Ok, so I have two near identical pictures. One is a larger size (1644 x 3500) but censored with a thin, black bar over the vaginal opening (practically obscuring the entire thing from view). But I also have a slightly smaller version (902 x 1920) that isn't censored since it comes from the artist's Tumblr. So which one do I post? The larger, but censored one? The smaller, but uncensored version? Both and link the larger one to the smaller via "Parent and child"? I suppose I could upload the larger one and simply link to the smaller and uncensored one in the description, but I felt this worth asking about. When it comes to posting does size always matter or is quality more important?

how big is "a thin, black bar"?

is it post #1103368 this thin or like this post #1107997?

also, if the uncensored version counts as an edit why not add both and have the censored pic as the parent post?

UnusualParadox said:
Ok, so I have two near identical pictures. One is a larger size (1644 x 3500) but censored with a thin, black bar over the vaginal opening (practically obscuring the entire thing from view). But I also have a slightly smaller version (902 x 1920) that isn't censored since it comes from the artist's Tumblr. So which one do I post? The larger, but censored one? The smaller, but uncensored version? Both and link the larger one to the smaller via "Parent and child"? I suppose I could upload the larger one and simply link to the smaller and uncensored one in the description, but I felt this worth asking about. When it comes to posting does size always matter or is quality more important?

I agree with Treos. Post the original first, and then the edited version afterwards as a child post.

Bigger, censored version link: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=60025167

Smaller, albeit uncensored version: http://gefauz.tumblr.com/image/153364107684

My fear is getting one post deleted in preference over the other.

UnusualParadox said:
Bigger, censored version link: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=60025167

Smaller, albeit uncensored version: http://gefauz.tumblr.com/image/153364107684

My fear is getting one post deleted in preference over the other.

We can keep both in such a case. Even if they're the exact same size, we host both a censor and uncensored version.

Furrin_Gok said:
We can keep both in such a case. Even if they're the exact same size, we host both a censor and uncensored version.

Thanks. I made the smaller one a child post.

Furrin_Gok said:
We can keep both in such a case. Even if they're the exact same size, we host both a censor and uncensored version.

If they're the same size, we generally delete the censored version.
Unless the uncensored one is an unofficial edit, in which case we (of course) also keep the original. Those always take the priority over edits.

Genjar said:
If they're the same size, we generally delete the censored version.

That's not been my experience. post #74461, post #81043, post #504520, post #630448, post #695524 and post #862393 were all kept despite being simply censored versions of the original art. It seems to me a bad precedent to approve a separate post if someone just Photoshops in a sandwich or TV character or black bar.

There's also many posts that have been kept just because they were put through a B&W filter (post #631304, post #149723) or because someone added text (post #36180, post #720826, post #842940, post #1002317). Is there a recommended way of asking for a second opinion on these rejected flags?

leomole said:
That's not been my experience. post #74461, post #81043, post #504520, post #630448, post #695524 and post #862393 were all kept despite being simply censored versions of the original art. It seems to me a bad precedent to approve a separate post if someone just Photoshops in a sandwich or TV character or black bar.

Creative censorship is usually worth keeping. As for the rest (standard black censor bars, etc), we don't have time to check for related posts when doing approvals. That's what flags are for.

Usermade B&W filter edit are not acceptable, but sometimes those slip through. Hard to check if they're official or not.

Genjar said:
we don't have time to check for related posts when doing approvals. That's what flags are for.

Yes, that's what I meant. I flagged these posts and the flags were rejected.

Genjar said:
Usermade B&W filter edit are not acceptable, but sometimes those slip through. Hard to check if they're official or not.

Does it matter if they're usermade? I thought both usermade and official B&W versions are inferior to full color original posts?

leomole said:
Does it matter if they're usermade? I thought both usermade and official B&W versions are inferior to full color original posts?

As long as there's sufficient difference between the versions, both are usually kept.

Whereas the difference between the original and censored version is generally not large enough to keep both (if the post is otherwise identical), though that depends on the type of censorship. Like I said, novelty censors are often kept.

Okay so who should I contact about reevaluating my flags on post #630448, post #695524, post #1002317 etc?

leomole said:
Okay so who should I contact about reevaluating my flags on post #630448, post #695524, post #1002317 etc?

Generally, you should contact the admin who handled the flag.
I already asked for second opinion about the third one. Haven't got a verdict yet. _{Edit - Never mind, the version with the text is the original, and the textless one is an edit. Both stay.}

But that second post goes beyond basic censoring, because of the rating difference. I could ask about it too, though I suspect that both will be kept.

