https://e621.net/post/show/957797/

is that true? if i go through all the images or at least unapproved ones that only have humans in them and flag them will i get in trouble?

just trying to clarify

is that true?

Seems to be that way,

From the avoid posting article:

Art featuring only humans or primarily humans.

--
As for the rest of your question, can't really give you a definite answer

Riince said:
if i go through all the images or at least unapproved ones that only have humans in them and flag them will i get in trouble?

There's no 'irrelevant to site' among the reasons you can pick for flagging, which should be a big clue that it's not allowed..

If the post has already been approved under the ye olde rules, those aren't going to be deleted. Wouldn't be fair to the users who uploaded them back then.

And some are kept because they're part of the pools and other sequences. Such as transformation comics where the character starts out as a human. Comics in general. Deleting couple of pages out of the story just because there happen to be only humans on some pages would be absurd. So those are treated as a whole: if it's furry enough overall, it's kept.

Riince said:
https://e621.net/post/show/957797/

is that true? if i go through all the images or at least unapproved ones that only have humans in them and flag them will i get in trouble?

just trying to clarify

Yes, that is an incorrect flag reason, so abuse of the flag tool (there is no irrelevant image flag). It's the janitors and up 's job to remove those images. However: Slyroon didn't say that it depends on what kind of art it is. Lolis are usually allowed, for instance, and characters that look human but are semi human, or characters humanized can also stay.

So, human irrelevance is case by case. Not always are they deleted, just major emphasis.

but there's an overwhelming amount of undertale art only featuring humans on this website... i dont know it just seems very inconsistent and weird to me.

Riince said:
but there's an overwhelming amount of undertale art only featuring humans on this website... i dont know it just seems very inconsistent and weird to me.

It's because it's undertale! You try taking that mammoth down!

But, it's because of art style. They look like cartoonised humans, something that is more lenient for relevance. "Too human" can be applied for irrelevance, and you can try to see that via animal humanoids, where they look human but have animal details. If you took the tail off of a rat humanoid, they could get removed...

Riince said:
but there's an overwhelming amount of undertale art only featuring humans on this website...

Not really. ...there's probably some comic pages, but I can't find a single post that only features humans. The humanoids such as the skeleton bros don't count as humans.

undertale human -anthro -humanoid -feral -skeleton

Riince said:
but there's an overwhelming amount of undertale art only featuring humans on this website... i dont know it just seems very inconsistent and weird to me.

undertale human not_furry solo have very particular styles to them, or are part of a set. post #803653 is just awesome.

Genjar said:
Not really. ...there's probably some comic pages, but I can't find a single post that only features humans. The humanoids such as the skeleton bros don't count as humans.

undertale human -anthro -humanoid -feral -skeleton

you aren't looking very hard then.. even just undertale human solo yielded almost a page of stuff and that's only solo's

Riince said:
you aren't looking very hard then.. even just undertale human solo yielded almost a page of stuff and that's only solo's

That's mostly because of three reasons (I don't really think the art style contributes that much):

• They might be a part of a pool that is otherwise furry related (as mentioned).
• You did not consider that a solo post can contain more than one character or the same character in multiple forms, i.e. your search query is too simple to explain the situation
• Inadequate tagging, which I rectified a bit by tagging about 350 undertale posts.

Afterwards I checked out undertale human -anthro -humanoid -feral -undead -flora_fauna -robot -tem -living_machine -animate_inanimate -monster -demon -spirit -cosplay -crossover -elemental -marine -canine -caprine -lagomorph -scalie -equine inpool:false and got 40 posts left in total. That hardly shows a big problem considering there are 9329 undertale posts and it features at least one prominent human character.

Also there are probably posts with only humans where instead things like humor, extraordinary quality (usually only a bias when it comes to animated or scenery_porn), or references to furry content etc. has contributed to them being approved while similar posts may not have been.

Yep, and many of those older posts were posted before the 'no human-only content'-rule was in place. Even if they're counted, it's not what I'd call an overwhelming amount.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Lolis are usually allowed, for instance, and characters that look human but are semi human, or characters humanized can also stay.

So, human irrelevance is case by case. Not always are they deleted, just major emphasis.

Nope.

From uploading guidelines:

Bad things to upload:

• Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus
• Orcs, elves, plant-people, aliens, are all fine, pure humans are not.

The way I was trained:
Except as Genjar noted with pools, sequences, and/or comics (and stuff from before rule changes): humans (and humanized) are treated as irrelevant unless there's something else furry-related about image. Even lolis.

In fact, some non-humans may get taken down if there isn't enough visible in image to show clearly that they aren't human.

Humanoidized, however, is fine.

Wodahseht said:
Nope.

The way I was trained:
Except as Genjar noted with pools, sequences, and/or comics (and stuff from before rule changes): humans (and humanized) are treated as irrelevant unless there's something else furry-related about image. Even lolis.

In fact, some non-humans may get taken down if there isn't enough visible in image to show clearly that they aren't human.

Humanoidized, however, is fine.

Then explain aogami human solo . Humans, solo to avoid humanoids, and Aogami, because they draw Loli. It is based around the admin/janitor, the image in question, and the artist. The most recent of this list is a month ago, and was allowed by Notme. And some of the older ones, by a year ago, that are singular.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Then explain aogami human solo . Humans, solo to avoid humanoids, and Aogami, because they draw Loli. It is based around the admin/janitor, the image in question, and the artist. The most recent of this list is a month ago, and was allowed by Notme.

While I can't really argue against you, you too made the mistake of making your search query too simple, a better one would be aogami human solo -transformation -humanoid -animal_genitalia or similar. Most notable here is maybe -humanoid since some humanoids are tagged as human.

