem to have turned a complete 180 in your believes.

Mighyenta said:
So you wouldn't have any objections if they deleted all non-furry humanoids images? The thing you were trying to defended in this very topic.

You seem to have turned a complete 180 in your believes.

You seem to think I'm defending anything here. Quite the contrary, I'm instead pointing out that the "relevancy" system still needs work. I used that as an excellent example.

They've made it obvious that they don't want any non-furry content so the only real way to make that happen is to remove all of the non-furry content so that there's less confusion in the long term. If there aren't /any/ humans then it's easier to figure out for new users that humans aren't welcome here.

Similarly if there aren't any humans then it's easier for the staff to claim that they're irrelevant. Yet, with there being thousands of examples of human art that non-furry art really muddies their claim of irrelevancy, hell it even seems the staff themselves don't fully agree on what is and isn't relevant.

You see? That's what this is about, that's what this has always been about, that's why the thread is named ""Irrelevancy" still needs work" and not something about discriminating against humans.

They've made it clear that this is a furry website, yet keeping non-furry art only makes that claim difficult for people to actually follow without calling the staff hypocrites or something along those lines, even if the most recent example of non-furry were to be years ago, which it isn't at this point, but that's just an example.

If they're adamant about this being furry ONLY then having non-furry art HURTS that claim, regardless of how long ago that art was uploaded. This is not a government where we'd be punishing people breaking some new law for doing things previously, this is an archive, more akin to a museum. A themed archive, at that.

Anything that goes against the established theme HURTS the credibility of both the website AND its staff.

Welp, better skedaddle. I am not going to deal with these way too long walls of text conversations.

No offense. Just because you're salty that something you uploaded was legitimately irrelevant to the site doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to punish literally everyone else who have done nothing wrong at all

GDelscribe said:
No offense. Just because you're salty that something you uploaded was legitimately irrelevant to the site doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to punish literally everyone else who have done nothing wrong at all

First, not uploaded by me. Second, not salty, just being rational here.

I mean this has been an issue for YEARS. It's become clear at this point that unless the non-furry content is removed AND banned instead of just banned that it's going to keep getting uploaded and deleted and new users will continuously be confused as to why this is in place when there's already SO much of said content.

Seriously, you don't know me, don't you dare begin to try to assume what I feel or think, ESPECIALLY if you can't even put in the effort to figure out who actually uploaded what.

Furthermore, and I'm upset that I even have to point this out, saying "no offense" doesn't, in fact, make what you say not offensive.

Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, ORGANIZING the site to the standard the staff have set is NOT punishing anyone. At the WORST they'll have to have their deleted posts reset. Woop-die-do.

It's not punishing anyone, it's just getting priorities straight and finally fully adopting the theme that the staff have set forth, no non-furry content.

I've NEVER said anything about punishing people and I've even offered a couple of suggestions to avoid people feeling "punished" for having things they uploaded deleted.

Mighyenta said:
I think your dictionary swapped the definition for rational for that of inane.

Now you're just insulting me. Is that what it's come to?

I tell you why this should be done - it doesn't fit the theme of the site. This is rational. If something doesn't fit then it shouldn't be grouped with things that do fit. By mixing in banned content that only confuses the user base

"Why was is this not okay only now?" "Why can't I upload X if there's already a ton of X on the site?" Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Removing the content that doesn't fit the theme will help make the the idea of irrelevant posts stronger in the long run and thus make it easier for both the users and the staff of this website to agree with what should and shouldn't be on it.

Leaving it only leaves the possibility of others in the future asking "Why can't I upload X if there's already so much X?" or "I miss seeing X, there hasn't been any new posts of X in so long." and similar such things.

Yet removing it removes questions and statements like that, it enforces the idea that this is a FURRY website, as the staff have indicated, and it makes it clear why no non-furry content is uploaded.

You may not want this to happen, you may not like the idea, yet even if you don't want to admit it this is a rational solution to a years-old problem.

I agree with AnotherDay. The motivation behind grandfathering in old posts, even when they're against current and future posting guidelines, is that the mods don't want to punish uploaders unfairly. But getting your posts deleted isn't punishment. This is stated in every "Someone uploaded a better version of my post!" forum (most recently forum #209917). Furthermore we could simply modify the upload limit formula to exclude posts deleted for innocuous and unforeseeable reasons (this has long been a desired update).