Okay thanks for your help!

Genjar said:
If they're the same size, we generally delete the censored version.

Really? I often like to see the censored version, and I didn't know this policy existed. That's kind of sad to me if true, as its an official image variant with value being deleted (at least to me. I don't know if anyone else gets pleasure out of erotic censorship the way I do...)

Genjar said:
If they're the same size, we generally delete the censored version.
Unless the uncensored one is an unofficial edit, in which case we (of course) also keep the original. Those always take the priority over edits.

• Image sets where a single "base" is reused multiple times with only minor edits (and no story or natural progression) are not allowed
• Small excerpts (up to 5 at a time) are okay, though.

Straight from the uploading guidelines. I'm of the opinion an official variation even as simple as just having a thin censor should count to that.

If you like censored pictures, why not just make them yourself? It's as easy as drawing a black rectangle and dragging it over the penis/pussy in a picture. You can do it in MS Paint!

It is utterly without artistic value of course, so it doesn't belong on e6, but you can always post it in the comments.

leomole said:
If you like censored pictures, why not just make them yourself? It's as easy as drawing a black rectangle and dragging it over the penis/pussy in a picture. You can do it in MS Paint!

It is utterly without artistic value of course, so it doesn't belong on e6, but you can always post it in the comments.

It's completely different (from a fetishistic point of view) to do it yourself, compared to an "official" censor, and thus pretty useless for my purposes. I would elaborate a bit more, but it's a bit off topic. All I wanted to do was chime in and say that I find the censored versions of pictures uniquely valuable.

Now that doesn't mean I'm able to sway site policies all on my own, but who knows, perhaps I'm not alone on this. You could probably argue to keep them (as long as they're official variants of an image) from a purely archival point of view. I don't think a censor is as clearly inferior as compression artifacts or a lower resolution are.

gaunt0 said:
It's completely different (from a fetishistic point of view) to do it yourself, compared to an "official" censor, and thus pretty useless for my purposes. I would elaborate a bit more, but it's a bit off topic. All I wanted to do was chime in and say that I find the censored versions of pictures uniquely valuable.

Now that doesn't mean I'm able to sway site policies all on my own, but who knows, perhaps I'm not alone on this. You could probably argue to keep them (as long as they're official variants of an image) from a purely archival point of view. I don't think a censor is as clearly inferior as compression artifacts or a lower resolution are.

I know I don't speak for everyone, but censors tend to annoy most people on the western hemisphere, especially in porn. I count myself amongst those sorts of people. I'm guessing there's a cultural difference here. The only time I find censors enjoyable is when it's done for laughs like post 34892 where it covers the face rather than the genitals. That being said, if the censorship is unique and clever, I'm more willing to tolerate it. Post 985832 is fine example of clever and entertaining. Normal censor bars and mosaic shading is just annoying and frustrating to look at.

UnusualParadox said:
I know I don't speak for everyone, but censors tend to annoy most people on the western hemisphere, especially in porn. I count myself amongst those sorts of people. I'm guessing there's a cultural difference here. The only time I find censors enjoyable is when it's done for laughs like post 34892 where it covers the face rather than the genitals. That being said, if the censorship is unique and clever, I'm more willing to tolerate it. Post 985832 is fine example of clever and entertaining. Normal censor bars and mosaic shading is just annoying and frustrating to look at.

Yeah, I understand that perfectly. I enjoy plenty of uncensored images; this is just a specific and admittedly strange kink of mine. Sometimes I even do get frustrated when an image isn't available uncensored, but a lot of the time recently I'm able to look past it and use my imagination, or even enjoy the fact that it's censored. The basic rational is: someone with more authority than you deemed this bit too obscene for you to see, and thus it only becomes more enticing to think about.

I haven't actually seen anyone else come out and say that they specifically enjoy censored porn FOR being censored, but I imagine it's got to have some more representation out there, with how some people prefer sexy clothing to a nude body, for instance.

(...and just for clarification, I'm western as well, so I don't come from a censorship culture like Japan or anything!)

gaunt0 said:
Yeah, I understand that perfectly. I enjoy plenty of uncensored images; this is just a specific and admittedly strange kink of mine. Sometimes I even do get frustrated when an image isn't available uncensored, but a lot of the time recently I'm able to look past it and use my imagination, or even enjoy the fact that it's censored. The basic rational is: someone with more authority than you deemed this bit too obscene for you to see, and thus it only becomes more enticing to think about.

