I think there was a mistake made on a pending post.
https://e621.net/post/show/1510138
It said eyes dont stop it from being irrelevant to the site. I didnt post it because of eyes. I posted it because the human girls were in the post with Wilykit. Wilykit is a anthropomorphic cat.

Post relevance is determined by what's visible, not by what a character is supposed to be.

maybe the artist could make a version where they're sucking a wolfcock

Ratte said:
Post relevance is determined by what's visible, not by what a character is supposed to be.

Thats a little confusing aint it? Considering there is a post in the site with Lisa Simpson with just a doll of Twlight Sparkle. Wilykit was in a group blowjob.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Considering there is a post in the site with Lisa Simpson with just a doll of Twlight Sparkle.

what the upload date is? because chances are that the post is from time before the rules got more strict

Lord_Eggplant said:
what the upload date is? because chances are that the post is from time before the rules got more strict

Heres the post.
https://e621.net/post/show/343300/2013-blonde_hair-camel_toe-child-clothed-clothing-

Playfur_Cinema said:
Thats a little confusing aint it? Considering there is a post in the site with Lisa Simpson with just a doll of Twlight Sparkle. Wilykit was in a group blowjob.

Please, not the "but X was approved" game.
Always refer to currently in use guidelines with posts, not earlier posts. Especially if you mean post #343300, that's grandfathered as it was posted in 2013.

Also in these kind of cases where only small portion of the image could be considered relevant they can still be ruled irrelevant as whole. Doesn't make much sense to make everyone to look at the tail of the pikachu showing single frame on minute long video or if 100 page comic only has single page with cat in it.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Heres the post.
https://e621.net/post/show/343300/2013-blonde_hair-camel_toe-child-clothed-clothing-

Just by seeing that post ID, I can confirm that it is because the post is older than when the rules became stricter. It's always best to cite recent uploads when you are complaining about mentioning a post's status.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Thats a little confusing aint it? Considering there is a post in the site with Lisa Simpson with just a doll of Twlight Sparkle. Wilykit was in a group blowjob.

Please see the uploading guidelines: https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

Again, we go by appearance, not by lore. If there is nothing to indicate that a character is nonhuman, then it is simply considered a human. Having strange eyes or colorful skin is not enough to consider an otherwise human character anything but human.

Ratte said:
Please see the uploading guidelines: https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines

Again, we go by appearance, not by lore. If there is nothing to indicate that a character is nonhuman, then it is simply considered a human. Having strange eyes or colorful skin is not enough to consider an otherwise human character anything but human.

I see. Ok Thank you.
Since I'm speaking to staff also, could I possibly have a deletion point push back on some of my old posts? At least for the old "Artist takedown request" deletions?

Playfur_Cinema said:
I see. Ok Thank you.
Since I'm speaking to staff also, could I possibly have a deletion point push back on some of my old posts? At least for the old "Artist takedown request" deletions?

If you lost posts to takedowns, that likely means you didn't check with the artists that it was okay. The limit reduction is intentional.

Ratte said:
Again, we go by appearance, not by lore. If there is nothing to indicate that a character is nonhuman, then it is simply considered a human. Having strange eyes or colorful skin is not enough to consider an otherwise human character anything but human.

I would have guessed that animal eyes would be sufficient to consider something nonhuman, considering pointy ears are sufficient. It's not at all intuitive that elf-ears are sufficient but cat-eyes are not.

At the very least could we add the eye specification to the uploading guidelines? If we're going to have seemingly arbitrary rules on what's sufficient to make something relevant and what isn't, we ought to at least be clear in the guidelines about it.

Furrin_Gok said:
If you lost posts to takedowns, that likely means you didn't check with the artists that it was okay. The limit reduction is intentional.

I mean for artist picture take downs that were once allowed on the site.
"Artist requested removal" The ones when Mobius unleashed and palcomix allowed to be posted.

Clawdragons said:
I would have guessed that animal eyes would be sufficient to consider something nonhuman, considering pointy ears are sufficient. It's not at all intuitive that elf-ears are sufficient but cat-eyes are not.

At the very least could we add the eye specification to the uploading guidelines? If we're going to have seemingly arbitrary rules on what's sufficient to make something relevant and what isn't, we ought to at least be clear in the guidelines about it.

