Well, Recently there was an art post taken down for just having humans. This is the art that was posted: https://anegyhw-nsfw.tumblr.com/post/172205490679/these-shyguys-dont-seem-that-shy-to-mebrand-new (warning NSFW)

It depicts two Shyguys and was deleted for the following reason "Irrelevant to site. (Human only, skin color and masks won't count)" Which caught me off guard because normally Shyguys aren't considered to be humans due to two main factors.

1. We do not know what is under their mask, it could really be anything.

2. They are a member of the Koopa Kingdom/Browsers army both of which are only shown to contain nonhuman entities.

Those two factors lead to most people considering Shyguys to be nonhuman humanoids similar to most of their countrymen. Now if they should be considered human despite this, then why do toads get the free pass? They originate from a kingdom that contains humans, and it has been depicted that the mushroom cap is little more than a hat(Granted this was in a spin-off).

Personally, I don't believe that it is accurate to call them human as it is little more than an assumption while they are humanoid by definition. Now I'm not the one running this show and I would like to get a straight answer to prevent any confusion.

Lore is irrelevant. If there are no visible nonhuman traits, they (and anything else) are considered human.

Ratte said:
Lore is irrelevant. If there are no visible nonhuman traits, they (and anything else) are considered human.

Okay, thanks.

Ratte said:
Lore is irrelevant. If there are no visible nonhuman traits, they (and anything else) are considered human.

But can color be considered a nonhuman trait? After all in this image not only is the skin abnormally dark but for the female variant the internals of the vagina is blue and for the male variant the tip of the penis is also blue, not colors naturally found in human beings.

jeveasy17 said:
But can color be considered a nonhuman trait? After all in this image not only is the skin abnormally dark but for the female variant the internals of the vagina is blue and for the male variant the tip of the penis is also blue, not colors naturally found in human beings.

No.

jeveasy17 said:
But can color be considered a nonhuman trait? After all in this image not only is the skin abnormally dark but for the female variant the internals of the vagina is blue and for the male variant the tip of the penis is also blue, not colors naturally found in human beings.

Colors, and, unless something changed since I last checked, random accessories including gemstones in the flesh (See Steven_universe) don't count as non-human.

In fact, I've been told before by staff that feathered pubes aren't non-human.

jeveasy17 said:
...
1. We do not know what is under their mask, it could really be anything.

2. They are a member of the Koopa Kingdom/Browsers army both of which are only shown to contain nonhuman entities.

...

Personally, I don't believe that it is accurate to call them human as it is little more than an assumption while they are humanoid by definition. Now I'm not the one running this show and I would like to get a straight answer to prevent any confusion.

jeveasy17 said:
But can color be considered a nonhuman trait? After all in this image not only is the skin abnormally dark but for the female variant the internals of the vagina is blue and for the male variant the tip of the penis is also blue, not colors naturally found in human beings.

You have gone way overboard with assumptions rather than reading how the site operates.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/tag_what_you_see aka we will not make assumptions what can be there, but only what can be seen on the post itself.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#humans aka body color is irrelevant and the deviation to regular human has to be clear for it to be considered as humanoid.

I really don't want to approve simpsons just because they are yellow in skin color.

Reason why there are so many shyguy/shygirl posts approved is that they either contain other characters of relevancy or they themselves show some trait that makes it clear they aren't simply humans wearing massive hoodie and mask. One really common thing is that mask is making expression which relates to event and blushing, meaning that mask is part of character (or directly connected to character making mask living object) rather than just decorative they are wearing. Alternatively posts are so goddamn old that they have been grandfathered.

This and Princess Bubblegum posts are just nightmare to handle and commonly deleted, if it's clear that character has body parts which is goo makes them goo_creature/humanoid, meaning that if artist draws them more humanlike they are out.

Mairo said:
Reason why there are so many shyguy/shygirl posts approved is that they either contain other characters of relevancy or they themselves show some trait that makes it clear they aren't simply humans wearing massive hoodie and mask. One really common thing is that mask is making expression which relates to event and blushing, meaning that mask is part of character (or directly connected to character making mask living object) rather than just decorative they are wearing. Alternatively posts are so goddamn old that they have been grandfathered.

Still, there are a few that remain, like post #1324492 which was only posted a few months ago and lacks any sort semi-organic mask type features. While things like this one post #1399881 which, looking at the source image , is kinda the opposite case.