TL;DR AnotherDay's suggestion is perfectly sensible and the only obstacle is easily resolved.

leomole said:
I agree with AnotherDay. The motivation behind grandfathering in old posts, even when they're against current and future posting guidelines, is that the mods don't want to punish uploaders unfairly. But getting your posts deleted isn't punishment. This is stated in every "Someone uploaded a better version of my post!" forum (most recently forum #209917). Furthermore we could simply modify the upload limit formula to exclude posts deleted for innocuous and unforeseeable reasons (this has long been a desired update).

TL;DR AnotherDay's suggestion is perfectly sensible and the only obstacle is easily resolved.

Changing things so that posts being deleted for "innocuous and unforeseeable" reasons doesn't affect upload limit would be an absolutely excellent idea.

There are legitimate reasons to delete things, dnp, terrible quality, irrelevancy, however things like re-organizing the site, an artist studdenly going crazy and wanting all their work removed, etc, shouldn't affect someone's upload limit.

This could be implemented on a staff level. Every flag is reviewed by staff anyway, they could simply tick a box for something like "exempt circumstance" and have the system not count this toward the uploader's deleted posts. It'd make future organizing better, it'd reduce any guilt the staff may feel deleting a ton of posts due to new rules, and so much more.

This option would allow the staff to enforce upload rules retroactively to keep up with the standards of this archive site all WITHOUT punishing any of its users.

I'm digging this idea.

leomole said:
I agree with AnotherDay. The motivation behind grandfathering in old posts, even when they're against current and future posting guidelines, is that the mods don't want to punish uploaders unfairly. But getting your posts deleted isn't punishment. This is stated in every "Someone uploaded a better version of my post!" forum (most recently forum #209917). Furthermore we could simply modify the upload limit formula to exclude posts deleted for innocuous and unforeseeable reasons (this has long been a desired update).

TL;DR AnotherDay's suggestion is perfectly sensible and the only obstacle is easily resolved.

I dont think you realize how heavily that impacts upload limits. Deleting images is punishment as had been brought up multiple times now in other very recent threads.

Knotty_Curls said:
I'm digging this idea.

Y'all are absolutely out of your minds if you really think this is a good idea.

Again, I've said it before and I'll say it again if you don't want to see that kind of content. Blacklist it. Thats what the damn blacklist is for. No offense.

If you guys can't use it that's absolutely no reason to destroy others upload limits, among hundreds of comics that will now be missing entire pages and be unreadable because they're "not furry enough" for your absolutely insane standards.

No really there's a such thing as going overboard. And you're legitimately considering throwing the horses in the ocean.

GDelscribe said:
I dont think you realize how heavily that impacts upload limits. Deleting images is punishment as had been brought up multiple times now in other very recent threads.

I don't think you read my comment. The suggestion at hand is that posts irrelevant to the site be deleted without affecting anyone's upload limit. This hurts no one (not_furry art is available everywhere else) and helps e6 focus on furry art, which is its goal (see forum #146158). It also helps concentrate the efforts of uploaders like OP and taggers like myself.

leomole said:
I don't think you read my comment. The suggestion at hand is that posts irrelevant to the site be deleted without affecting anyone's upload limit. This hurts no one (not_furry art is available everywhere else) and helps e6 focus on furry art, which is its goal (see forum #146158). It also helps concentrate the efforts of uploaders like OP and taggers like myself.

Regardless of this iy still destroys massive swaths of content. And then you seriously begin digging into the realm of whatconstitutes as "furry" and when you start doing that you end up excluding huge amounts of new content just because it's not "furry enough"

Like, I don't think you know what you're actually asking for here.

Theres a reason the rules exist the way they do currently. And this site is foremost an art archive for non humans.

You do realize that what you're proposing will wipe out thousands of works, deny anything new that isn't "furry enough" for your standards, (that includes things like Orcs elves etc any type of meta human, most robotic characters, and then you have to ask where does that end because the moment you say let's get rid of anything remotely not furry that starts giving us rules like, no kemonomimi characters for example, etc etc.