They're just a recolored body part.

NotMeNotYou said:
They're just a recolored body part.

If we were just dealing with different colored eyes, I'd concede your point, but in the picture in question, the "cat" actually had slit pupils. Slit pupils are different both structurally and functionally from the round pupils found in human eyes.

Claiming that they are a recolored body part simply isn't correct.

Clawdragons said:
If we were just dealing with different colored eyes, I'd concede your point, but in the picture in question, the "cat" actually had slit pupils. Slit pupils are different both structurally and functionally from the round pupils found in human eyes.

Claiming that they are a recolored body part simply isn't correct.

You can get the same visual end result with dark enough black on the iris.

NotMeNotYou said:
You can get the same visual end result with dark enough black on the iris.

So somewhat in summary, you could get a similar effect using colored contacts, so it qualifies as just a color change. It's not quite right to say you could get the same end result by just changing the iris, because in the picture, the eyes of the "cat" are also significantly thinner than the regular human eyes, but colored contacts could account for that too by obscuring part of the pupil.

Presumably if the eyes had some visible structural difference, it would be relevant then. The sclera sticking up into spikes, or something.

One last question then. If an image showed the eye in enough detail that you could make out the pupil as distinct from the iris by more than just color (see this as an example, would that be enough to consider the image site-relevant?

Assuming the answer to the above is "yes" I still think the eye thing ought to be added to or accounted for in the uploading guidelines, mind you. Again, to me, this policy does not seem at all implied by the existing guidelines regarding humans.

How I see it, essentially anything on a character that could be body paint, costume, or simple cosmetics on an otherwise human character is considered human.

And anything that would require greater than or equal to permanent body modification or high-budget, professional movie cosmetics team is generally not considered human.

So, I'd say that if it's fairly clear that the irises of a character are not contact lenses, ether because there's enough detail in a still image to be confident that they are real eyes, or because the eyes clearly constrict or dilate in an animation or comic strip than the post should stay.

The character in question in OP's post, however, does not contain any elements which could not reasonably seen as make-up and contact lenses.

The eyes should be enough on their own, especially since elven or cat ears are enough on their own. The "it could just be contacts" thing doesn't really work when the elven ears could just be rubber tips or the cat ears could just be hair clips.

Of course, then there's the facial markings, as well. Especially the one going down the nose which adds a particularly animalistic look to the character.

People with purple, green, yellow, or blue skin could just be in bodypaint/makeup! All of these things could just be costume pieces! All of these furries could be people in a suit, all of these elves could just be wearing rubber ear tips! All of these cat girls could just have fake tails and ears! How could we have been so blind? /s

You see how silly the "oh, but they COULD be fake" thing sounds? I thought we tagged on what we SEE in the picture, not what we suspected some person may or may not be wearing in the picture.

This is far more than off-colored eyes or makeup here. The fact the eyes are slitted should be more than enough to say this is an animal character, yet the markings even further support this idea. We tag what we see and what I see is an animal-person. Not a regular person. There's no indication of cosmetics, no indication of fake bits, no indication of makeup. All I see is CAT eyes, and a cat is an animal, and tiger-like markings, and, again, a tiger is an animal. So, without a doubt since there's nothing else in the picture to say otherwise that is an animal-person and should be plenty relevant enough for a single picture.

If this were one page of a comic with this page being the only thing with an animal-person then sure, not relevant. But it's a single picture with an animal-person. It's not like it's an anthro version of where's waldo, here. We aren't playing "Find the animal-person in the normystack" it's right there, plain as day and, again, there's nothing to give away that it is anything other than an animal person. There's nothing in the picture to indicate the eyes are fake, nothing to indicate the stripes are makeup, etc so by tag what you see rules that is, without a doubt, an animal-person and as this is a singular picture and not part of a larger thing that's otherwise all human that also isn't an excuse for irrelevancy.

We're following the rules here and it isn't fair if it's randomly decided to move the goal posts just whenever an admin is having a bad day or decides they don't like the way a certain character looks.

