I ask specifically in the case of this post I saw earlier.

post #1403375

All there is here, to the viewer, is 2 3d models of humans. Like, Link is there, and he isn't strictly human, but he basically is, save for his pointy ears. Like I said in the comments of that post, it seems like it's really stretching the boundaries of what is and isn't relevant to e621.

this is not stretching any boundaries? i mean like for example elves, aka "pointy eared humans" are explicitly listed as something that is allowed in uploading guidelines.

https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human

• Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc
• This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine

Commander_Eggplant said:
this is not stretching any boundaries? i mean like for example elves, aka "pointy eared humans" are explicitly listed as something that is allowed in uploading guidelines.

https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

The way I see it is, all you'd have to do to make this completely irrelevant to the site is to just not show Link's ears. If this were at a different angle, even, then it wouldn't be allowed.

Something as small as pointy ears shown for like half a second, I don't think that should be enough to grant this video relevance. The main focus of the video is the human halves of two entities who are 99% human, and nothing else. Their anatomy is completely the same as a human's, except for the pointy ears, which, again, are shown for like, less than a second.

I'm still all for stricter standards. It's just a matter of getting everybody on board with it.

HarryBenson said:
The way I see it is, all you'd have to do to make this completely irrelevant to the site is to just not show Link's ears.

You can also make centaurs irrelevant by putting them in a really big hot tub.

I swear if it was for me, I would delete every single post with just Link and/or Zelda, because they are the biggest loophole on the current guidelines and personally I cannot see them as anything else as human. This has also been brought up couple times now. But try to explain this to users, that even if their uploaded content is approved that it's not exactly most relevant to the website, so that they would stop. Of course they won't stop, it's relevant to them.

Even that particular post, I was already ready to delete it, but then the camera angle showed their pointy ears of two characters, making them relevant.

There are couple cases where Link/Zelda posts have been deleted because their ears were not visible. Of course I also had to explain in full why those were deleted while hundreds of other videos are still on the website. Then again, if we ban pointy ears, what about something like blood elf?

Beanjam said:
You can also make centaurs irrelevant by putting them in a really big hot tub.

That's not a trivial change, though. A slight change in camera angle is.

HarryBenson said:
That's not a trivial change, though. A slight change in camera angle is.

You can do it with camera angle too.

post #1402494

You tilt that up about 20 degrees and suddenly it becomes irrelevant. Even as is, the thumbnail looks like she's just wearing one of those stereotypical really poofy harem/belly dancer pants.

Beanjam said:
You can do it with camera angle too.

post #1402494

You tilt that up about 20 degrees and suddenly it becomes irrelevant. Even as is, the thumbnail looks like she's just wearing one of those stereotypical really poofy harem/belly dancer pants.

The difference between these two things is that you're talking about half of the entities body - more than that, actually, since their lower half is huge.

Whereas, I'm talking about half of an ear. Nothing else separates these entities from humans except for the tiny end of their ear which is pointy.

I feel that that is notably insignificant and not different enough from a human to be relevant, as opposed to an entity which is half-human, half-horse.

I think that pointy-ear humans ought not be considered site relevant and should be deleted.

I find it ridiculous that we think that pointy ears make something not human, while colorful skin does not. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we don't consider humans with colorful skin to be site-relevant, but as far as making something not-human goes, that's a hell of a lot smaller of a change than "pointed ears".

Presumably, by our site's standards, this actual unmodified child would be considered site relevant because he was born with a condition giving him pointy ears:

https://sonoworld.com/images/FetusItemImages/article-images/face_and_neck/ear_anu_patil_images/pointed_ear.jpg

HarryBenson said:
The difference between these two things is that you're talking about half of the entities body - more than that, actually, since their lower half is huge.

Whereas, I'm talking about half of an ear. Nothing else separates these entities from humans except for the tiny end of their ear which is pointy.

I feel that that is notably insignificant and not different enough from a human to be relevant, as opposed to an entity which is half-human, half-horse.

Well that's another argument entirely. My personal take on it is that judging humanity by relative mass of visibly different body parts is, no offense, completely asinine. And if you must do it that way, then surely facial features should at the very least be given a significantly higher weighted value.

Clawdragons said:
I find it ridiculous that we think that pointy ears make something not human, while colorful skin does not.

So just don't use the elf tag at all, then? Or implicate elf to human?

Beanjam said:

So just don't use the elf tag at all, then? Or implicate elf to human?