I may be pushing a little here. But I've seen it before. Policing stuff like this is virtually impossible, disincluding characters like this wipes out massive chunks of fandom subculture who use this site frequently, and you really want to start down the same road as furaffinity?

You start deleting a specific thing en masse, and then you have folks asking for the deletion of other stuff they don't like.

Woops there goes cub content.
Woops there goes gore content.
Guess we better get rid of "insert fetish here" as well.

You can claim all you want that it's "for the betterment of the site" or as you put it to help "focus on furry art" but all I see is "I don't want to see this content so it shouldn't exist."

Seriously.

GDelscribe said:
Regardless of this iy still destroys massive swaths of content. And then you seriously begin digging into the realm of whatconstitutes as "furry" and when you start doing that you end up excluding huge amounts of new content just because it's not "furry enough"

Like, I don't think you know what you're actually asking for here.

Theres a reason the rules exist the way they do currently. And this site is foremost an art archive for non humans.

You do realize that what you're proposing will wipe out thousands of works, deny anything new that isn't "furry enough" for your standards, (that includes things like Orcs elves etc any type of meta human, most robotic characters, and then you have to ask where does that end because the moment you say let's get rid of anything remotely not furry that starts giving us rules like, no kemonomimi characters for example, etc etc.

I may be pushing a little here. But I've seen it before. Policing stuff like this is virtually impossible, disincluding characters like this wipes out massive chunks of fandom subculture who use this site frequently, and you really want to start down the same road as furaffinity?

You start deleting a specific thing en masse, and then you have folks asking for the deletion of other stuff they don't like.

Woops there goes cub content.
Woops there goes gore content.
Guess we better get rid of "insert fetish here" as well.

You can claim all you want that it's "for the betterment of the site" or as you put it to help "focus on furry art" but all I see is "I don't want to see this content so it shouldn't exist."

Seriously.

First off, vast amounts of new content are ALREADY excluded. This is just an idea to get rid of OLD content, anything not furry isn't allowed in the first place these days.

Secondly, an admin, on this very thread, has already said that orcs, angels, blah-dee-blah, are part of the "fantastical" part of "furry," so they'd still be fine.

This is literally just a suggestion to clean stuff up in order to become more organized and reduce future confusion (confusion from the vast amount of content no longer allowed still being on this website,) this isn't to disallow anything that isn't already disallowed.

Seriously, if you had actually read most of what's going on here instead of skimming it you'd already know this.

You seem to think and have seemed to be thinking this entire time that we're all trying to make it so nothing but things covered in fur are allowed (or something very similar to this,) yet that couldn't be further from the truth.

We're just trying to organize the website one way or another, by either allowing everything or deleting content from the past that isn't allowed any longer.

Either act would reduce user confusion immensely and make it so that people wouldn't have to worry as much about what is and isn't accepted due to the fact that what is accepted would be the only thing on the website, making it easy to see that anything else isn't accepted.

We're not trying to get the admins to change their definition of "furry" here, like you seem to think. We're not trying to take away everything that's even remotely human.

Just organize better, that's it, legitimately, nothing else.

The admins consider many things furry, demons, orcs, angels, anthros, ferals, scalies, even humans with tiny triangles on their head for ears. No one is trying to change what is and isn't allowed, we're just trying to clean up the remnants of what ISN'T allowed from olden days.

That's it, nothing else, no one wants anything other than that to happen here, well maybe some fringe users, but they aren't represented here and this thread isn't about that AT ALL.

Theres still absolutely no reason to do that as again. Every page in every set comic or otherwise that isn't furry focused for example? Those will now be unreadable.

Again. "You don't punish someone for doing something that was perfectly legal at the time."

This is a ridiculous unreasonable thing to do and honestly there is no harm caused by having that old art here in any way.

If you dont like it. Use your blacklist. Its what it was implemented for.

GDelscribe said:
Theres still absolutely no reason to do that as again. Every page in every set comic or otherwise that isn't furry focused for example? Those will now be unreadable.

Again. "You don't punish someone for doing something that was perfectly legal at the time."

This is a ridiculous unreasonable thing to do and honestly there is no harm caused by having that old art here in any way.

If you dont like it. Use your blacklist. Its what it was implemented for.

