Hi admins.

I'm not sure where am I supposed to appropriately file this sort of complaint so I came here instead.
The picture deleted is post:1092568 and don't see how it goes astray from the uploading guidelines mentioned here :

I'm not implying anything hostile against admin's action, a simple false flag lifted of that image is all I wish.

post #1092568 is the formatting, but humans and human lookalikes. If they do not possess obvious visual details, like ears (elves), fangs (vampires), short & stout with a beard (dwarves), etc., it'll be deleted in grounds that it looks too human.

This also follows suit with alternate colors like pink, blue, etc. again, it needs to be distinguishable as not an exact human.

Siral_Exan said:
post #1092568 is the formatting, but humans and human lookalikes. If they do not possess obvious visual details, like ears, fangs, short & stout with a beard (dwarf), etc., it'll be deleted in grounds that it looks too human.

This also follows suit with alternate colors like pink, blue, etc. again, it needs to be distinguishable as not an exact human.

I posted this image too but somehow it's an exception?
post #978524

Siral_Exan said:
do not possess obvious visual details

If a horse penis half the character's size not obvious enough, I dunno what is.

Just so no one's out of the loop, this is the image in question:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/0217b60daa45b879cb12349d5b29eb74/tumblr_oj03qdTaJY1tnjmmio1_1280.png

Besides the penis, this is a straight-up human.

Mind you, the above is for clarity's sake, before people start going for the throat. I personally hold no opinion anymore, the rules desperately need to be made in different words because people are still uploading such (regardless) and I fear some janitors are glazing through it, or contributors+ are being let through without notice.

Steve_Lichman said:
I posted this image too but somehow it's an exception?
post #978524
Looks pretty human to me with just a horse penis, just as the guidelines implied.

Since I didn't respond in time, just saying again that I am clarifying.

Siral_Exan said:
...contributors+ are being let through without notice.

It doesn't help that there's no "Irrelevant" or "Poor quality" options on the FFD page.

BlueDingo said:
It doesn't help that there's no "Irrelevant" or "Poor quality" options on the FFD page.

There supposedly was, but it was abused to all hell and then some, so it was removed.

Siral_Exan said:
Mind you, the above is for clarity's sake, before people start going for the throat. I personally hold no opinion anymore, the rules desperately need to be made in different words because people are still uploading such (regardless) and I fear some janitors are glazing through it, or contributors+ are being let through without notice.

post #916710
>Approved by NotMeNotYou
>6 months ago

Other than that there's some truth in what you said here.

Steve_Lichman said:
post #916710
>Approved by NotMeNotYou
>6 months ago

I'd appreciate not having to repeat myself: I do not have any stake in this because my beef is with how it is worded, which could be reworded. I, furthermore, can't tell you why the staff do "this", I'm not part of the staff.

However, it is courtesy to compare recently approved/denied images with your case; you're not gonna get your point across if you compare old mistakes, you'll get your point across by showing new (like, within the month) mistakes. The no humans rule was only recently harshly enforced, while being in effect for a while the scope has recently expanded to include alternate colors for human(likes).

The no-humans rule got an update recently. Older images will not be subjected to rule-changes unless it involves US law, so they aren't deleted, but new images are.

human solo id:>1064526 status:active
All approved images tagged human and solo from 02-12-2016 onwards.

Seems like a lot of people don't know what words mean because this is not solo and this is not human.

human solo id:>1064526 status:deleted
All deleted images tagged human and solo from 02-12-2016 onwards.

@Steve_Lichman

If you have issue with an image being deleted, best option is to message the person that deleted it (in this case Parasprite) and ask. You can also point out why you think it shouldn't have been deleted.

My personal opinion is that the image shouldn't have been deleted due to equine penis making it an animal humanoid rather than pure human.

Wodahseht said:
@Steve_Lichman

If you have issue with an image being deleted, best option is to message the person that deleted it (in this case Parasprite) and ask. You can also point out why you think it shouldn't have been deleted.

My personal opinion is that the image shouldn't have been deleted due to equine penis making it an animal humanoid rather than pure human.

Yay! thanks for this, the post is up again.

parasprite probably deleted it through the thumbnail since they mistoke it for a human penis of sorts.

Wodahseht said:
@Steve_Lichman

If you have issue with an image being deleted, best option is to message the person that deleted it (in this case Parasprite) and ask. You can also point out why you think it shouldn't have been deleted.

My personal opinion is that the image shouldn't have been deleted due to equine penis making it an animal humanoid rather than pure human.

Steve_Lichman said:
Yay! thanks for this, the post is up again.

That's weird, because penises don't count

Furrin_Gok said:
That's weird, because penises don't count

I don't feel like reading through 4 pages, who said that?

Because I specifically mention horse penis in the Uploading Guidelines.

NotMeNotYou said:
I don't feel like reading through 4 pages, who said that?

Some users kept insisting that human-like characters with animal genitalia should be tagged as human, on the basis that they don't stop being humans just because the genitalia are different.

Which I still disagree with. The human tag should be for full humans, anything that has non-human bits (pointy ears, horsecock, etc) belongs in humanoid. Otherwise we end up with a weird grey area where some characters are tagged as human, but are considered relevant to the site.

Genjar said:
Which I still disagree with.

Don't go bringing another thread's discussion into here, man.

Furrin_Gok said:
Don't go bringing another thread's discussion into here, man.

Couple of posts earlier:

Furrin_Gok said:
That's weird, because penises don't count

Seriously?

I don't know, this site's "quality standards" are vague at best and usually up to whoever is approving the image at the time. I've had images that are fine get canned while actual low-quality garbage gets through.

Same goes for what qualifies as "irrelevant to the site", it makes no sense.