BismuthGalaxy said:
Funny how BOTH of you missed the point. It's not about things that were never released to begin with. Imagine if a company decided "fuck you," removed all traces of your favorite video game/movie/etc.

EA did that when Spore was released; they nuked all videos of the earlier, more advanced builds off of youtube. Had those "evil pirates" not have archived the videos to their computers, there would be no proof that EA did such an underhanded move.

Daneasaur said:
EA did that when Spore was released; they nuked all videos of the earlier, more advanced builds off of youtube. Had those "evil pirates" not have archived the videos to their computers, there would be no proof that EA did such an underhanded move.

That's a potentially similar but ultimately not equivalent example, though.

Acolyte said:
I'm not a staff member, but here's the silent explanation for you that the mods and admin are perhaps reluctant to state.

I know a few ecommerce site owners that were sued for using images they found online without permission.

It cost one of them $50,000 in legal fees just to defend themselves in court. Not $50,000 awarded to the plaintiff, $50,000 in FEES to their lawyer. Just to DEFEND against the suit.

That's money ON TOP of perhaps what they would have to pay if they lost the case.

So never mind any high-minded ideals such as hindering piracy, or preserving an archive. THAT is the reason for removing commercial content. And in my opinion, as a site owner, it's a damned good reason.

Thank you for your explanation, and in hindsight the legal side of things probably should have been apparent to me (I mean, like you said, it can cost a lot of money), but hey, I'm no genius here.

Now though, I'm curious as to how the artists saw the 2 year rule, because, ya know, they're giving us the content, paid or not and their opinion matters. I saw one artist in the past comments (I forget who exactly) saying it was harmful, but unless I missed something I don't think there's been a single artist come on here and directly advocate for the rule.

I'm still a little sad because what little paid content I saw was through e621, and now I won't see any, but it's such a little amount that logically I'm kinda sad over nothing. (I looked through my favorites and couldn't find a single deleted post. Who knew that removing 2,500 some images from a site with literally hundreds of thousands, if not near a million, images made almost no difference!)

I also feel like this needs to be said:
I really appreciate the staff that run e621 and keep the site going. Sure, things have been wishy-washy from time to time, but in the 6+ years of me being on the site regularly, I've never had an issue with it. So I just want to say "Thank you" to the staff, because despite any problems, you guys get me a lot of my art and in my experience are reasonable, nice people.

And the same goes for the artists, whom give us all this wonderful content, without you guys, this whole thing wouldn't exist!

Daneasaur said:
Considering they are saying "fuck you, supportive fans"? Yeah.

lol wut

If you're having flashbacks about @Jasonafex or @Kayla-Na then you're suffering from the same disfranchisement as kids when they find out Santa "isn't real".

Acolite, as a site owner, isn't kind of your responsibility to make sure the stuff you use for advertising is withing legal grounds to begin with?

Clearly I've been out of the loop, but I understand and support the admins'/owner's decision. It does make sense and if content creators want their pay wall content shared, they can post it themselves if they so choose.

However, I have two questions that may have been answered here or elsewhere (and I don't the time right now to find it myself). One, what about pay-want-you-want content? Is that some sort of gray area or is there a ruling on that? Second, with the purge of paywall content, are there many instances of higher res paywall posts replacing lower res public access posts? For any cases that exist, however rare or common, will those older posts be restored, if they haven't been already?

UnusualParadox said:
Second, with the purge of paywall content, are there many instances of higher res paywall posts replacing lower res public access posts? For any cases that exist, however rare or common, will those older posts be restored, if they haven't been already?

I’ve already told someone else that & Notme already said so, but yes, they did undelete posts that were previously inferior.

UnusualParadox said:
Clearly I've been out of the loop, but I understand and support the admins'/owner's decision. It does make sense and if content creators want their pay wall content shared, they can post it themselves if they so choose.

However, I have two questions that may have been answered here or elsewhere (and I don't the time right now to find it myself). One, what about pay-want-you-want content? Is that some sort of gray area or is there a ruling on that? Second, with the purge of paywall content, are there many instances of higher res paywall posts replacing lower res public access posts? For any cases that exist, however rare or common, will those older posts be restored, if they haven't been already?

Lower res versions have been restored as I found them. If I have missed any throw me a dmail and I will restore the missing ones.
Pay what you want content is still at that 2 month exception where we want to ensure people have an incentive to donate, if they so chose.