This isn't about blacklisting and you're still missing the point.

You seem to think things are infinitely different than they'll be.

Even your most recent example wouldn't happen. If it's a furry comic with a couple of pages human focused it'd still stay due to it being a part of the comic. This practice has been done before and there's no reason it would stop BECAUSE we're not changing what is and isn't allowed. :P

In your example future comics with pages like that wouldn't be allowed, yet since we aren't proposing the changes you are you're just being alarmist. Again, we're not proposing any change other than making getting things deleted have LESS of an impact on users. That's it.

This would allow the staff to retroactively apply the current rules and standards to all content WITHOUT harming any user.

I'm not sure why you'd possibly dislike that. Yet, as I've stated before, this isn't a question about content, it's never been a question about content, that question has already been asked and answered by the staff well before this thread.

PLEASE stop being alarmist, PLEASE stop thinking we are proposing super drastic anti-non-furry rules. We aren't, I and leomole have both told you this.

Please consider the policies already in place, we're basing everything on current policies, not changing any of them.

We're JUST proposing cleaning shop by retroactively applying the current rules and policies to everything.

If you have a problem with the current rules and policies address them elsewhere, this isn't the thread for complaints, commentary, or problems with the current rules and policies.

This thread is just for a proposed clean up project and a slight change in how certain deletions are handled for uers, overall it would be a positive change for the users because then artists going nuts and nuking their work or any other unforeseen deletion that isn't the uploader's fault wouldn't harm their upload limits.

Youre literally saying "let's delete everything that is non furry right now" in one breath and then saying "we're not asking to delete everything that's non furry" in another breath.

I am opposed to deleting large swaths of content for no reason other than "its not furry might as well get rid of it"

Youre acting like your two proposals are remotely related. The upload limit change was proposed by another user. And yeah that'd be a neat nice feature.

Do I agree with the rest of everything you're proposing? Hell no. Because it's a waste of time. A waste of resources, uncessecary destruction of large volumes of art. Are you really honestly trying to make me believe that you're not saying that? When you've literally said it 4 times now that you want to delete all non furry art.

GDelscribe said:
Youre literally saying "let's delete everything that is non furry right now" in one breath and then saying "we're not asking to delete everything that's non furry" in another breath.

I am opposed to deleting large swaths of content for no reason other than "its not furry might as well get rid of it"

Youre acting like your two proposals are remotely related. The upload limit change was proposed by another user. And yeah that'd be a neat nice feature.

Do I agree with the rest of everything you're proposing? Hell no. Because it's a waste of time. A waste of resources, uncessecary destruction of large volumes of art. Are you really honestly trying to make me believe that you're not saying that? When you've literally said it 4 times now that you want to delete all non furry art.

Yes, all non-furry art with "furry" defined the way it is currently. I didn't feel I needed to specifically point out the exceptions already in place for things like comics as I had thought it'd be obvious considering I'm proposing this change in order to FOLLOW CURRENT RULES. Non-furry art is ALREADY not allowed, all this would do is remove any future confusion users will have when they see that non-furry art was once allowed.

You seem to think I mean anything and everything, including the fantastical species such as aliens, elves, etc

I've tried to make it clear I meant "non-furry" as it's currently defined, tried to make it clear that we're not removing anything that would be accepted by current standards, yet you don't seem to quite get that last bit.

It's a real simple concept, one I know I've said numerous times already but in more words. I'll say it in fewer now - retroactively delete everything that wouldn't meet current standards and follow current procedures.

This would keep furry comic pages that were just human, this would keep everything that's currently supposed to be approved. They've made exceptions for certain pieces numerous times through the history of this website, especially if it's an updated version of an old image (which would, admittedly get deleted here if the old image wouldn't be accepted by the current uploading rules) or if it's part of a furry comic.

They ESPECIALLY make exceptions for comics, visual novels, etc because they've said and shown multiple times that they like to have the COMPLETE work. I agree with this stance.

Furthermore it ISN'T a waste of time. Would it create more work in the short term? Sure, however it'd also lessen future confusion, and therefore future work, in the long term.

How can't you see that having content on a site that contradicts its rules causes problems? I just don't understand.

