Did he do something? I get that he has art exclusive to Patreon, but he has some art that's also on FurAffinity, so I don't see why none of his art should be posted here.

He took down his stuff himself and requested to be DNP https://e621.net/takedown/show/6073

Probably didn’t want his art posted here and asked to be put on the DNP list.

> Did he do something?

That sounds like OP is asking "Did the artist break a site rule, and have his art removed as a consequence?"

Last animation they uploaded here got instant 9000 downvotes thanks to patreon censoring and I remember commenting on the post that that might piss lots of people off and then they went DNP.
comment #3253885

So I assume they saw users in here to be unthankful entitled bunch and users here saw them as paywalling cunt.

I thought posting paywall content on here was against the rules? Or at least, uploading incomplete works and only have access to it if you paid Patreon? What did he expect? If it's not, I wish there was a rule against Patreon censoring.

fox_whisper85 said:
I thought posting paywall content on here was against the rules? Or at least, uploading incomplete works and only have access to it if you paid Patreon? What did he expect? If it's not, I wish there was a rule against Patreon censoring.

Well, you are wrong. Feel free to refresh yourself on our advertisement guidelines: uploading_guidelines#ads

Patreon censoring is not allowed anymore and advertisement content is allowed as long as the main focus is not in the advertisement. There's thousands of posts with huge patreon logos and posts which are immensily downscaled for artist to be able to share HD versions to patrons, deleting these would make no sense at all.

For context (and you can see this for yourself by simply watching the animation from artists own galleries for free :V), 6 out of 7 videos in the flash file were fully uncensored, 85% of the whole animation were of really high quality and acceptable, that's more than main focus.

So (hopefully) you can kinda see why artist can see users here being entitled and users here see artist as paywalling cunt, so missunderstandings and angery all around.

Of course I could also be wrong and artist could've just felt like that they didn't want the content here for whatever else reason. They never responded to that comment and I haven't been in any sort of contact with them, really rarely contact furries outside e621.

CCoyote said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little too much? Artists have just as much right to profit from their work as anyone else.

I don't want my work featured on this site, either, and lack of common decency and courtesy from the user base (as demonstrated here) is part of the reason.

...you do know what context means? I was simply reading the comments and downvotes on the now deleted post and assumed what the users were thinking of.

Actually, this is exactly what I was talking about, both parties assume worst of each other and neither one is willing to even give an inch and then both are angry. You have to understand that you have audience and try to find terms with them rather than the audience resulting to piracy. I see lots and lots of "paywalling" artists here and they at least seem to be doing fine even with content being here and we try to actively support artists trying to monetize their valuable work with e621 guidelines fully denying paid material leaks these days - and of course to also keep userbase happy by only allowing pure advertisement on our banner advertisement only.

Of course you can do whatever you want with content you have created, but it's then differend matter how your possible fans perceive you and your work. This has been similar tug-o-war with gaming lately, where something like DLC and preorders are seen as fine but lootboxes are evil gambling. Same with furry artists, higher resolutions, source files and early access to content are usually seen fine, but completely locking out content is seen as paywalling.

CCoyote said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little too much? Artists have just as much right to profit from their work as anyone else.

I don't want my work featured on this site, either, and lack of common decency and courtesy from the user base (as demonstrated here) is part of the reason.

Read the entire thing, not just two words.

Mairo said:
So (hopefully) you can kinda see why artist can see users here being entitled and users here see artist as paywalling cunt, so missunderstandings and angery all around.

If you've ever paid attention to how badly users will react to artists using patreon censors, you'd realize that that's an entirely fair assessment of those users' behaviors.

CCoyote said:
I'm in a phase right now where I'm avoiding the comments sections, so no, I didn't read those. However, it's not necessary to repeat the language to get your point across. That only harms the dialogue further, and from what I can tell, good dialogue is important to you.

Pretty sure he only used the insult to underline just how negatively the people in the comments section viewed the censoring. Something that might have been lost with a more polite choice of words.