@everyone else, please stay civil or there will be more causalities.

Siral_Exan said:
I’ve already told someone else that & Notme already said so, but yes, they did undelete posts that were previously inferior.

Alright, I didn't have time to dig through 24 pages of whining and inane ramblings to find that answer, otherwise I would have (I was on my half-hour lunch break at the time).

NotMeNotYou said:
Lower res versions have been restored as I found them. If I have missed any throw me a dmail and I will restore the missing ones.
Pay what you want content is still at that 2 month exception where we want to ensure people have an incentive to donate, if they so chose.

@everyone else, please stay civil or there will be more causalities.

Thank you very much, NotMe. I just curious about the former and actually unsure about the latter since they're both free and not free at the same time. I'll keep an eye out, but I expect it's being handled very well by the staff and better half of the community.

Sharp_Coyote said:
For everybody bemoaning the loss of archived commercial works of 2+ years, it is yer own damn fault for not downloading it ages ago when it was still available.

If you are a fan of, say, rare (non-export) Japanese Doujins, of course you d/l them as soon as you find them. DMCA takedowns get filed, DNP requests come in, websites close; hell, even public libraries take books out of circulation. There are many things conspiring against the hoarder, legal or otherwise.

If you are 'too poor' to afford adequate electronic storage for your pursuit, like an external HD, then you are an art enthusiast or admirer, not a hoarder or collector, and your complaint has little traction.

You post serves no purpose but to mock those who used the site for doujinshi. What's to say I and others didn't already save the old content, but are upset about stuff not being posted here in future? If you wanted to teach people to save stuff locally you could do so without being condescending.

Sure the stuff is out there on other sites, but those sites hosting the content are for the most part seedy and don't care whether the artist has had time to earn money from their work. I would hate to see those sites get traffic.

I figured something like this would happen when we approached Patreon's two year mark.

Deimacos said:
Acolite, as a site owner, isn't kind of your responsibility to make sure the stuff you use for advertising is withing legal grounds to begin with?

It sure as hell is. But everyone makes mistakes.
But be aware that there are some people who actively look for stolen content in order to litigate for profit.

Daneasaur said:
I'm sure your charming attitude, PR skills, and ability to understand what people are saying is why you are FORMER Staff.

Not at all, I'm a retired webdev.

We don't have a wiki for this but Former Staff is given to those who left on good terms.

I'm all for it. A lot of legal issues no longer exist now. Besides, all the publicity in the world means nothing if you have nothing to sell.

WhimsicalSquirrel said:
I love the people here complaining that it's now harder to pirate. The entitlement of the untalented is always so amusing.

And the ego of those who think they're more talented than they are is clearly disproportionate.

Thyne said:
And the ego of those who think they're more talented than they are is clearly disproportionate.

Not ego. Grasp on the concept of ownership.

NotMeNotYou said:
When the brony fad started Hasbro tried to dmca us for all r34 pony artworks and we told them to fuck off. We still host that stuff and will continue doing so.

Did they not throw enough money at the admins, or didn't befriend enough admins; like the DNP artists?

Omniscient said:
Did they not throw enough money at the admins, or didn't befriend enough admins; like the DNP artists?

I wish they threw money at me :V

Omniscient said:
Did they not throw enough money at the admins, or didn't befriend enough admins; like the DNP artists?

That's a bold question.

1) The only money that gets to e621 is from ads and thousands of destroyed assholes (Bad Dragon).

2) We're not here to make friends.

3) They weren't the artists, so they couldn't request DNP. Dunno what the difference was between the MLP and the Paddington Bear situations, though.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I wish they threw money at me :V

If only. Positive record reviews will have to do for now, I s'pose.

Omniscient said:
Did they not throw enough money at the admins, or didn't befriend enough admins; like the DNP artists?

That's frankly insulting and I'm not even closely affiliated with the admins.

Also, it seems like some people aren't taking NotMe seriously on his warning. Prepare for the ban hammer to come down like the mighty Mjölnir.

UnusualParadox said:
That's frankly insulting and I'm not even closely affiliated with the admins.

Also, it seems like some people aren't taking NotMe seriously on his warning. Prepare for the ban hammer to come down like the mighty Mjölnir.