Finally, how aren't the two proposals related? Deleting all that content would mean a lot of people would get negatives on their record, wouldn't it?

Yet if we implement that policy for deletions then uploaders wouldn't get "punished" for the website cleaning itself up and removing irrelevant content.

Do you see? Related.

One simply cannot be without the other without harming users. We don't want to nuke their post limits so giving the staff the ability to delete things without it affecting users is mandatory for this clean-up project.

<_< *acts like robot. Deletes everything looking humanoid, including furries* DUN DUN DUN!!!

first things first:

Can we all stop replying in walls of texts? If I can't find it in me to bother reading everything, I doubt anyone else can either, which makes strawmanning all too common.

Moving on to what I'm assuming all of this is about -

If we changed it so our upload limits aren't affected by unforeseeable deletion reasons, then we can go ahead and remove all grandfathered irrelevant posts without penalties. This will hopefully prevent any further confusion over e621's content focus, especially if we become stricter on humanoids.

To be clear:

• Deleting grandfathered irrelevant posts = no records, no upload limit penalties.

• Deleting future irrelevant posts (after policy changes) = penalties + possible records if continued.

Knotty_Curls said:
first things first:

Can we all stop replying in walls of texts? If I can't find it in me to bother reading everything, I doubt anyone else can either, which makes strawmanning all too common.

Moving on to what I'm assuming all of this is about -

If we changed it so our upload limits aren't affected by unforeseeable deletion reasons, then we can go ahead and remove all grandfathered irrelevant posts without penalties. This will hopefully prevent any further confusion over e621's content focus, especially if we become stricter on humanoids.

To be clear:

• Deleting grandfathered irrelevant posts = no records, no upload limit penalties.

• Deleting future irrelevant posts (after policy changes) = penalties + possible records if continued.

Yes. Exactly.

I try to explain things like this but I always over explain. I don't mean to, it's just a habit.

I've always had to over explain my thoughts to others. Not talking down, not trying to sound smart, just trying to be safe. Obviously not working.

leomole said:
I agree with AnotherDay. The motivation behind grandfathering in old posts, even when they're against current and future posting guidelines, is that the mods don't want to punish uploaders unfairly. But getting your posts deleted isn't punishment. This is stated in every "Someone uploaded a better version of my post!" forum (most recently forum #209917). Furthermore we could simply modify the upload limit formula to exclude posts deleted for innocuous and unforeseeable reasons (this has long been a desired update).

TL;DR AnotherDay's suggestion is perfectly sensible and the only obstacle is easily resolved.

AnotherDay said:
Changing things so that posts being deleted for "innocuous and unforeseeable" reasons doesn't affect upload limit would be an absolutely excellent idea.

There are legitimate reasons to delete things, dnp, terrible quality, irrelevancy, however things like re-organizing the site, an artist studdenly going crazy and wanting all their work removed, etc, shouldn't affect someone's upload limit.

This could be implemented on a staff level. Every flag is reviewed by staff anyway, they could simply tick a box for something like "exempt circumstance" and have the system not count this toward the uploader's deleted posts. It'd make future organizing better, it'd reduce any guilt the staff may feel deleting a ton of posts due to new rules, and so much more.

This option would allow the staff to enforce upload rules retroactively to keep up with the standards of this archive site all WITHOUT punishing any of its users.

Knotty_Curls said:
If we changed it so our upload limits aren't affected by unforeseeable deletion reasons, then we can go ahead and remove all grandfathered irrelevant posts without penalties. This will hopefully prevent any further confusion over e621's content focus, especially if we become stricter on humanoids.

To be clear:

• Deleting grandfathered irrelevant posts = no records, no upload limit penalties.

• Deleting future irrelevant posts (after policy changes) = penalties + possible records if continued.

Agreed. +1 for perfectly reasonable suggestions that will help smooth out administrative tasks, reduce administrative work load, and focus site uploads and user contribution.

Unless there's some odd technical knots with the way the site is built, I can't imagine it being too difficult to add a "non-penalty delete" function... or if that's not feasible for whatever reason, to run a one-time manual operation on a list of old irrelevant posts and then restore each user's deleted post count back to what they were prior to the operation.