None of this is new, no one is moving any goal posts, (at least not recently) this stuff has been in the tagging_guidelines since 2016

Also the nose isn't that much different than the others, it could be chalked up to a difference in viewing angle just as much it could be difference in nose shape.

darryus said:
None of this is new, no one is moving any goal posts, (at least not recently) this stuff has been in the tagging_guidelines since 2016

Also the nose isn't that much different than the others, it could be chalked up to a difference in viewing angle just as much it could be difference in nose shape.

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

Are eyes not part of anatomy now? Are slitted eyes now standard on humans? The answer to both questions is "no."

"If any sort of non-human traits are present the character in question is no longer a pure human, but a humanoid for tagging purposes."

Welp, the eyes are non-human. The stripes are non-human. It isn't just different skin color, it's specifically animalistic coloration. Yet even completely ignoring that the eyes are non-human.

We see non-human eyes. There is nothing in the image to indicate the eyes are anything but non-human. There is nothing in the image to indicate that the eyes are in any way contacts, surgically altered, or otherwise cosmetic.

Simply put there is nothing to show that any part of what makes that an animal-character is "costumes, clothes, accessories, etc."

And because that character is an animal-person it does not fit the deletion critera of "Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted"

We don't even have to consider lore to see that the eyes are completely animalistic and this is an animal-person non-human humanoid.

"Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc"

Eyes are as much a "body" part as ears or a snout and we're not even considering the markings or the nose at the moment, though if we do add those it only further adds to the whole "non-human animal-person" look. That very look which, by the site's primary rule of "tag what you see" is all that should matter. If there is no visible indication that what is seen is cosmetics, surgical alterations, or other costume pieces, clothes, accessories, etc then by Tag What You See we can only assume that what we see is a non-human animal-based humanoid.

And finally, your link about tagging guidelines leads to an empty page currently.

AnotherDay said:
The eyes should be enough on their own, especially since elven or cat ears are enough on their own. The "it could just be contacts" thing doesn't really work when the elven ears could just be rubber tips or the cat ears could just be hair clips.

So, would Naruto characters be relevant just because they have those crazy Mandela eyes at times?
Are Naruto's face stripes now actual whiskers instead of tattoos, and should he be relevant because of those?

AnotherDay said:
If this were one page of a comic with this page being the only thing with an animal-person then sure, not relevant. But it's a single picture with an animal-person. It's not like it's an anthro version of where's waldo, here. We aren't playing "Find the animal-person in the normystack" it's right there, plain as day and, again, there's nothing to give away that it is anything other than an animal person. There's nothing in the picture to indicate the eyes are fake, nothing to indicate the stripes are makeup, etc so by tag what you see rules that is, without a doubt, an animal-person and as this is a singular picture and not part of a larger thing that's otherwise all human that also isn't an excuse for irrelevancy.

While normally I'd agree with you on the issue of clearly defined rules, this post is a border case. It should also be noted that this character, Wilykit, isn't the focus of the image. They constitute one fifth of an otherwise all-human group of characters, with an angle that obscures everything besides their face. I imagine that while such a low furry-to-human ratio may be approved, it doesn't help when this depiction of Wilykit doesn't display many visual animal characteristics.

Since skin coloration is irrelevant, it would be necessary for these markings to be due to fur, not skin, in order for the character to be considered non-human. While features such as ears may prove non-humanness for certain types of characters like elves, I don't believe there's anything in the rules that explicitly mention eyes, so it'd be up to the approver's discretion.

Mairo said:
Please, not the "but X was approved" game.
Always refer to currently in use guidelines with posts, not earlier posts. Especially if you mean post #343300, that's grandfathered as it was posted in 2013.

On this note, it appears as though there's been a number of posts featuring similar depictions (lacking any clear non-human aspects) that have been approved in recent months. You just need to search thundercats to find them, here's a few: post #1514289, post #1435786, post #1432972, post #1432452, post #1431849. I don't know why these were approved when their only non-human characteristics are slit pupils and and markings, since such features seem to have been deemed irrelevant in the above statements by staff.

NotMeNotYou said:
So, would Naruto characters be relevant just because they have those crazy Mandela eyes at times?
Are Naruto's face stripes now actual whiskers instead of tattoos, and should he be relevant because of those?