It wasn't intended to be insulting, just both a legitimate question and half being snarky(I learned it from the Admins.) Just curious why one thing is okay and the other is not when they're both essentially the same. If they were truly against piracy as many of them claim, and not doing this purely to satisfy artist complaints; they would be removing a lot of other content and further clarifying what this rule actually means. I read the first couple pages and there were quite a few legitimate questions regarding this rule that as far as I can tell went unanswered.

the salt mine thread~
Anyway from my pov if people actually cared about archiving things and had an honest reason for having paid images here you would see many many more complete gallery mirrors. Instead we have patchy coverage unless its a popufur.

I find it a pretty dubious argument that its because you want to keep things open when, really, people just want to see the popular artists work for free.

fewrahuxo said:
hello, FibS.

i'm sorry to say that your aggressive stance on the matter has caused me to go from having a neutral opinion of you into having an extremely negative opinion of you.

i will be sure to tell my friends that they don't deserve your artwork, and will put extra emphasis on the "aren't worth wiping my ass with" bit, because i'm sure you sound like a very pleasant human being to work with.

fewrahuxo said:
yes, it would be immature of me to do that. i do want the artist to know that what they say have consequences, and somebody far crueler would actually go and do something like that.

but it does look like that the artist's comments are indicative of the sort of attitude that discredits artists from having a stake in this conversation, because their responses tend to be emotionally charged and full of bias. there is, once again, a stunning lack of reason to discourse like this.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

That sure makes it clear how disingenuous you are when you say that nobody really cares about the artists like you're the only person who does.

While i agree with this rule on principle, i do disagree on the process of applying this rule change retroactively in opposition to other content changes that were not retroactive for good reason.

This punishes all users that have ever uploaded this content by cutting into the posts they can upload at a time and for some this is all they have uploaded, and those are pretty much fucked as they wont be able to post anything at all now.

Also punishes artists that may have chosen after a time to voluntarily publish their payed content here.

fewrahuxo said:
hello, FibS.

i'm sorry to say that your aggressive stance on the matter has caused me to go from having a neutral opinion of you into having an extremely negative opinion of you.

i will be sure to tell my friends that they don't deserve your artwork, and will put extra emphasis on the "aren't worth wiping my ass with" bit, because i'm sure you sound like a very pleasant human being to work with.

Is this really worth a permanent ban? I think I've seen users say worse stuff about Jasonafex and they've only been temp banned unless they had a prior history.

Darou said:
Also punishes artists that may have chosen after a time to voluntarily publish their payed content here.

Except those artists can just make their works publicly available, and then they'll be able to be visible here. They are still able to voluntarily publish paid content here or anywhere else.

Figured I'd weigh in too.

I'm actually on the negative side of this change myself being a low income person. At the same time I can see the logic in it enough not to be mad because the simple fact is this: I PAINFULLY saw this coming.

anti piracy arguments don't, however, change the fact that you're NEVER going to solve any piracy by simply slapping a 'do not post' on it. Now, a number of other sites stand undecided on this and most people will inevitably filter there. when some inevitability happens they'll go to a place that hosts all these things for free (and even translates some) for free. Stepping away from that everyone REALLY needs to chill out a bit.

Sure I absolutely hate the rule, and even if I had money I would because its not just the people here that are entitled per say, its both sides. artists think they are worth more than they are because they make stuff behind 'protections' that can be easily stripped from them at somebody's expense. users feel entitled to ignore being given one more payment wall to go through to follow some and its given patreon a bad image entirely. No every artist has the moral fiber that say Blitzdraken does to provide a date for public release minus resolution, but its of the same quality. Everyone did that this would have NEVER been an issue.

But lets realize we've also created their problem too Users. Commissioners doing bail out gags, people doing charge backs to these same artists through paypal, paying in fake currency, paying in false currency (same as a paypal chargeback really. you lose money all the same). The list goes on. Patreon has at least secured a stable ground, and people STILL provide those images AFTER paying themselves. Sure, piracy is indeed piracy regardless of form. I just wish there'd have been more public notice.

I'm unhappy, but e621 is FAR from the only place you can potentially find me. we don't provide everything I'm interested in following here, that's just the bottom line. I'm not going anywhere though. I've seen less drama filter through here than anywhere else I've been. I wish you guys the best maintaining this, because people are SERIOUSLY never gonna shut up about this one....oy.