Knotty_Curls said:

If we changed it so our upload limits aren't affected by unforeseeable deletion reasons, then we can go ahead and remove all grandfathered irrelevant posts without penalties.

On the technical side, since this is a one-off action, can't you simply record the per-account upload penalties expected from deletion of grandfathered posts? Then you should be able to cancel out upload penalties (simply add as much upload limit as you expected to be removed for that account) without the need to make any change to the E621 system itself.

(I'm assuming here that upload penalty is stored directly as a number in the user's record, and not something crazy like querying for deleted posts having that userid. Please correct me if this is wrong)

EDIT: I see Crispix sort-of preempted me here. Oh well, posting anyway. I do think permanently adding a function for a one-off action like this is bad system design.

AnotherDay said:

I've always had to over explain my thoughts to others. Not talking down, not trying to sound smart, just trying to be safe. Obviously not working.

Haha, I know what you mean. Communication is hard, but yeah, saying more and more stuff just turns people off.
IME to be effective, you must give a simple, carefully chosen message, and let minor misunderstandings go. Letting communication be a continuous process where you slowly move closer to the truth, rather than an exchange of essays.

Has this developed into anything yet? I'm having a similar issue but in regards to undead characters. There are many which are approved, even recently (post #1011541, post #1004145, post #1007377, post #699564, post #693535, post #693528, post #693392). Yet a fair number of the posts that I have submitted have been deleted for human based irrelevancy, even though they feature the exact same character.

This whole issue makes me stressed, as with many inconsistencies. I want to contribute to e621 and make it better by uploading high quality, relevant images. Yet having some submissions deleted and others approved without any clear distinction makes me fear uploading anything vaguely humanoid. I think I may be taking it too personally, but every time a submission is deleted, it makes me feel like I'm failing at my task, that I caused a problem for the site and wasted a moderator's time. I don't want to continue being a problem, but seeing humanoid posts regularly approved while others with a similar character, setting, and level of quality makes me very confused and frustrated.

I want to follow the rules, but the inconsistent way in which they are carried out is confusing. I can't tell what is appropriate and what isn't, as images that are nearly identical in content are treated differently, some are approved while others are deleted without any clear distinction between the two.

JAKXXX3 said:
Has this developed into anything yet? I'm having a similar issue but in regards to undead characters. There are many which are approved, even recently (post #1011541, post #1004145, post #1007377, post #699564, post #693535, post #693528, post #693392). Yet a fair number of the posts that I have submitted have been deleted for human based irrelevancy, even though they feature the exact same character.

Honestly, as far as approvals go, I'd have treated all but last two as Irrelevant (Human) based on my training. And I'd have been checking with higher-ups about last two given the minimal stitching.

If you have to pay careful attention to tell whether something is human/non-human (ignoring skin color) then its approval is likely to be hit-or-miss depending on who looks it over and how rushed they are trying to work through queue.

Wodahseht said:
Honestly, as far as approvals go, I'd have treated all but last two as Irrelevant (Human) based on my training. And I'd have been checking with higher-ups about last two given the minimal stitching.

If you have to pay careful attention to tell whether something is human/non-human (ignoring skin color) then its approval is likely to be hit-or-miss depending on who looks it over and how rushed they are trying to work through queue.

Then why did you approve post #1028196 while deleting post #1028197? They both feature the same character, drawn by the same artist.

JAKXXX3 said:
Then why did you approve post #1028196 while deleting post #1028197? They both feature the same character, drawn by the same artist.

Mistake - surprise, I'm human and get in rushes too. Fixed.

Wodahseht said:
Mistake - surprise, I'm human and get in rushes too. Fixed.

Ok, what about these? post #1004145, post #1010885, post #1007377, post #1010899, post #854240, post #854239, post #837039, post #799429, post #770966.

Why were they approved, why are they relevant? I cannot tell the difference, I don't want to break the rules, I want to understand, I want to be a good poster.

JAKXXX3 said:
Ok, what about these? post #1004145, post #1010885, post #1007377, post #1010899, post #854240, post #854239, post #837039, post #799429, post #770966.

Why were they approved, why are they relevant? I cannot tell the difference, I don't want to break the rules, I want to understand, I want to be a good poster.