I haven't actually seen anyone else come out and say that they specifically enjoy censored porn FOR being censored, but I imagine it's got to have some more representation out there, with how some people prefer sexy clothing to a nude body, for instance.

(...and just for clarification, I'm western as well, so I don't come from a censorship culture like Japan or anything!)

I guess I can sort of understand that perspective. It's like a forbidden fruit in that regard, for you then. Still, as a young adult, I dislike parental figures (governments especially) dictating what's appropriate for me to consume and what isn't. Could be because I'm American and told I have free will from an early age. It's part of why I avoid eastern porn like a goddamn plague. Japanese porn has better fetish material, but suffers in my opinion from the censorship laws.

gaunt0 said:
The basic rational is: someone with more authority than you deemed this bit too obscene for you to see, and thus it only becomes more enticing to think about.

I see it more as someone attempting to control what I see by obscuring things they deem inappropriate which then denies me the freedom to see what I want to see and am legally allowed to see, but to each their own.

I also see it as an infringement on the artist's right to show people their content in its entirety when someone makes them hide parts of it.

BlueDingo said:
I see it more as someone attempting to control what I see by obscuring things they deem inappropriate which then denies me the freedom to see what I want to see and am legally allowed to see, but to each their own.

I also see it as an infringement on the artist's right to show people their content in its entirety when someone makes them hide parts of it.

This is kind of why I appreciate ineffective_censorship. It's kind of like 'well, you have a point about the need to censor stuff, but.. nah, you don't, it's basically just a joke :p.'

savageorange said:
This is kind of why I appreciate ineffective_censorship. It's kind of like 'well, you have a point about the need to censor stuff, but.. nah, you don't, it's basically just a joke :p.'

Yeah. It's like they're thinking "Okay we're gonna let you draw a picture of two 7yo girls having every orifice tentacle raped in front of passengers on a train, but we're gonna make you put a tiny black square over the girls' clitorises and nothing else because we don't want people to see anything inappropriate, right?".

BlueDingo said:
Yeah. It's like they're thinking "Okay we're gonna let you draw a picture of two 7yo girls having every orifice tentacle raped in front of passengers on a train, but we're gonna make you put a tiny black square over the girls' clitorises and nothing else because we don't want people to see anything inappropriate, right?".

It's a law they only haven't removed because of tradition, not because it makes sense. That's why they allow such ineffective censoring.
People need to understand that the reason for putting those censors on is because Japanese law requires it in order for the image to be shown in Japan-accessible websites. If you're trying to get your art to reach as many people as possible, having a censored version is a good idea.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's a law they only haven't removed because of tradition, not because it makes sense. That's why they allow such ineffective censoring.
People need to understand that the reason for putting those censors on is because Japanese law requires it in order for the image to be shown in Japan-accessible websites. If you're trying to get your art to reach as many people as possible, having a censored version is a good idea.

Aren't all sites Japan-accessible? Or do you mean ones written in japanese?

Making the japanese view censored porn because of their laws is one thing, but what about everyone outside of Japan? They should at least let those who are not bound by their laws have access to uncensored versions of their art.

Also, it's ridiculous how little they can censor without breaking that law. I've seen images where the only thing censored is either a thin line covering a fraction of the clitoris (and nothing else) or a thin line partially covering the rim of the glans (and nothing else). They're also a little iffy about nipple censorship.

For a while, I thought the reason why Japan likes tentacle porn so much was because they can draw penis-shaped tentacles without having to censor them.

BlueDingo said:
They're also a little iffy about nipple censorship.

american tv (shows and movies): oh no, it's a female nipple! quick censor it for it is too obscene for the public to see!

sonic the hedgehog cartoons: *sally acorn appears on screen with naught but a vest and female breasts free for all to see* no nipples? no problems here *shows goes on uncensored*

what...the...fuck? that remains one of the most idiotic things i have ever heard of. oh and on that note, pics of nude females can be rated as clean here so long as they A. have no visible gentalia and B. have no nipple showing iirc. if nipples are showing then it's questionable at best.

and on that note, there seems to be some incorrect tagging regarding female nipples. if the female in question is wearing a shirt and her nipples are not visible then the post doesn't get the tag. if they ARE visible then it does. TWYS not TWYK.

post #326431 -_- some people must be blind. (see krystal's breasts)

BlueDingo said:
Aren't all sites Japan-accessible? Or do you mean ones written in japanese?