Is this just a different approvers having different standards thing?

darryus said:
Still, there are a few that remain, like post #1324492 which was only posted a few months ago and lacks any sort semi-organic mask type features. While things like this one post #1399881 which, looking at the source image , is kinda the opposite case.

Is this just a different approvers having different standards thing?

Some things slip through on occasion.

jeveasy17 said:
1. We do not know what is under their mask, it could really be anything.

That is ... really bad logic. Should we approve pictures of trees because there could be an anthropomorphic cat behind it?

leomole said:
That is ... really bad logic. Should we approve pictures of trees because there could be an anthropomorphic cat behind it?

No, because the rule is Tag What You See.

With the tree, we cannot see the cat, so the cat is not tagged.

If the shyguy is a reptile under the mask, we do not tag it because we can't see it. What we can see is a completely humanoid body with nothing 'unusual' that would suggest that they are anything but a black skinned human.

pointy ears say that "I am not human" ... black skin... well, things like body paint, etc exist.

Look, the rules have to be phrased in a clear and concise way. They need to be understandable. Rules need to have a minimum of exceptions.

Sheaths are a good example of this.

These images are all rating:e

post #1427601 post #1427555 post #1414386

Why? Because there is a sheath in each picture.

Which is a bit silly, because that's a think that real life animals have and we don't really think of it as inappropriate then. I mean, very very few insist that a dog wear pants to keep it's doggy bits concealed. Those pictures are just realistic anatomy... but how to you draw the line between the above images and, say:

post #1437615 post #1315102 post #1407276

both have the same anatomy being shown, jsut some are more 'tasteful' than others... but where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line between the 'simpsons' being disallowed, while allowing shyguys?

The only option is to move the bar up-- but do we really want to start saying that some characters are not furry enough? I mean.. elves have over 6000 posts. orcs have 2500. There are over 17000 demon posts, ranging from human-with-horns to monsters.

The easiest thing is to say that the characters must display a visible, notable trait that indicates that they are non-human.

That means that if post #1449813 wasn't showing his teeth and standing at a different angle, he wouldn't be allowed.
That means that if post #1449815 was a tail-less sort of monkey, s/he wouldn't be allowed (probably).
That means that if post #1449803 was shot from the site and it was revealed that the wings were not attached to her back, that she would not be allowed.
That means that if post #1452780 was framed differently so you shouldn't see her horns/eyes, she wouldn't be allowed.
That means that if post #1432841 was looking away from the camera, she'd be disallowed.

It happens, and it's good because it keeps us from being flooded by steven universe, by the simpsons, by doki doki literature club, by whatever the new and neat 'blue skinned humans are... unless they also have antennas, or ears, or extra fingers or a horse cock or whatever.

SnowWolf said:
No, because the rule is Tag What You See.

Yes that was my point.

SnowWolf said:
do we really want to start saying that some characters are not furry enough?

Elves are 0.4% of this site. Orcs are 0.2%. Demons make up just over 1%, but demons of the strictly not_furry sort are closer to 0.3%.

Our current uploading guidelines are fine but they could be tightened up.

leomole said:
Yes that was my point.

...I am supporting your statement?

Elves are 0.4% of this site. Orcs are 0.2%. Demons make up just over 1%, but demons of the strictly not_furry sort are closer to 0.3%.

whats your point? they make up a fair number of posts here and trying to tighten up the rules to allow for more restrictions just causes more problems.

Our current uploading guidelines are fine but they could be tightened up.

Well, you won't see change you want to happen by just saying "The rules could be better" ... if you have a suggestion, suggest it. :)

SnowWolf said:
...I am supporting your statement?

Yes, at least when I read leomoles statement they were trying to explain that jeveasy trying to justify shygals because of them having anything behind the mask is bad idea.

But you are both explaining the same thing, when you have to guess what's in the picture or go by lore it's bad idea.

leomole said:
Our current uploading guidelines are fine but they could be tightened up.

I'm especially annoyed with Link, however I have not gotten any good ideas that would make them beyond irrelevant without banning most humanoids in the same process, so we'll have to endure Link being relevant unless someone does come up with guideline that isn't just "don't upload Link".

SnowWolf said:
...I am supporting your statement?

Oh sorry I read your comment as trying to correct mine.