I didn't approve those, and I'm not going to give comment on every image you find question with on the site.

I'm not an admin and it's not my place to judge any of the staff or their decisions, including other janitors. Probably should have just stayed out of this thread and I'm leaving it to the people with actual authority from here out.

Ciao.

Wodahseht said:
I didn't approve those, and I'm not going to give comment on every image you find question with on the site.

I'm not an admin and it's not my place to judge any of the staff or their decisions, including other janitors. Probably should have just stayed out of this thread and I'm leaving it to the people with actual authority from here out.

Ciao.

What should I do then? I don't want to break the no human rule, but I still don't understand which images I should or shouldn't upload.

I already messaged NotMeNotYou 10 hours ago about this very issue, he hasn't replied yet. This issue is causing me a great deal of stress. I want to be a good uploader.

JAKXXX3 said:
What should I do then? I don't want to break the no human rule, but I still don't understand which images I should or shouldn't upload.

I already messaged NotMeNotYou 10 hours ago about this very issue, he hasn't replied yet. This issue is causing me a great deal of stress. I want to be a good uploader.

As to response time, have patience. NMNY is a very busy bee. I'm sure they'll get back as quickly as their schedule and obligations allow.

As to avoiding deletion because human... Just try to make sure there are clearly visible signs in the specific image of non-human traits. Skin color doesn't count, nor does position (floating/levitating human is still a human).

^ 10 hours is really not that much. Try 24 -- or more realistically, 48.

JAKXXX3 said:
What should I do then? I don't want to break the no human rule, but I still don't understand which images I should or shouldn't upload.

I already messaged NotMeNotYou 10 hours ago about this very issue, he hasn't replied yet. This issue is causing me a great deal of stress. I want to be a good uploader.

Two bits of advice.

One, be patient. People have lives outside of this site. Just go do something else for the day and check back tomorrow morning or something. In my opinion, it's rude to not even give someone a full day on something like this.

Two, if you aren't sure about images "on the border", why not upload things that are very clearly furry in theme? There's plenty of artwork like that out there. At least, until you get a response back, or more of a feel for things.

Just something I wanted to add if it hasn't been already: if there's a human only pic which is part of a sequence - say for example the series I recently uploaded - then as long as the series is pooled, then as long as said sequence had some non-humans in it (for example, a human TFing into a Pokémon) then it should be okay. If the entire pool is 100% human and nothing else on completion, then it should all go.

Lativee said:
...as long as said sequence had some non-humans in it then it should be okay.

Actually, if the pool is primarily human it could still get wiped. The pool itself needs a non-human theme, not just a non-human cameo on one of the pages.

Clawdragons said:
One, be patient. People have lives outside of this site. Just go do something else for the day and check back tomorrow morning or something. In my opinion, it's rude to not even give someone a full day on something like this.

I asked a janitor about this issue, they told me to contact NotMeNotYou. I check this website for notifications and updates regularly, the longest amount of time I would go without checking would be 10 hours, I usually sleep for 10 hours and I always check e621 before I sleep and after I wake up. I have felt stressed this whole time, inconsistencies are a problem that must be dealt with, I feel useless or like I'm contributing to the problem by not helping to resolve it. Social interaction, such as communicating to you now, causes me anxiety. But I was told that exposure to the source of my anxieties should help lessen my anxiety over time, and that I should do things I enjoy to help make me happy. I enjoy contributing to e621, I enjoy playing games but I currently lack to motivation to play them. I don't want to stay depressed.

Two, if you aren't sure about images "on the border", why not upload things that are very clearly furry in theme? There's plenty of artwork like that out there. At least, until you get a response back, or more of a feel for things.

The vast majority of my uploads are 'clearly furry', largely composed of Zootopia fan art. Yet I have already posted practically all of the Zootopia fan-art from my from my favourite artists. Some of these artists also have artwork featuring humanoid characters, yet who have non-human characteristics. I regularly see non-furry images on this site which feature characters highly similar in appearance and are approved. I tried to submit some of these images, but several of them were deleted for irrelevancy, despite similarity to recently approved posts. It feels wrong to ignore uploading an image which appears to be of high quality and relevance to e621. Said 'wrong feeling' may be a sense of incompleteness, or a failure in being a good uploader to the site. It would be very difficult to only find purely furry artwork that hasn't already been uploaded. I would likely come across humanoid characters in my search, which I could not ignore without feeling bad.