I'm fine with having an "elf" tag, but I meant as far as determining whether or not something is relevant to the site.

We have a gem_(species) tag despite the fact that gems are generally considered human as far as site-relevance is concerned.

Speaking of gems, there seem to have been a lot that have gotten through the site-relevance filter and I can't figure out why:

post #1315804 post #1271721 post #1178268 post #1161972

Maybe just mistakes?

Clawdragons said:

Speaking of gems, there seem to have been a lot that have gotten through the site-relevance filter and I can't figure out why:

post #1315804 post #1271721 post #1178268 post #1161972

Maybe just mistakes?

No, grandfathered post apparently. The third one has a tentacle mass and the second & fourth one may not justify as being entirely human, but those are separate arguments.

Siral_Exan said:
No, grandfathered post apparently. The third one has a tentacle mass and the second & fourth one may not justify as being entirely human, but those are separate arguments.

Tentacles don't count as characters unless actually attached to something, so presumably they don't count towards an image being relevant to the site any more than a canine dildo would.

I thought grandfathering images only counted for better versions of previous images, not alternate versions. Particularly the last one - the flash it comes from actually does have a cyclops in it, so would be site-relevant where the child would not be.

Clawdragons said:
Tentacles don't count as characters unless actually attached to something, so presumably they don't count towards an image being relevant to the site any more than a canine dildo would.

I thought grandfathering images only counted for better versions of previous images, not alternate versions. Particularly the last one - the flash it comes from actually does have a cyclops in it, so would be site-relevant where the child would not be.

I'm not the person you go to for arguing those points. The only thing I can tell you, without a doubt, is that the first image you linked is the BVAS of a year old image, so it is grandfathered in. The rest can be argued as human or not human, but that's not my place to say. Ask the approving staff member why they approved it, or Notme for a verdict, I can only speculate that what each image has an aspect that can count as "not human".

Tip-toeing that line has been made easier and easier as of late, but at the same time the rules as written are strictly against humans with what excepted it made looser for "gems". Maybe you can ask an admin for further definition or to further specify what makes a human not a human.

Clawdragons said:
Tentacles don't count as characters unless actually attached to something, so presumably they don't count towards an image being relevant to the site any more than a canine dildo would.

I thought grandfathering images only counted for better versions of previous images, not alternate versions. Particularly the last one - the flash it comes from actually does have a cyclops in it, so would be site-relevant where the child would not be.

As long as tentacles seem to be able to move on their own, e.g. trying to actively get under human characters skirt, they can be deemed acceptable, even if they wouldn't count as seperate character for tagging purposes.

As for animations, filetype conversions are handled as such and not so much as better/alternate versions. However you are right in that case, the reason why flash was most likely approved was the "yokai" and "paper" scenes more than the main scene and the GIF was most likely accidentally approved for reason that flash was approved, so I got rid of that.

Clawdragons said:
Maybe just mistakes?

Most likely, except for the grandfathered ones. The queue is massive, and once you get to the thousandth approval of the day it's easy to lose focus.

Which can result in, for instance, one version being deleted as irrelevant while the other one (post #1271721) gets approved.

as for tightened standards, it can be slippery

If pointy ears are bad, what about animal_humanoids who only have cat ears?

what about humans with wings? what about horns? What about a tail which COULD be clipped on or, ahem, plugged in.

I mean: post #816507 post #220108 post #220771 <-- this could be body paint

If we don't like humans, why does a centaur, a satyr, or a mermaid be allowed?

No matter where the line is drawn, it's going to be troublesome, and some people will be unhappy with what's on one side of it or the other.

SnowWolf said:
If pointy ears are bad, what about animal_humanoids who only have cat ears?

I think cat ears are fine, cause this is a furry site and cat ears are directly related to that.

As someone who has animal humanoids blacklisted, I still think there is a clear distinction between them and elves. For one, they actually have animal characteristics, and (to bring up my example from earlier) aren't particularly similar to traits which humans already have.

Besides, even if you can't draw a specific line in the sand, I think it's pretty clear that there are some things which fall much more on one side than the other.

I don't put much stock in unfounded slippery slopes.

HarryBenson said:
I think cat ears are fine, cause this is a furry site and cat ears are directly related to that.

But by that argument, orcs are not okay. What about dwarves and goblins? trolls?
What about faeries? and angels?
Are draenei okay because they have hooves and horns?

My point is what makes a picture furry?

You are wanting to directly say that Trait A is not-furry, while Trait B is furry.