SnowWolf said:
if you have a suggestion, suggest it. :)

Mairo said:
I have not gotten any good ideas that would make them beyond irrelevant

No humans
Humans in costumes are still humans.
Humans in masks are still humans.
Humans with modified hair color are still humans.
Humans with modified skin color are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing teeth are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing noses are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing ears are still humans.
Humans with animal parts (teeth, nose, ear, penis) are animal humanoids and will be accepted.

leomole said:
No humans
Humans in costumes are still humans.
Humans in masks are still humans.
Humans with modified hair color are still humans.
Humans with modified skin color are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing teeth are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing noses are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing ears are still humans.
Humans with animal parts (teeth, nose, ear, penis) are animal humanoids and will be accepted.

Yes please.

Though to be more accurate, you shouldn't say "no humans" but rather "no human-only pictures" (since humans are still fine if the picture also includes non-humans).

leomole said:
Humans with modified or missing teeth are still humans.
Humans with modified or missing ears are still humans.

The problem here is that modified ears or teeth are seen as being animal parts, so why even have that line? Maybe if it were "Humans with missing or damaged--", but not modified.

leomole said:
modified

That's a pretty vague term.

Furrin_Gok said:
The problem here is that modified ears or teeth are seen as being animal parts, so why even have that line? Maybe if it were "Humans with missing or damaged--", but not modified.

Maybe, though I think you could make the argument of 'modified' being still recognizably based in human anatomy. Hylian/most elf ears can be described as 'pointed human ears', some of them aren't even outside of what's possible in just human variation and/or are achievable with minor cosmetic surgery. Teeth can be tricky. There are characters who are explicitly human with sharp/sharpened teeth (sometimes as a body-modification, sometimes as some sort of individual trait) and art styles that can exaggerate/emphasize canine teeth as much/more than the elongated canine teeth of some demon/vampire characters.

I personally think that if something is within the range of realistic human variation, realistic cosmetic surgery, and/or stylistic flair, it shouldn't be enough to qualify as a non-human trait.

regsmutt said:
I personally think that if something is within the range of realistic human variation, realistic cosmetic surgery, and/or stylistic flair, it shouldn't be enough to qualify as a non-human trait.

I feel like doing this would have us exclude a whole bunch of like fictional alien species from stuff like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. as well as wingless demons and more human looking scalies, because shit that people can do with body modification or really good professional makeup artistry is pretty crazy.

darryus said:
I feel like doing this would have us exclude a whole bunch of like fictional alien species from stuff like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. because shit that people can do with body modification or really good professional makeup artistry is pretty crazy.

I actually brought up (or tried to, at least) that topic up to IRC due to my Aunt and Uncle discussing it and showing off a couple pictures. Nonetheless, since it is possible, how would we treat images that appear to be humans with features originally non-human? I've only seen points added to ears (via surgery) thus far, there may be more that I am unaware of.

Siral_Exan said:
I actually brought up (or tried to, at least) that topic up to IRC due to my Aunt and Uncle discussing it and showing off a couple pictures. Nonetheless, since it is possible, how would we treat images that appear to be humans with features originally non-human? I've only seen points added to ears (via surgery) thus far, there may be more that I am unaware of.

It's kind of a hard question to answer, I'd prefer to err on the side of leniency, so anything in the ranges of probably to defiantly not a human in a costume should be fine.

... but then there's still problems like what about Fox Dad that's defiantly definitely just a guy in a suit; should that be deleted? I don't know.

Edit: post #1494282 Apparently Mairo thinks it should...

darryus said:
It's kind of a hard question to answer, I'd prefer to err on the side of leniency, so anything in the ranges of probably to defiantly not a human in a costume should be fine.

... but then there's still problems like what about Fox Dad that's defiantly just a guy in a suit; should that be deleted? I don't know.

Edit: post #1494282 Apparently Mairo thinks it should...

"Defiantly"...

But yes, I feel like leniency is key. I merely wonder if that would change the attitude taken towards humanoid-approved posts at all. There's really no good answer, but maybe the staff members have one anyhow.

darryus said:
I feel like doing this would have us exclude a whole bunch of like fictional alien species from stuff like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. because shit that people can do with body modification or really good professional makeup artistry is pretty crazy.