Darou said:
While i agree with this rule on principle, i do disagree on the process of applying this rule change retroactively in opposition to other content changes that were not retroactive for good reason.

This punishes all users that have ever uploaded this content by cutting into the posts they can upload at a time and for some this is all they have uploaded, and those are pretty much fucked as they wont be able to post anything at all now.

Also punishes artists that may have chosen after a time to voluntarily publish their payed content here.

When people lose too much of their upload limit for reasons that are more or less out of their hands (e.g. policy change, or discovery of _raw on tumblr), the admins have been willing in the past to bump upload limits back up by changing that first "10" in the upload limit calculation to something larger (case by case). Earlier in this thread I saw an offer to do just that for someone, although the person receiving the offer said that their high upload limit was mostly useful for posting things banned by this policy change.

Also artists can grant permission for their paid content to be published here. They just have to actively grant permission.

TheTundraTerror said:
Bold mine. Sorry, but in the real world, things only have value if other people think so. I can inject paint into my rectum, assblast all over a canvas, and say it's worth $50.

The difference is that people do put value on it. That it why commissions exist. Hell if you marketed it enough someone might buy your ridiculous example. A basic economics course will teach you that the producer controls the price which in turn affects the demand. The problem is expensive art (aka valued higher than most of the public is willing to pay) generates a low demand of paying customers. A low price (like artificially being free through piracy) yields a higher demand, but low profit. The goal is balance, and previously this site threw off that balance for artists. As much as I will personally miss the extra content, it is btter for the artist and their ability to produce more.

This is why you always save everything you like.

TheTundraTerror said:
Sorry, but in the real world, things only have value if other people think so. I can inject paint into my rectum, assblast all over a canvas, and say it's worth $50.

can we watch

Knotty_Curls said:
can we watch

Ye got $50?

is it like $50 per ticket? or can I buy it like Pay Per View and invite a bunch of people over to watch

is that pirating

Knotty_Curls said:
is that pirating

No, pirating is when you hunt and loot for treasure and say "Arrrg!" and "Yarg!" a lot. And then the scurvy kicks in when you least expect it

TheHuskyK9 said:
No, pirating is when you hunt and loot for treasure and say "Arrrg!" and "Yarg!" a lot. And then the scurvy kicks in when you least expect it

Well, this exhibition is going to contain booty and possible plundering.

The only problem I see of this rule really goes down to deceased artists.

Like, if there's no way to get their content anymore because of them dying besides going on their now-defunct-patreons, then where can that stuff go to be preserved now?

Besides that, I totally understand this change.

Wow. This topic has gotten to Final Fantasy 7 levels of polarizing! 😆 I haven't seen this much polarization since the "lol no unless you're Bernal" policy ended.

My only real complaint is that you¹ didn't tell us. You¹ could have prevented quite a bit of the butthurt by simply stating something like "This is what we're gonna do. We weighed the pros and cons. Legalese reasons translated into human english here." I've realized that it's not the deletions and DNP-setting that's got everyone upset, it's the fact that the decision was made silently. The butthurt ones can't grab onto silence.

But, I get it. You¹ were placed into a Morton's Fork and had to choose which route to go. Sucks to face a Morton's Fork, doesn't it?

¹ You = e621 staff

NotMeNotYou said:

Jasonafex is one record away from being permanently banned, just throwing that out there.

NotMeNotYou said:

Many places don't honor DMCA requests, or make it a pain in the ass to deal with. It's not the artist's fault if they get stonewalled by other pages.

Darou said:
This punishes all users that have ever uploaded this content by cutting into the posts they can upload at a time and for some this is all they have uploaded, and those are pretty much fucked as they wont be able to post anything at all now.

This was covered pages ago, admins are increasing the upload limits of the people who were negatively affected by the loss of their upload count. All these people have to do is to ask an admin.

The only Beef i have with this are artists who make Money with r34-pictures of copyrighted characters and then cry bitter tears when their pay-art gets stolen. The whole Kettle calling the pot black and stuff

JAKXXX3 said:
Is this really worth a permanent ban? I think I've seen users say worse stuff about Jasonafex and they've only been temp banned unless they had a prior history.

