So, recently i uploaded two pictures to this site, they were two variations of a fairly lewd drawing of a certain water nymph from adventure time, my goal of the image was to imitate the style of adventure time...

However, they were deleted for the reason of "Does not meet minimum quality standards"...

I have several questions,

1. Why is this a fair reason for deleting a post? isn't that pretty opinion based?

2. As the pictures were supposed to imitate the art style of the show the character came from... why was it treated as if the quality of my work was poor because i intended to imitate an art style?

3. Do you think this is fair?

These were the drawings i posted.

http://imgur.com/a/9kycJ

This is what the character looks like, taken directly from the show:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c4/95/ef/c495ef84726720010960a33a57a3d553.jpg

so once again, was this a fair judgment on the "janitor" who deleted these drawings' part?

not an admin but i've seen a lot less finished work on here and i don't think you're a bad artist

post #1180887 post #1194476 post #1031254

Try asking the janitor who did the deleting.

it was deleted by a janitor, not admin. i'd suggest contacting admins about this

An answer to your points:

1: this is an image archival site, there needs to be judgement lest it suffers from spammy low-quality images. Gallery sites like FA, Ink, and DA do not judge quality, but suffer from the aforementioned when users try to search for art.

2: art is treated as art, regardless of intentions. Comedy, drama, comics, imitation/edits, everything is treated as individual. It doesn't matter where it came from or why.

3: I don't judge fairness, you're going to want to ask the person who deleted it for why they deleted it. As I stand, I see a human with water for hair and alternate colored skin, and humans (even with alternate colored skin) only is irrelevant to site. But, I also know what a nymph looks like, which is relevant to site as a humanoid. They may not...

fewrahuxo said:
not an admin but i've seen a lot less finished work on here and i don't think you're a bad artist

post #1180887 post #1194476 post #1031254

How many times will this happen...? Only recently approved, identical in quality images matter for comparison. Literally everything else is irrelevant. And even then, it really doesn't sway the deletion, it provides a more detailed explanation.

Candy-colored humans are still just humans. The quality might be alright but its relevancy is greatly lacking.

Ratte said:
Candy-colored humans are still just humans. The quality might be alright but its relevancy is greatly lacking.

What about the "hair"? Humans aren't known to have water growing out of their head.

To me personally quality is passed with ease, but adventure time images are always really hard to judge because series simplistic style makes every person look human and guidelines state that there needs to be clear change in appearance to make them humanoid instead, skin color doesn't count.

So in this sense it could've been simple misstake of writing incorrect deletion reason and handler seeing hair as fancy decoration rather than anatomical change in character. However this needs to be confirmed with who handled the deletion.

BlueDingo said:
What about the "hair"? Humans aren't known to have water growing out of their head.

Then it's a "maybe". I probably would have deleted it as well, but the OP is better off asking Cat-In-Flight about it.

BlueDingo said:
What about the "hair"? Humans aren't known to have water growing out of their head.

Giving somebody hair of fire or water doesn't really sound like a big change to me, but we do allow somebody who has pointed ears: elves, vulcans, and shantae for example. Should we call that elemental_humanoid, in the vein of animal ears being animal_humanoids?

Furrin_Gok said:
Giving somebody hair of fire or water doesn't really sound like a big change to me, but we do allow somebody who has pointed ears: elves, vulcans, and shantae for example. Should we call that elemental_humanoid, in the vein of animal ears being animal_humanoids?

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I feel like this says more about the validity of pointed ears as indicating something as non-human than it does about elemental hair.

I agree. We should really stop allowing elves.

You know what would also help? Having a fairly concrete establishment on what the minimum quality standards even are, because currently, it's really dependent on who makes the decision, which can be contradictory in certain circumstances. Even if it follows the guidelines for quality, it'll still be deleted for lack of quality. Doctor, my head.

Duck_Hunt_Dog said:
You know what would also help? Having a fairly concrete establishment on what the minimum quality standards even are, because currently, it's really dependent on who makes the decision, which can be contradictory in certain circumstances. Even if it follows the guidelines for quality, it'll still be deleted for lack of quality. Doctor, my head.

The nymphs are borderline or completely irrelevant. Otherwise I would have approved them days ago.

Users that draw high quality relevant artwork, digital or scanned, have nothing to worry about. If a user's art is only a couple of shades better than a preschooler's drawing, or if they don't properly scan it, it can be deleted. That's just the way it is.

It still remains pretty damn funny how squiggly lines done on SAI like the very first example, which is most of what the artist produces, are deemed more as minimum quality standard work than a completed clean sketch that has been scanned but because of somewhat bad contrast that makes them look like they've been taken with a camera (Nevermind the fact that in the past pictures actually taken with a camera have been completely fine to be uploaded like mukucookie and many other examples), they are deemed as not enough artistic merit and got deleted not even 4 hours after I have uploaded them.

So I do agree with how a fairly concrete establishment on what the minimum quality standards are needed, so people like me would stop complaining about that whenever something gets somewhat unfairly deleted for that reason.

Also for the first post, the reason should have been Irrelevant, not "Does not meet quality standard" Not sure why they chose that reason

Neitsuke said:
So I do agree with how a fairly concrete establishment on what the minimum quality standards are needed, so people like me would stop complaining about that whenever something gets somewhat unfairly deleted for that reason.

But how do you make standards for something like this? It can't be for level of details as simplistic styles like on OPs post is usually fine but they can also be insanely bad. Can't be level of progress as there are so many sketches which surpass some finished images. It can't be for anatomical impossibilities as this is site hosting furry content. Can't make much examples as there are so many differend scenarios to cover.

We can't have 100% applying objective guidelines either, for example there are 3D artwork with clipping and aliasing, which in my mind should never be allowed, but how about if that's only small portion of image or image is insanely huge render or clever posing used to hide the fact it's aliased? I have seen games use aliasing as artistic decision which does make me want to punch who made that decision, but that's another topic.

So because of this, it's essentially trusting users to judge their content and give their approval by clicking upload and for 99.99% of uploads users do have sense for quality and staff just confirms this by approving it.

As for your uploads from tatwuyan, I do see your issue here. All of these are most likely still taken with camera, but look like they would be acceptable if you ran them trough some post process, but of course artist is japanese and users messing around with files before upload isn't usually good idea. Because not accepting photos is one of those more objective guidelines we have, these have been most likely deleted for that reason and earlier approvals usually do not justify later ones. But just like with OPs issue, please be in contact who deleted them, sometimes even we do make mistakes and we can always correct them if they have been made or at least clarify our reasoning.

leomole said:
I agree. We should really stop allowing elves.

I would not be opposed to this at all, after seeing all of the WoW elf and Link content just pouring. Altough what makes having long ears differend from having just cat ears and how much exceptions to human rules are necessary in long run.

Would be much nicer if users realized that this kind of content isn't most relevant here instead of needing to write mile long exclusion list to human only rule.

Mario69 said:
I would not be opposed to this at all, after seeing all of the WoW elf and Link content just pouring. Altough what makes having long ears differend from having just cat ears and how much exceptions to human rules are necessary in long run.

at least we still have link_(rabbit_form) (thanks Crackers)

according to the not_furry Wiki page, "humanoid races such as elf, orc, troll, goblin, gargoyle, ogre, and gnome." are not furry. perhaps a more formal referendum is in order to discern whether these should be allowed.

They are currently allowed and will stay allowed for the foreseeable future.

They may not be relevant to every furry but I'm not going to add more and more exceptions to rules. If you don't want to see those species or races blacklist them and move on.