Chessax said:
While I can't really argue against you, you too made the mistake of making your search query too simple, a better one would be aogami human solo -transformation -humanoid -animal_genitalia or similar. Most notable here is maybe -humanoid since some humanoids are tagged as human.

I'm not privileged, I get five tag searches...

I included status:any into it, and there still is a time gap where Loli images were allowed when they should have been deleted. I could go more general, but I again say this for all: case by case. Certain images by artists have been allowed before (As shown above), and there is a line where images are deleted regardless of relevance (the minimum quality rule).

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Then explain aogami human solo . Humans, solo to avoid humanoids, and Aogami, because they draw Loli. It is based around the admin/janitor, the image in question, and the artist. The most recent of this list is a month ago, and was allowed by Notme. And some of the older ones, by a year ago, that are singular.

Those three most recent have an equine penis. The first pure human one is over a year old.

Not here to argue cases. Just telling you what rule says and what I was taught. NMNY is top dog in any case and can overrule any of us if he feels situation warrants it.

Wodahseht said:
Those three most recent have an equine penis. The first pure human one is over a year old.

Not here to argue cases. Just telling you what rule says and what I was taught. NMNY is top dog in any case and can overrule any of us if he feels situation warrants it.

The equine penis is part of my point against the no human statement: it is not an absolute. This , despite being a year old, was allowed over this (can't see the image), so there must be some reason as to why.

Because I don't like toggling this topic, allow me to rephrase myself so I can go back to doing absolutely nothing: human images are heavily frowned apon, and shouldn't be uploaded / should be deleted, but there are cases where they are, often enough when they possess animal traits but not always.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
The equine penis is part of my point against the no human statement: it is not an absolute. This , despite being a year old, was allowed over this (can't see the image), so there must be some reason as to why.

Old posts were grandfathered in. That's been said repeatedly.

We've only had the strict 'no human-only content'-rule for... well, I don't remember exactly how long, but it's been less than an year. Before that, deciding whether to keep those was up to the admin/janitor who was doing the approvals.

Genjar said:
Old posts were grandfathered in. That's been said repeatedly.

We've only had the strict 'no human-only content'-rule for... well, I don't remember exactly how long, but it's been less than an year. Before that, deciding whether to keep those was up to the admin/janitor who was doing the approvals.

"Grandfathered in"? That's new... Mind explaining?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
"Grandfathered in"? That's new... Mind explaining?

If human-only content was approved under the old rules, they aren't going to be deleted.

Genjar said:
If human-only content was approved under the old rules, they aren't going to be deleted.

So it's another thing I said? Certain rules apply, it is not absolute. You can find a way to put a human image on here...

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
So it's another thing I said? Certain rules apply, it is not absolute. You can find a way to put a human image on here...

...
If you can travel back in time and post it under the old rules, yes.

Otherwise, it can only happen if whoever's handling the approvals makes a mistake. Which is certainly a possibility, since there's a ridiculous amount of new posts each day.

Genjar said:
...
If you can travel back in time and post it under the old rules, yes.

Otherwise, it can only happen if whoever's handling the approvals makes a mistake. Which is certainly a possibility, since there's a ridiculous amount of new posts each day.

Alternatively, if you find a better copy of an old image, you're allowed to post the better copy.

Furrin_Gok said:
Alternatively, if you find a better copy of an old image, you're allowed to post the better copy.

Eh... I'd check with NMNY before I tried that one. I find it probable that a purely human image being reuploaded now would still be deleted even if it was better than one that was previously approved.

As has been said, stuff uploaded under old rules isn't getting trashed, but new posts are being judged under new rules.

The rule was only added recently within a month or so.

I dont really understand the point of the rule because the reason why the old ones arent being deleted (aside from people wanting this place to be an archive as it should be) is to keep comics with tf involved whole.

Under the new rules any comic that had only humans for one page is no longer "furry enough" for the site.

GDelscribe said:
The rule was only added recently within a month or so.

I dont really understand the point of the rule because the reason why the old ones arent being deleted (aside from people wanting this place to be an archive as it should be) is to keep comics with tf involved whole.

Under the new rules any comic that had only humans for one page is no longer "furry enough" for the site.

We don't usually have our rules be retroactive. It's like when a new law is passed, you won't be punished if you did it in the past, only if you do it after the law is passed.

GDelscribe said:
The rule was only added recently within a month or so.

No it wasn't. This has been the case since the end of 2014. Even before then, it was up to those handling approvals, as human-only work was often kept if it was of very good quality. Since that was so vague it was eventually cemented to cater to the furry focus of the site and decline any incoming posts containing only humans. Anything from before then was grandfathered in for the reasons Furrin has stated.

Wodahseht said:
Eh... I'd check with NMNY before I tried that one. I find it probable that a purely human image being reuploaded now would still be deleted even if it was better than one that was previously approved.

As has been said, stuff uploaded under old rules isn't getting trashed, but new posts are being judged under new rules.

These can be freely a uploaded, but you need to make sure we actually know it's a better version of an older post.

GDelscribe said:
The rule was only added recently within a month or so.

I dont really understand the point of the rule because the reason why the old ones arent being deleted (aside from people wanting this place to be an archive as it should be) is to keep comics with tf involved whole.

Under the new rules any comic that had only humans for one page is no longer "furry enough" for the site.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The rule is in place so that uploaders have to play less of an administrator roulette to have something approved or deleted, we keep old posts that would no longer be approved because deletions hurt the upload limit and it would simply be unfair for them, and comics that are predominantly furry are still relevant to us, even if a small amount of pages only contain humans.

Huh. Thanks! Didn't know.