I'm almost certain that this users earlier behavior had something to do with this and directly insulting other users was just last nail in the coffin. Even if guidelines are made so that you pretty much have to be told about the same thing at least three times to get permabanned, those are still just guidelines and there are sometimes these kind of cases where admin sees no possible good happening from suspension alone. Extremely rare cases, but still.

That user is in belief that if something exsists, they and "the community" should have completely full access to it. This is extremely toxic behavior which is really easy to make sound like it's correct one. You can take a look at forum #242873 if you want to with more of this.

Casanova said:
And when he is permabanned, his powerful White Knights in executive places (where BD ads are shown) will force e621 to unban him and ensure he is never banned again. He's definitely getting the Boa Hancock treatment.

We have some high profile artists already whose accounts are banned here, latest examples I know are masterploxy for user harrashment and ban circumvention and james howard for tagging/rating abuse and advertisement.
I can almost assure that no amount of popularity here can save you from ban when breaking the rules. Just like we can host files over 1280px and over 10 MB files: this isn't furaffinity, we are already better than that.

Mario69 said:
this isn't furaffinity, we are already better than that.

I dunno, just because I made a sassy remark at a former staff (visible in this thread), I got hit with a negative mark on my account for harassment (public for all to see, it's no secret).

FA will similarly slap you and remove your content because you point out an artist/member did something underhanded, and if you tell anyone, you're slapped for harassing and defaming them.

Don't forget not-so-high profile 'artists' like Leoian, who did manage to toe the line with rules for a while. Ultimately his habit of baiting the userbase into insulting him (then using the report system to silence those who pointed out his plagiarism) got him banned.

We aren't in anyone else's pockets; everyone is subject to the same rules. It's just a matter of:

• being able to prove someone is trying to game the system,
• admins taking the time to see context.

This is exactly why Jason is close to being banned. This is exactly why Fewrahuxo is banned. If anyone still thinks e621 (or Dragonfruit Ventures in general) is like any other furry site, prepare to be surprised.

Knotty_Curls said:
Don't forget not-so-high profile 'artists' like Leoian, who did manage to toe the line with rules for a while. Ultimately his habit of baiting the userbase into insulting him (then using the report system to silence those who pointed out his plagiarism) got him banned.

We aren't in anyone else's pockets; everyone is subject to the same rules. It's just a matter of:

• being able to prove someone is trying to game the system,
• admins taking the time to see context.

This is exactly why Jason is close to being banned. This is exactly why Fewrahuxo is banned. If anyone still thinks e621 (or Dragonfruit Ventures in general) is like any other furry site, prepare to be surprised.

What about admins/mods/janitors/etc abusing their strengths? Is there a failsafe for that?

Or perhaps a mod/admin/etc is upset of something that was offsite concerning [user] but it has no effect or dominion in e621 and so said mod/admin slaps [user] for said offsite offense, but [user] had not performed an infraction of e621's rules?

Or even nepotism where two users are in a somewhat heated discussion (that isn't breaking the rules), but because [user A] is a friend of mod/admin, [user b] is slapped while [user a] suffers no penalty?

Are there safeguards for this or are users simply at the mercy of potentially wishy washy mods/admins who may choose to use this site like it's their personal sandbox?

Daneasaur said:
I dunno, just because I made a sassy remark at a former staff (visible in this thread), I got hit with a negative mark on my account for harassment (public for all to see, it's no secret).

Sassy? You outright insinuated that they were demoted due to their bad behaviour. That's caustic and hostile.

It's a good thing I usually don't follow this kind of stuff normally. I mean, granted, it does suck for the people who had saved pictures on here and then they got deleted. I mean theft is theft nonetheless, however you open a whole different can of worms. My quick summary is the customer and artist of a paid piece should be given the final word on what is to be had with the piece. Either way, I'll write more later when I got more free time. Also I'm kinda a broke dick, so I just try to save my shit and be grateful that all the free stuff is here.

Daneasaur said:
What about admins/mods/janitors/etc abusing their strengths? Is there a failsafe for that?

Or perhaps a mod/admin/etc is upset of something that was offsite concerning [user] but it has no effect or dominion in e621 and so said mod/admin slaps [user] for said offsite offense, but [user] had not performed an infraction of e621's rules?

Or even nepotism where two users are in a somewhat heated discussion (that isn't breaking the rules), but because [user A] is a friend of mod/admin, [user b] is slapped while [user a] suffers no penalty?