Just because you check something every two hours doesn't mean everybody does. Sometimes people wake up to a busy day and don't have the chance to check the site for over 24 hours. Normally our admins don't have those situations, but emergencies can come up.
Outside of that, sometimes they aren't sure and have to talk about it with the other admins. It can take up to a week sometimes to get a good answer back. It's unfortunate that you sometimes need to wait that long, but it happens.

Furrin_Gok said:
Just because you check something every two hours doesn't mean everybody does. Sometimes people wake up to a busy day and don't have the chance to check the site for over 24 hours. Normally our admins don't have those situations, but emergencies can come up.
Outside of that, sometimes they aren't sure and have to talk about it with the other admins. It can take up to a week sometimes to get a good answer back. It's unfortunate that you sometimes need to wait that long, but it happens.

Yeah, I'm not really concerned about NMNY not replying super quickly. I just want to help see this issue resolved and I don't really know what to do. The last thing someone told that would help would be to contact NMNY, but I don't really know what to do in the meantime.

fourroll said:
The problem I see is that; in a set, a series of things drawn by the same artist, various pages in a comic, etc.; if you cut humanoid content you gut a lot of relevant content in the wider picture. If there is something on the border (in this case something hidable) then you're arguing for it to be dropped. There are varying degrees of this. Maybe the tail is out of frame and there's no skin texture, maybe the furry face and hands are behind a welder's mask and thick gloves, maybe the nonhuman giveaway is hidden from that angle, maybe maybe maybe. New comics and pages that should be in a set don't always look like they are when you're judging them alone.

Relevancy is judged by the whole comic, not individual pages. It can be undeleted if accidentally deleted.

I feel as though there should be a greater degree of clarity concerning this issue, on how exactly images are determined to be relevant or not. I've come up with two suggestions which may help.

There should be some kind of reference guide to help uploaders determine whether or not an image is relevant based on visual features. I have been unable to find any guide on e621 that comprehensively explains the distinction between 'irrelevant human' and 'acceptable humanoid'. I have improved my own understanding through communication with moderators, yet I believe that users should be able to learn from a publically available resource, rather than through PMs and threads.

Another way to improve clarity is to make a system by which decisions made on relevancy are publically accessible, rather than being hidden in PMs. Such a system could act in a similar fashion to the concept of precedent, or common law, whereby previous decisions are followed in similar cases. It would serve to act as guideline for people who want to post content where relevancy is difficult to determine. The system wouldn't have to record every decision, only those that would require deliberation between higher level moderators. It could also be binding, whereby lower level staff would be obligated to follow the decisions made by higher levels. That last part may be more trouble than its worth, instead, decisions could merely act as a guideline rather than a binding precedent.

Users should be able to develop a high level of certainty when posting humanoid images, rather than just making a guess and hoping that their post is approved.

I don't want to create a new "personal" topic about this same issue here, so I'm going to reply instead after being lazy for 2-3 days.

I just got affected by this whole irrelevancy for two pictures the same day. I have absolutely no issue with e621 finding some kind of work/characters not relevant enough, but these cases here don't exactly make sense at all :

post #1086750 ( source ) has been deleted for being irrelevant, even thought there's a tag for food_creature and the same kind of picture got approved at the same time ( post #1093872 ) and mine just recently (was extremely scared to have it deleted)

post #1087693 ( source ) got deleted for being irrelevant even thought plantpenetrator 's anthro plants pictures always have been completely fine to be uploaded here before, but not this one picture because...? I really don't know why, is it because Screwroot isn't popular enough compared to him maybe ?

Again, I don't have a problem at all about stuff being labeled as not furry enough, but I do wish this rule would be more black and white and have this sort of situation happen less often

Yeah, I've had a few posts deleted by Cat-in-Flight recently, I guess they might be going on a bit of an approval/deletion binge on the upload queue.

I'm pretty sure they're a new janitor, promoted to the position recently, since I've only noticed their activity in the past couple of weeks. I guess they're still getting the hang of the site's approval policy, since they're new.