I know makeup can be very dramatic, so 'achievable by makeup/prosthetics/costume' isn't a good bar. Implants do introduce some grey area with things like horns, but 'klingon'-like texture doesn't seem plausible since fine detail doesn't show on implants. Ear-pointing is also a bit different from implants since the finished look is much more subtle. Some people also naturally have pointier ears and some incidental things (hairstyles, hats, and just angle) can imitate the look. Star Trek has a few species that really don't look very non-human- bajorans for instance have a very subtle nose detail, and the dosi just appear to be wearing face-paint.

leomole said:
Humans with animal parts (teeth, nose, ear, penis) are animal humanoids and will be accepted.

I'm not sure how most of those could reasonably be allowed under the same sort of logic some of the linked posts here have been removed. You can't really distinguish something like the typical ears-and-tail catgirl from just a regular human wearing ears and a tail in most pictures. Animal genitalia and whatnot clearly push it past being 'just human', but something as minimal as animal ears is something I can (and have!) just seen on random people IRL. If I didn't know that people with *actual* animal ears aren't part of the 'lore' of real life, I wouldn't be able to tell they weren't real without looking up close; likewise, without taking into account the lore of most of those characters with minimal animal characteristics, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it just being an ordinary human with decent fake ears and one with actual, natural ones.

hanzai said:
I'm not sure how most of those could reasonably be allowed under the same sort of logic some of the linked posts here have been removed. You can't really distinguish something like the typical ears-and-tail catgirl from just a regular human wearing ears and a tail in most pictures. Animal genitalia and whatnot clearly push it past being 'just human', but something as minimal as animal ears is something I can (and have!) just seen on random people IRL. If I didn't know that people with *actual* animal ears aren't part of the 'lore' of real life, I wouldn't be able to tell they weren't real without looking up close; likewise, without taking into account the lore of most of those characters with minimal animal characteristics, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it just being an ordinary human with decent fake ears and one with actual, natural ones.

You can distinguish them in some images- visible headbands/belts do get images removed (there are some exceptions like post #1495870 but these are probably flukes). The 'four-ear' thing can be a tell, and just from a quick browsing of the animal_humanoid tag, the rareness would suggest that it gets images removed without something like a visibly attached tail. The tag seems to be mostly filled with things like post #1489658 where there's nothing suggesting that it's just an accessory.

Furrin_Gok said:
The problem here is that modified ears or teeth are seen as being animal parts

No, modified body parts (like pointed ears) are considered nonhuman, not animal. That's how they make it past the filter. Actual animal body parts make a character an animal humanoid like I said.

hanzai said:
You can't really distinguish something like the typical ears-and-tail catgirl from just a regular human wearing ears and a tail in most pictures.

The policy (which is already in place) is to assume leniently that animal body parts are real unless you can see the attached headband or buttplug for example.

leomole said:
No, modified body parts (like pointed ears) are considered nonhuman, not animal. That's how they make it past the filter. Actual animal body parts make a character an animal humanoid like I said.

So do you think we should just nix everything that's not_furry sans animal_humanoids?

leomole said:
No, modified body parts (like pointed ears) are considered nonhuman, not animal. That's how they make it past the filter. Actual animal body parts make a character an animal humanoid like I said.

i have already explained this to you. what you want to filter out from this site can sometimes be far more animal-like than what many animal humanoids are. you cannot just ban all elves, orcs, trolls etc for being too human and still allow all animal humanoids that are literally just humans with hair tufts that are arguably animal ears.

darryus said:
So do you think we should just nix everything that's not_furry

I'm just suggesting a way to exclude characters that are essentially human.

Lord_Eggplant said:
i have already explained [my opinion] to you.

I hear and respect your opinion. But it's not the only opinion. Respected users like Mairo and Clawdragons above agree that humans with pointy ears shouldn't be part of e6 are annoying and are essentially just human.

Lord_Eggplant said:
you cannot just ban [elves] for being too human and still allow all animal humanoids

Sure you can. You just have to implement the guidelines I gave above. Easy peasy.

So what would be the benefit of that?
Alienating part of the established userbase simply because some don't like the content seems like a bad idea to me. Especially if it comes at the additional cost of making the upload rules more complex: there's already more than enough confusion about what's okay to upload.

regsmutt said:
I know makeup can be very dramatic, so 'achievable by makeup/prosthetics/costume' isn't a good bar.