Are there safeguards for this or are users simply at the mercy of potentially wishy washy mods/admins who may choose to use this site like it's their personal sandbox?

Transparency: https://e621.net/mod_action

You can also take it up the ladder (see Contact Information) if you have a legitimate claim. I'd like to believe those who profit from e621 have an incentive to make sure its staff members aren't abusing their power and scaring away users. This even extends to the IRC, where a channel op (not an official e621 staff member) lost his status and was ultimately banned because he was giving an e621-affiliated channel a bad rep (arbitrarily kicking users, calling the chat "obnoxious faggots" or "a god damn asylum", etc.)

We definitely have failsafes.

Im so confused. Does paid content=comissions that YOU pay for?

bugs1toy said:
Im so confused. Does paid content=comissions that YOU pay for?

The rule means that if you (more specifically, the general public) need to pay in order to see the image, it's not allowed to exist on this site. (If the image is later released for free, it will be allowed back on the site)

Strikerman said:
Sassy? You outright insinuated that they were demoted due to their bad behaviour. That's caustic and hostile.

Seriously?

It was a sarcastic remark due to how I was re-explaining myself because my initial comments were misunderstood and it was insinuated that I was not welcome here.

Judging by his reply back to me, he wasn't exactly hurt/insulted by it and any aggression between us is n/a because, look at that, we didn't take it too seriously. (like the avatar of a certain admin says to do).

UnusualParadox said:
However, I have two questions that may have been answered here or elsewhere (and I don't the time right now to find it myself). One, what about pay-want-you-want content? Is that some sort of gray area or is there a ruling on that?

I'm a fucking idiot. I coulda, you know, read the actual rules that are publicly available and highly visible, but I guess that would've been too simple and smart for a guy like me.

Knotty_Curls said:
Transparency: https://e621.net/mod_action

You can also take it up the ladder (see Contact Information) if you have a legitimate claim. I'd like to believe those who profit from e621 have an incentive to make sure its staff members aren't abusing their power and scaring away users. This even extends to the IRC, where a channel op (not an official e621 staff member) lost his status and was ultimately banned because he was giving an e621-affiliated channel a bad rep (arbitrarily kicking users, calling the chat "obnoxious faggots" or "a god damn asylum", etc.

So I guess ratte is the only one who can constantly bitch about how she's sick of babysitting these nasty furfucks and banning people for no reason. Your hipocricy is astounding.

Or perhaps you forgot when she was ranting on and on about people who like porn are oversexed retards. Huh guess nobody cares about that. I'm sure this post willbe deleted too.

You can see how she was earlier and basically snarky and extremely rude 24/7 to people who have done nothing to her and even insulting artists who dared talking about porn in the IRC when she was there

Oh yeah, remember when you were bragging about buying alcohol for minors? You must give the site a great rep

rusticus said:
So I guess ratte is the only one who can constantly bitch about how she's sick of babysitting these nasty furfucks and banning people for no reason. Your hipocricy is astounding.

Or perhaps you forgot when she was ranting on and on about people who like porn are oversexed retards. Huh guess nobody cares about that. I'm sure this post willbe deleted too

I suspect she's a masochist.
Why else would someone admin a site with lots 'n' lots of material that they hate?

rusticus said:
So I guess ratte is the only one who can constantly bitch about how she's sick of babysitting these nasty furfucks and banning people for no reason. Your hipocricy is astounding.

Or perhaps you forgot when she was ranting on and on about people who like porn are oversexed retards. Huh guess nobody cares about that. I'm sure this post willbe deleted too

A few things.

First, I'm pretty sure forum posts don't get deleted, just hidden (for archival reasons). Even if it did, it's probably only because this post deserves it.

Second, I happen to like Ratte quite a bit and to the best of my knowledge, she is at least indifferent towards me. Know why? Because I'm respectful towards other people and I don't feel the need to provoke others needlessly.

Third, Ratte isn't immune to any rules nor is she the only admin who bans. If you have a complaint about an admin, you may contest it higher up. Just don't expect anything to happen since 99.9% of bans are completely justified.

Finally, try being nice once in a while. You might be surprised to find that other people will usually treat you with respect. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised by that outcome because that how social interactions work.

Just had to get that out.