Someone, somewhere, has to define that, and no matter what is picked, someone won't agree. right NOW the line is drawn all the way to one side--pointy ears are enough.

And, in proof of point... i'd be a bit bummed out to see pointy-eared humanoids deleted. I think there are some great posts out there that involve pointy eared humanoids.

And once you start down that path, what about posts that have a human 'and' something? what about a anthro wolf with a human? what about a human and a wolf? how about some birds? does it count if the birds are just sorta... ambient? what about a human and disembodied wolf dick? or disembodied hands, but the hands are brown and vaguely furry?

It's somethign that should be approached carefully, is what I'm saying.

I don't much like elves myself, but I think it's better if we keep them.

Judging by the votes, they're a big draw for the site. And based on various 4chan threads, they're kind of a gateway to more exotic content. ...I've seen more than one anon admit that they made a troll account here, but then got distracted by the humanoid art and became a regular visitor.

Personally, I don't see much difference between elves and other nearly human content such as:
post #651516 post #396722 post #190847

Singling out the elves would be arbitrary, while including more than that would make it very hard to draw the line between relevant and irrelevant. And that's hard enough already.

SnowWolf said:
But by that argument, orcs are not okay. What about dwarves and goblins? trolls?
What about faeries? and angels?
Are draenei okay because they have hooves and horns?

My point is what makes a picture furry?

When I first got into it, I assumed containing anthro animals was what made an image furry.

Before that, I assumed it was 'containing a lot of fur.

Nowadays, the line's been scuffed and smudged so many times that it camouflages with the ground it's drawn on.

Genjar reminds me of another point: If you have, say, a human dick girl, with a horse penis, isn't that... as 'furry' as a girl with cat ears?

On another note... if people feel that the current tags are not adequate for their blacklists, what's being missed?

SnowWolf said:
Genjar reminds me of another point: If you have, say, a human dick girl, with a horse penis, isn't that... as 'furry' as a girl with cat ears?

Relevant: forum #218648

SnowWolf said:
Genjar reminds me of another point: If you have, say, a human dick girl, with a horse penis, isn't that... as 'furry' as a girl with cat ears?

Yep, and that exact example is actually listed in the uploading guidelines.

Honestly, I think the line is a bit blurry. Allowing some wiggle room for best-judgement would probably be best. It's not like there's no precedent for subjective guidelines for approval, nothing's more subjective than quality.

Sometimes it feels like it depends on which mods see the post first, or if it's uploaded by someone contributor+. I've had posts with humanized versions of furry characters deleted for being off-topic, while other similar posts get approved if a mod likes it.

This is sommat of a slippery slope. On the one hand, Tiny pointed ears or horns or a horse cock on an otherwise human is okay, But colored skin or a pointy nose doesn't hit that relevant mark.

The "where do we draw the line?" has been the issue since forever, and is still the problem why I am unwilling to move it any further. Elves can be blacklisted quite easily, and after that it just becomes too muddy to really be able to make a simple decision on what is or isn't "furry".
Also, we still have aliens like the Asari, robots, tentacle monsters, reptiles, etc as species that aren't technically furry, but are generally fantastical enough to be relevant.

Especially the "fantastical enough" is something I'm rather fond of as guideline on whether or not something is relevant enough to us. Anthros are fantastical, so are living robots, or living sock puppets, or ghosts, elves, fairies, etc. Body painted humans aren't exactly fantastical, however.

Personally I believe the way it currently is is the best compromise of being furry, and being fantastical enough that it's still somewhat relevant regardless of absence of fur. And the borderlines species that are allowed in are few enough that they can be blacklisted without too much trouble.

I understand the admins position on the issue, and I think the current stance is reasonable. That said, banning elves would be unambiguously a good thing. But yes it would just make the guidelines messier.

leomole said:
That said, banning elves would be unambiguously a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBQAYXiZ5n0

leomole said:
banning elves would be unambiguously a good thing.

i have seen people draw elves in a way that honestly makes them look a lot more animal-like than some animal humanoids on this site are. so i really do not think that it would be good idea.

Commander_Eggplant said:
i have seen people draw elves in a way that honestly makes them look a lot more animal-like than some animal humanoids on this site are. so i really do not think that it would be good idea.

Basically, this.

and I really love what NotMeNotYou said about things being "fantastical enough". That really captures the site to me. It's not just furry, it's fantastic. It's everything that's not-quite human. It's faeries and elves and demons and orcs and werewolves and monsters AND furries. And I like that.