As if sensing my needs, youtube offered this to me tonight.

leomole said:
But it's not the only opinion. Respected users like Mairo and Clawdragons above agree that humans with pointy ears shouldn't be part of e6.

Hi. I like elves and humans with pointy ears. I think they're pretty neat.

Lord_Eggplant said:
you cannot just ban [elves] for being too human and still allow all animal humanoids

Sure you can. You just have to implement the guidelines I gave above. Easy peasy.

Oh? So easy?

So, when the rules change, the rules need to be enforced. So the number of previously-acceptable posts go up. the mods spend a lot more time deleting things. The mods spent more time explaining that the rules changed. People come flooding to the forum and argue about if the change is a good thing or a bad thing or what have you. People complain. and they don't jsut complain once, they complain again, over and over again.

I've seen this happen so many times. They'll be a flurry of activity, then it'll come back up every week for months. I mean, people can't even post for picture-finding help in the right forum. they're not going to find the right thread for complaining about rule changes.

this change adds in hours upon hours of extra work, as people upload and say "but there are already pictures like this here!" and then we have to, again, explain that they were grandfathered in. again.

It's not so 'easy peasy' :/

SnowWolf said:
People complain. and they don't jsut complain once, they complain again, over and over again.

They will complain exactly the same as the people that don't like our broader guidelines at the moment. All we get is a different portion of users whining about basically the same thing, just from a different angle.

And it's still always only the same people not liking elves and orcs.

NotMeNotYou said:
They will complain exactly the same as the people that don't like our broader guidelines at the moment. All we get is a different portion of users whining about basically the same thing, just from a different angle.

And it's still always only the same people not liking elves and orcs.

To be fair, I don't like animal humanoids either, but I think they fit the site reasonably well so I don't object to their inclusion. My complaint about elves has more to do with what I see as an inconsistency in the rules than with personal preference. Characterizing it as "not liking elves and orcs" isn't really accurate.

SnowWolf said:
So the number of previously-acceptable posts go up.

We shouldn't grandfather in irrelevant posts. They should be deleted without affecting the uploader's limit, that's the primary concern.

NotMeNotYou said:
And it's still always only the same people not liking elves and orcs.

Not that I loved elves less, but that I loved anthros more.

Clawdragons said:
To be fair, I don't like animal humanoids either, but I think they fit the site reasonably well so I don't object to their inclusion. My complaint about elves has more to do with what I see as an inconsistency in the rules than with personal preference. Characterizing it as "not liking elves and orcs" isn't really accurate.

And we still open the can of worms that are robots, tentacles, plant based characters, more esoteric demons, etc.
If it needs to be part animal, are goo characters qualified because they're basically just amoeba, yet most of them just look like shiny plastic humans that are melting.

We can also argue that humans should be included because they're still animals, just a species of hairless primates.

leomole said:
We shouldn't grandfather in irrelevant posts. They should be deleted without affecting the uploader's limit, that's the primary concern.

That's straight up impossible without rewriting how our deletion system and the corresponding upload limit equation works. Or we'd be forced to manually go through and change the upload limit for every user after we verify and delete the old stuff. That would take months of work.

NotMeNotYou said:
That's straight up impossible without rewriting how our deletion system and the corresponding upload limit equation works.

Yes, the upload limit equation could be improved. Common suggestions include no penalty for uploading a better version of a post you uploaded, no penalty for posts that were deleted due to rule changes (like removal of the grandfather clause), maybe a nonlinear increase in upload limit for power users, etc.

I feel like this is an argument that can be solved with a few users who think they're better than everyone else taking a short visit to the blacklist rather than suggesting broad, psudo-ethnic-clensing, rule changes because they don't want their perfect website sullied by fantasy races.

darryus said:
It's kind of a hard question to answer, I'd prefer to err on the side of leniency, so anything in the ranges of probably to defiantly not a human in a costume should be fine.

... but then there's still problems like what about Fox Dad that's defiantly definitely just a guy in a suit; should that be deleted? I don't know.

Edit: post #1494282 Apparently Mairo thinks it should...

There was tons of artwork which had pokemon suits which had human clearly inside them and they were nuked, don't remember which staff member, so yes, fursuits are irrelevant unless fursuit is living or there's clearly non-human wearing it.