Munkelzahn said:
I suspect she's a masochist.
Why else would someone admin a site with lots 'n' lots of material that they hate?

I don't browse the site beyond what my job calls for. I also blacklist the content so I don't have to see it if I don't want to, minus dealing with tag wars. I don't have to like every aspect of a job to like (or even take) the job.

UnusualParadox said:
A few things.

First, I'm pretty sure forum posts don't get deleted, just hidden (for archival reasons). Even if it did, it's probably only because this post deserves it.

Second, I happen to like Ratte quite a bit and to the best of my knowledge, she is at least indifferent towards me. Know why? Because I'm respectful towards other people and I don't feel the need to provoke others needlessly.

Third, try being nice once in a while. You might be surprised to find that other people will usually treat you with respect. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised by that outcome because that how social interactions work.

Just had to get that out.

You're fine. I'm ambivalent toward most people here and I don't really hate anyone. People piss me off, but I don't hate them. Yes, this is possible. I also don't ban people "for no reason". Not liking a reason doesn't make that reason invalid.

This particular example of the human species has had some weird hateboner against me for the past 4-5 years that he has yet to get over, going as far as impersonating me on IRC to solicit typefucks from random people.

Ratte said:
You're fine.

Thanks, I think you're swell too.

I'm ambivalent toward most people here and I don't really hate anyone. People piss me off, but I don't hate them. Yes, this is possible.

Yep, I've come to that conclusion.

I also don't ban people "for no reason". Not liking a reason doesn't make that reason invalid.

The point I was trying to make in my edit.

This particular example of the human species has had some weird hateboner against me for the past 4-5 years that he has yet to get over, going as far as impersonating me on IRC to solicit typefucks from random people.

The IRC? Let me guess, since it was technically off-site, he didn't get more than slight reprimand instead of a ban for impersonating staff? Or did something else happen? I forgot the exact terms of staff impersonation.

I don't have to like every aspect of a job to like (or even take) the job.

If the opposite was true, I probably wouldn't work either.

UnusualParadox said:
If the opposite was true, I probably wouldn't work either.

A lot of people wouldn't have a job if liking it was a requirement, though liking it does help.

UnusualParadox said:
The IRC? Let me guess, since it was technically off-site, he didn't get more than slight reprimand instead of a ban for impersonating staff? Or did something else happen? I forgot the exact terms of staff impersonation.

Given how ridiculous the harassment was getting, he was banned both from the Furnet IRC network as well as on-site. These kinds of exceptions are pretty uncommon, but given how it'd been years with no major indication of changing this behavior, how he'd been made OP (then demoted for hate speech), later banned for yet again being a constant pain in my particular ass, he would then come shitting up my private messages in IRC to insult me, draw crude porn of my characters, and so on. These were all things I never instigated, nor responded to, simply putting him on my ignore list. I had enough when he went as far as sniping my Ratte handle, impersonating me while bugging randos for ERP. That was the nail in his account's proverbial coffin.

I put up with a lot more shit than people like to think.

Ratte said:
Given how ridiculous the harassment was getting, he was banned both from the Furnet IRC network as well as on-site. These kinds of exceptions are pretty uncommon, but given how it'd been years with no major indication of changing this behavior, how he'd been made OP (then demoted for hate speech), later banned for yet again being a constant pain in my particular ass, he would then come shitting up my private messages in IRC to insult me, draw crude porn of my characters, and so on. These were all things I never instigated, nor responded to, simply putting him on my ignore list. I had enough when he went as far as sniping my Ratte handle, impersonating me while bugging randos for ERP. That was the nail in his account's proverbial coffin.

I put up with a lot more shit than people like to think.

And who says fairy tale endings don't exist? Sorry, the end to that story just made me smile because the villain got his just deserts.

In regards to the actual recap, though, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Perhaps those with a basic level of common courtesy are just a rarity these days. It's sad.

Also, this reminds me. I should probably get back to talking to certain online friends again, including you. I'll have some free time later, so maybe I'll send you a message on Discord when that comes.

Laatly, I think this conversation is starting to derail the thread, so I'll leave it here and pick it up elsewhere.

...

Maybe...

kamimatsu said:
Not ego. Grasp on the concept of ownership.

