It looks like the user [redacted] has some pools that all of the new submissions are being added to. Maybe it's scripted?

Is this going to cause problems with actual pools that the submitters want to use? The pools are "Genital slit" and "stuff".

CrankyCat said:
It looks like the user [redacted] has some pools that all of the new submissions are being added to. Maybe it's scripted?

Is this going to cause problems with actual pools that the submitters want to use? The pools are "Genital slit" and "stuff".

https://e621.net/pool/show/7945?page=1

came to the forum to report this. This pool should be a set.

i just noticed that and reported them. i believe that they are just unaware of what pools are meant for and they actively keep using them like favorites or sets

Just sent them a DM before seeing this.

There are also two "general slit" pools for some reason. No clue what the point of those is, there's a tag for that stuff. Unless it's like 'my favorite slit posts', but that would still be Set material. Anyway, I've let them know, hopefully that'll sort things.

Ah, looks like it did. Or at least something happened cause the pools are gone.

Taken care of.

For the record we prefer to avoid calling out specific users on the forums, and handle stuff like this through the report system instead.

Jugofthat said:
There are also two "general slit" pools for some reason.

There was actually only 1 pool. Somehow the first image of that pool ended up in there twice.

parasprite said:
For the record we prefer to avoid calling out specific users on the forums, and handle stuff like this through the report system instead.

Ah ok, sorry. I've never reported a user caused before. Also, the quote in the reply needs to be redacted too. :-)

parasprite said:
There was actually only 1 pool. Somehow the first image of that pool ended up in there twice.

Oh, alright. That image was indeed what I based that observation on, I didn't actually compare the pools the buttons led to.

CrankyCat said:
Ah ok, sorry. I've never reported a user caused before. Also, the quote in the reply needs to be redacted too. :-)

Nice catch. Thanks :3