I did actually bring this up at some point and pretty much none of the foxdad comic should've been approved to begin with, but they slipped by as they had to be uploaded 3-4 times thanks to everyone constantly uploading inferior sample versions. I'll most likely bring the fox onto the table again at some point as those being approved and comic continuing will get problematic as many are assuming that those are fine to be posted and post new comics. I remember this happening couple times before I was janitor, someone uploading something which gets approved and me uploading same thing and gets deleted so I fully understand how annoying that can be and would like to avoid those situations from happening.

I have only been approving superior versions of that comics, meaning they were already approved earlier and that page was new and didn't even contain fursuits and as it's essentially webcomic without continuation between pages, there wasn't exactly reason to keep it as part of pool either.

leomole said:
I hear and respect your opinion. But it's not the only opinion. Respected users like Mairo and Clawdragons above agree that humans with pointy ears shouldn't be part of e6.

OK, clarification time, I'm more than fine including elves and orcs, especially orcs. Many of the humanoid species do have enough on them to clearly look differend from regular human, but when it comes down to determining humans in guidelines, those would fall under being human only.

What I said was specifically Link and Zelda, I have seen those two characters for so long and I have never even once seen them as anything other than humans. I also know that trying to get rid of those characters specifically would immensily effect on huge portion of characters and species which are relevant and in my opinion welcome here.

And of course as another clarification, this is my personal opinion. I don't want to ban more content just because I dislike seeing them on the site. However I'm more than fine with current guidelines in sense that it simply stops majority of artwork that wouldn't be considered to be on scope of the site.

My ideal ruleset would be:

"If it looks basically like a human, and if someone who expresses sole interest in humans would have no problem with showing their interest in it, then it's not by itself site relevant"

Particularly inhuman looking elves would be allowed by this criteria. Animal humanoids might not qualify. Various types of robots and plant creatures would qualify. Humans with colored skin would not.

Basically I don't think the point of e621 is to cater to people who are just looking for human pornography, and if something is so close to human pornography that it would appeal to such a person, it's not site relevant.

But that's probably too subjective as a ruleset. There would be all sorts of arguments over it.

Mairo said:
[I'm annoyed with Link and Zelda but elves are fine.] I'm more than fine with current guidelines.

Noted. I'll edit my comment. Would you agree with my description of those characters as humans with pointy ears?

darryus said:
I feel like this is an argument that can be solved with a few users who think they're better than everyone else taking a short visit to the blacklist rather than suggesting broad, psudo-ethnic-clensing, rule changes because they don't want their perfect website sullied by fantasy races.

Hey, I think you're being pretty uncharitable and dramatic here. not_furry is on my blacklist and has been for a long time. That's not the point. I care about improving e6, and to me that means supporting our longstanding focus on furry art. It means streamlining the art we archive and tag. It means having clear, consistent rules. To this end I voice my ideas for the consideration of users and admins. I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. I ask that you consider my points in good faith rather than being hostile.

leomole said:
I ask that you consider my points in good faith rather than being hostile.

What your suggesting is would be deleting >7% of all posts on the site and the only reason you're giving is that you (and one a half other person) don't like it and having it removed would "improve the site" which is wildly subjective; most of the staff, former staff and other privilegeds and normal users don't agree with your idea of a better site, maybe because they see this site for more than just furry art.

I'm not sure where you got the 7% figure from. My suggested modification of the existing No pure humans rule would exclude primarily a subset of elves, roughly 0.15% of current posts if we just consider Link and Zelda (and that's an overestimate considering how many posts include both). The rules about costumes and hair and skin color are already in effect.

Like I said, the reason is that this is an archive for furry art. That has always been the focus, and over the years we've refined the submission criteria. It will probably happen again, and it will probably exclude more characters that are essentially human.

leomole said:
I'm not sure where you got the 7% figure from. My suggested modification of the existing No pure humans rule would exclude primarily a subset of elves, roughly 0.15% of current posts if we just consider Link and Zelda (and that's an overestimate considering how many posts include both). The rules about costumes and hair and skin color are already in effect.

Like I said, the reason is that this is an archive for furry art. That has always been the focus, and over the years we've refined the submission criteria. It will probably happen again, and it will probably exclude more characters that are essentially human.

"It may happen" doesn't mean "it should happen." There was enough complaint over the human rule, it'd be even worse if we applied it to elves and such as well.