WhimsicalSquirrel is an artist with a clear superiority complex as per their second sentence. An opinion I hold separate from my opinions on this forum topic

I kinda get why this is in place, to prevent privacy, but I mean, it doesn't really make sense? If a movie comes out and I really want to see it, I can pirate it, see it in theaters, or wait for it to come out on DVD. After two years there's a chance that not only has the price dropped, it might be in the value bin at my supercenter. Art prices don't deflate with age, it helps promote the artists, and it brings money to this site in terms of ad revenue. Certain artists aren't fine with their art being reposted at all, why are we only drawing the line at paid for content? It's still stealing to post something here without the artists permission, isn't it?

I mean if not for hosting artwork here I wouldn't have found some of my favourite artists that I've bought from.

I want to know if this is from the artists requesting this change or if it was just randomly done without any consultation to actual artists who posts were on this website after two years? How many were fine with it, how many weren't?

HunnyMilk said:
It's still stealing to post something here without the artists permission, isn't it?

You can't steal something that's already being offered to you for free, and they can't retroactively call it stealing just because you did something with it they don't like after you received it. Sure, reposting their free content when they don't want it reposted isn't a nice thing to do, but it's not stealing.

BlueDingo said:
You can't steal something that's already being offered to you for free, and they can't retroactively call it stealing just because you did something with it they don't like after you received it. Sure, reposting their free content when they don't want it reposted isn't a nice thing to do, but it's not stealing.

Isn't it though? This site makes money off of the content. An artists provides the content on their blog (as an example) to promote themselves. Re-posting the art without giving credit is taking money/attention away from the artist. How is that not stealing? It's stealing revenue from the artist. An artist doesn't give the rights to their art away, they still have the rights to it.

HunnyMilk said:
Isn't it though? This site makes money off of the content.

This site makes money from advertisements.

HunnyMilk said:
Re-posting the art without giving credit is taking money/attention away from the artist.

That one's moving towards plagiarism territory.

HunnyMilk said:
How is that not stealing? It's stealing revenue from the artist.

Stealing is the act of taking another's property without permission. You can't steal something from someone if they don't have it yet, and intercepting a potential revenue stream (assuming any of us are actually doing that) probably goes by another term. I don't know which term, though.

HunnyMilk said:
An artist doesn't give the rights to their art away, they still have the rights to it.

That's more of a copyright thing.

BlueDingo said:
This site makes money from advertisements.

The site makes money from content. Remove the content and leave the ads and see if anyone visits the site anymore.

Acolyte said:
The site makes money from content. Remove the content and leave the ads and see if anyone visits the site anymore.

remove the ads and leave the content
see if it makes any money anymore

I can't fault a platform like this for playing it safe and erring on the side of content creator's rights... but we all know how this "nuh-uh you can't view these bits because they're mine" thing ends.

Economics says there's a price any given person is willing to pay for something and if you ask for more than that they'll find it somewhere else for less. The harder you try and ignore that basic principle of human behavior and treat the consumers like the bad guy for following it the more you bleed.

This approach has been tried over and over and has never been successful by any metric because it's not based on reality, but on feelings.

BlueDingo said:
You can't steal something that's already being offered to you for free, and they can't retroactively call it stealing just because you did something with it they don't like after you received it. Sure, reposting their free content when they don't want it reposted isn't a nice thing to do, but it's not stealing.

That is partially incorrect. Material protected by copyright is protected regardless of media. Posting something publicly on your webcomic site, art gallery, blog et cetera does not make it free. Unless otherwise specified, a permission is required to legally repost the content elsewhere.

But yes, stealing is the wrong term.

Embedded content or even hyperlinks is a fun twist in the copyright world...

Munkelzahn said:
remove the ads and leave the content
see if it makes any money anymore

As long as there's traffic, there's a way to make money. Even without site ads.

Hey members, stop crying about pay per view pictures, and leave already if you don't want to uphold the law.

So, will all the old doujins that were never released for free be deleted?

Acolyte said:
As long as there's traffic, there's a way to make money. Even without site ads.

That's not how it works. You can open a store and get people in it, but if no one's buying anything, there's no income. Perfect example is Wikipedia. They've been begging for donations for years to prevent putting ads on their site yet everyone visits that site daily for whatever reason.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I wish they threw money at me :V

I wish anyone would throw extra money at me.
Just not coins.
Those hurt.