Making the japanese view censored porn because of their laws is one thing, but what about everyone outside of Japan? They should at least let those who are not bound by their laws have access to uncensored versions of their art.

Also, it's ridiculous how little they can censor without breaking that law. I've seen images where the only thing censored is either a thin line covering a fraction of the clitoris (and nothing else) or a thin line partially covering the rim of the glans (and nothing else). They're also a little iffy about nipple censorship.

For a while, I thought the reason why Japan likes tentacle porn so much was because they can draw penis-shaped tentacles without having to censor them.

Tentacles were one of the earlier "Legally accepted" things, they've been accepting less and less, to the point where thin lines or just a line of shading is enough, but most of Japan is keeping it out of tradition.

A lot of Japanese artists do hide uncensored work and upload to non-Japanese servers (Furaffinity, Tumblr), but Pixiv, one of the more popular artist-centered gallery websites (Tagging system!), has its server in Japan.

Do they allow negative censoring (ie. highlighting the offending section and inverting the colors)? I like that one because it's easy to reverse, especially if it's a PNG.

BlueDingo said:
Do they allow negative censoring (ie. highlighting the offending section and inverting the colors)? I like that one because it's easy to reverse, especially if it's a PNG.

You'd have to ask somebody else, I don't know the specifics, just that things are getting more and more lenient.

BlueDingo said:
Do they allow negative censoring (ie. highlighting the offending section and inverting the colors)? I like that one because it's easy to reverse, especially if it's a PNG.

No, that's specifically mentioned in the law: the censoring needs to be done so that it can't be easily reverted. That's why most censor bars are solid black.

BlueDingo said:
They're also a little iffy about nipple censorship.

Nipples and the anus aren't considered genitals by Japanese law and thus are perfectly legal to display. I think it gets iffy when the anus is penetrated by something; I've seen that be censored before just to be safe. I've also seen anuses and nipples censored anyways, and I don't know why that was done. Perhaps the artist enjoys the censorship in that case? Or maybe they just don't know the details of the law. Interestingly, pubic hair was also specifically included in the law originally as something that must be censored, but that's no longer the case.

Furrin_Gok said:
Tentacles were one of the earlier "Legally accepted" things, they've been accepting less and less, to the point where thin lines or just a line of shading is enough, but most of Japan is keeping it out of tradition.

I think the tiny bars are still technically illegal. It's probably a gray area, especially with drawn material. I don't think there's a ton of enforcement on random web artists. It wouldn't fly at all with filmed porn though, so they're always thorough with that.

...although, I do remember hearing about someone being prosecuted for distributing doujinshi that wasn't sufficiently censored, so who knows.

Just post them both!

Aryanne_Hoofler said:
Just post them both!

I do agree that if an official censored variant exists, it should be allowed to exist here even if an uncensored version is posted. It's not a clear-cut case of "inferiority" to me, so as to invoke the deletion rules. It's a full-quality, official variant of the work, and thus should remain.

Furrin_Gok said:
Straight from the uploading guidelines. I'm of the opinion an official variation even as simple as just having a thin censor should count to that.

gaunt0 said:
I do agree that if an official censored variant exists, it should be allowed to exist here even if an uncensored version is posted. It's not a clear-cut case of "inferiority" to me, so as to invoke the deletion rules. It's a full-quality, official variant of the work, and thus should remain.

To me it is pretty clear cut. Reason for this is that with Pixiv, their rules actually require genitals to be censored, no matter where you are from, which is why many western artists posting there also censor there. At this point they are following sites guidelines to be able to post there, it becomes yes/no situation that if they will not censor, they can't post, nothing artistic but objective decision. Main problem is that pixiv actually stores images with original properties, most popular sites with japanese seem to be tumblr and twitter after that where first has 1280px max limit and second always compresses images.

To me this is the exact same situation for artists posting animations in really low quality or external loaders when posting to FA and then post much better version here or third party download site. There's absolutely no reason to keep version that was made for FAs limitations that are not here, in same way we do not have censoring rule here so why would we keep the same rule pixiv has here?

So if the quality matches, delete censored one and keep (most likely pixiv) in sources. If quality differs, keep both and remember child/parent relations.

Mario69 said:
Main problem is that pixiv actually stores images with original properties

hmmm... just a thought but would those original versions likely be uncensored? if so and if theres a way to view the original version of pics hosted there i might find pixiv a lot more interesting. otherwise the most i'd use that site for what i already do: sourcing and artist name sourcing.

treos said:
hmmm... just a thought but would those original versions likely be uncensored? if so and if theres a way to view the original version of pics hosted there i might find pixiv a lot more interesting. otherwise the most i'd use that site for what i already do: sourcing and artist name sourcing.