CCoyote said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little too much? Artists have just as much right to profit from their work as anyone else.

I don't want my work featured on this site, either, and lack of common decency and courtesy from the user base (as demonstrated here) is part of the reason.

Both parties are contributing factors to the issue, and neither one is more worse than the other. Look it! Gimme, gimme, gimme! on one side. I see it! Gimme, gimme, gimme, now! on the other.

It's kind of silly to flog a bunch of "pay to see more" items all over, in an attempt to gain subscribers. Just as it is silly to request art from someone and demand it be completed that day. Or constantly hound them until it's completed.

CCoyote said:
I just don't think it's necessary for someone representing the site to go about calling artists "cunt" because of how they select their business model.

So... you did miss the whole point and completely disregarded the context :|

Because nobody called anyone cunt, only reason for the word to be used was over exaggerating of the situation to make the point clearer.

Mairo said:
This has been similar tug-o-war with gaming lately, where something like DLC and preorders are seen as fine but lootboxes are evil gambling.

I dunno if this is a great analogy. There are calls against buying into preorders and some forms of DLC/microtransaction mechanics, but because of how things work there's not much real pressure until the effects hit the people who would rather just ignore it all.
Which is why Battlefront 2-2 got hit for locking its player progression into opening lootboxes, but people have less problem with CSGO skins being literally used as currency for black-market gambling.

Animatic said:
E621 has the most vile community, and many members have made threats towards me in the past, so none of my work is allowed on that site yeah.

There seems to be a missing link here. After a quick dig around I can't find anything negative toward the artist here outside that one post that kicked this off.
A lot of the time I'm bewildered by the apparent artist-e621 divide that seems entirely driven by downvoting and the inability to self-moderate post comments.

As for private threats I don't imagine e621 treats those much differently to other sites.

Question: Why were takedowns changed to hide the post list?

So, arguements about word-choice aside...

I think the biggest problem with that *specific* picture was that it didn't, to my knowledge, tease and entice the viewer in the usual fashion.

I think teasing and trying to lure people to your patreon is a great idea. I want artists to get the dollars :)

But... typically, patreon-only content is advertised by offering new content sooner (Subscribe to get access to new pages 3 months early!)... or by, say... posting a SFW copy of a picture and mentioning that an adult-only version is available on patreon... Or, say.. a series of pinup images that lead to a "want to see what happens next?"

In this case, the *particular image in question* tried to do that, but... failed.

This post was an interactive animation (you know, the ones with a looping animation where you click to make it go to the next scene), with a super close up of sexy bits, a pussy lick, then some sex, then a super sex close up, then the ENTIRE SCREEN went blurry, and the patreon logo and URL filled it and.. then there's some cum scattered in an 'after' scene.

It feels a lot like using a trial of an art program and being told "oh, you want to save that? No, there's no saving here... unless you buy!"
Or reading a tutorial only to be told "to keep reading, enter your credit card here..."
Or a trial of a game, and playing for an hour only to be told that unless you buy *now*, you lose your progress.

And y'know, feeding off the idea of "I want to see more" is totally legitimate... but there's a line in the sand that's kind of hard to define, and that animation felt very bait-and-switch like. ...I'm sure the artist was trying to entice more customers over, but in my opinion, they went a bit too far and the opposite effect occurred.

Presentation is important, and everyone viewing that animation thought it was like all of the OTHER animations... only to be cockblocked by patreon logos.

It's sort of like watching a movie where they skip the main climax, and jump from rising action into epilogue. There's no satisfaction.

It's their choice of course, but I hope that they learn from their mistake, you know?

Dogenzaka said:
Question: Why were takedowns changed to hide the post list?

People kept abusing it by having crawlers download the images requested to be deleted.

NotMeNotYou said:
People kept abusing it by having crawlers download the images requested to be deleted.

Could we get those lists made public after the images are taken down?

Furrin_Gok said:
Could we get those lists made public after the images are taken down?

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but it's not a priority right now.