No, it's still always image that artist submits and then just generates previews. What I meant with that is that if you download the largest image from pixiv, it will be the same that artist originally submitted - the original version and not site generated preview. Unfortunately ugoiras are always highly jpg compressed.

This is the reason why this problem exsists to begin with, because other sites like FA, twitter, tumblr, etc. will compress and downscale images especially if they are jpg and over 1280px in dimensions.

gaunt0 said:
if an official censored variant exists, it should be allowed to exist here even if an uncensored version is posted

A version can be official but still inferior. Some artists like to post cropped versions of large pictures to focus on different parts of the scene. Unless these cropped versions are higher resolution than the original post, they are deleted. I've seen official versions of pictures that crop out just enough to hide the genitals. Those are inferior versions too. I've seen official versions with Patreon logos covering all the genitals. That's inferior too. And keeping it goes against the stated goal of e6, to archive high quality furry art, not just any art posted by a furry artist.

Mario69 said:
To me this is the exact same situation for artists posting animations in really low quality or external loaders when posting to FA and then post much better version here or third party download site. There's absolutely no reason to keep version that was made for FAs limitations that are not here, in same way we do not have censoring rule here so why would we keep the same rule pixiv has here?

leomole said:
A version can be official but still inferior. Some artists like to post cropped versions of large pictures to focus on different parts of the scene. Unless these cropped versions are higher resolution than the original post, they are deleted. I've seen official versions of pictures that crop out just enough to hide the genitals. Those are inferior versions too. I've seen official versions with Patreon logos covering all the genitals. That's inferior too. And keeping it goes against the stated goal of e6, to archive high quality furry art, not just any art posted by a furry artist.

I think official crops or lower quality images because of technical restrictions are markedly more inferior than official censored versions. They're purely reductive of the full image, whereas censors are technically additive (even if they could be considered reductive in abstract content, it's still something additional and calculated added to the original image by the artist). If something is being added to an image as an official variant, even if it's a censor, I think that should be grounds for keeping. Essentially, other forms of "inferior" versions (which I agree with), such as cropping, compression, etc. are ONLY reductive in contrast.

gaunt0 said:
censors are technically additive

Yeah and a giant black box that covers half the picture is also technically additive but that doesn't add any artistic value either.

leomole said:
Yeah and a giant black box that covers half the picture is also technically additive but that doesn't add any artistic value either.

This, if it's nothing more than black box, white line, pixelation, stock image from google, etc. then it's simply artist trying to get their artwork on to internet without being slapped for it.

Unless artist have gone extra mile and made seperate image featuring something that falls under convenient_censorship, tail_censorship or similar, I do not see any value in added censoring even if artist did it themselves.

Also there was addition to guidelines of censored content specifically made to advertising content available to buy, even in these cases censor only exsists for users to go and seek uncensored version by giving money to artist. They add absolutely no value to image itself, but take it away, even if it's technically additive.

leomole said:
Yeah and a giant black box that covers half the picture is also technically additive but that doesn't add any artistic value either.

I mean if this was a thing artists were actually intentionally doing for whatever reason, we'd have to worry about it. But it doesn't often happen, if at all. In any case, "artistic value" is up to the artist just as much as it's up to the viewer. I'm sure someone could express something through censoring half their work if they so desired.

Mario69 said:
This, if it's nothing more than black box, white line, pixelation, stock image from google, etc. then it's simply artist trying to get their artwork on to internet without being slapped for it.

Obviously this becomes subjective to an extent, because I'm sure most people don't share my view that official censors are interesting and are content that I want to see. But to me, they're of a unique value beyond the "value" of a partial crop or an image with jpeg compression. All I wanted to do here was express that viewpoint, and that's why I'm in favor of keeping them; they're unique content that I'm personally interested in. I don't expect many people to agree, or the policy to change, but I've laid out my reasoning and maybe some other people out there are like me.

What's the harm in keeping them, beyond "clutter" that can easily be fixed by adding "censored" (or some specific variant tags) to the blacklist?

I just want to pop in and say that both versions of the image that started this discussion were submitted and approved.

Here's the larger one: 1108957

And the smaller one:
1108960

UnusualParadox said:
I just want to pop in and say that both versions of the image that started this discussion were submitted and approved.

Here's the larger one: 1108957

And the smaller one:
1108960

See, my idea worked!