Well, to be fair, what about Byakugan? You might argue that the eyes, though odd in a fair number of ways, could still be a contact-effect or something, but the abnormal vein structure is clearly not just a painted-on-effect, since you can see the bulges on the side of the face.

I think it's probably clear, given my previously expressed stance on elf-ears, but mind you that I'm not suggesting that weird eyes ought to be made site-relevant. I'm glad they're not, and I wish the rules were more strict in general. Right now I'm just arguing that the current uploading guidelines ought to be clarified in the uploading guidelines page.

On that note, I think I could be more constructive and actually propose a specific change.

I think a reasonable way to describe the current policies would be "If the character's outline would appear fully human, they are not site relevant."

This covers skin color, hair color, eye variations, Naruto's whisker tattoos, and various other things besides, as not being enough to make a character relevant, but still allows for things like abnormal ears and noses, fur, various animal body parts, and so on, without being overly wordy. It seems like this is pretty similar to how things are actually being determined, so why not make that clear in the guidelines?

JAKXXX3 said:
On this note, it appears as though there's been a number of posts featuring similar depictions (lacking any clear non-human aspects) that have been approved in recent months. You just need to search thundercats to find them, here's a few: post #1514289, post #1435786, post #1432972, post #1432452, post #1431849. I don't know why these were approved when their only non-human characteristics are slit pupils and and markings, since such features seem to have been deemed irrelevant in the above statements by staff.

Looks like they were all approved by Millcore.

What about post #1498974? No tail, human ears, the horns look like they're part of the hood, it's just got slit pupils. Harry.lu is being a bit picky about finding it, but neither of the two deleted posts were deleted as inferior so I doubt it's a repost.

NotMeNotYou said:
So, would Naruto characters be relevant just because they have those crazy Mandela eyes at times?
Are Naruto's face stripes now actual whiskers instead of tattoos, and should he be relevant because of those?

The single thing you're completely overlooking here is that those crazy eyes aren't *animal* eyes. You might argue that they may be alien eyes, especially in the case of the bulging veins, which are completely unhuman. Frankly, it should pass. The only thing we don't upload here are humans.

If they have characteristics that make them obviously unhuman, despite what their specific lore says, then they should be classified as such and allowed.

For example, having very much animal eyes. You ask someone that's never seen any of these characters before if they're pure human and I really doubt you'd get them to willingly admit that any are. They might call them alien, they might call them cat-people, they might add some sort of qualifer onto them, but at the end of the day everyone would be hard pressed to classify these characters with the weird or animal eyes as pure human because that isn't what humans look like.

Humans are very limited in terms of features. You won't find any that naturally glow, you won't find any that naturally have animalistic patterns to their skin, you won't find any with naturally neon colored hair, etc. If you change even one thing about the basic human blueprint, such as eyes, you'll find that many won't even consider that being purely human. They'll want to add some sort of qualifier to human such as "mutated" or "animal," assuming they don't just outright call it not-human.

Willie Cat and those like them are gateway characters. They're very obviously (to anyone that doesn't work with furry content all the time) animal-people and they get people interested in more animalistic characters and themes. To deny their place in this gallery just because they don't have cat ears, despite the fact they're very much animalistic, is just plain wrong. Especially when there's already plenty of them on the site that fall into the "problem" you have with them.

Maybe an exception for characters that are obviously animalistic but just lack ears or a tail should be made. Outside of the furry community you'd have a hard time convincing anyone without using the costume/cosmetics line that they aren't animalistic and I have a feeling you'd have a decently difficult time convincing the normal user of this site that they outright didn't belong just because they ARE so obviously animal-people.

After all of the leeway you've given so far to so many other things, I find it difficult to believe that crazy or animalistic eyes that are obviously not cosmetic addons don't qualify a person as non-human. That's been THE single theme we don't allow on here. Anything that's purely and obviously human by sight isn't allowed, but everything else is and has been, *especially* if it's at all animalistic like the OP.

So, sure. Wave off the crazy eyes, but don't wave off the characters with the obviously animalistic skin patterns and eyes. And, finally, to answer your question about Naruto - Since when are whiskers a skin pattern? You do know that the spots and stripes on animals are on their skin, right? Maybe when he's transformed to some degree, but just normal Naruto? Nah.

The fact of the matter is, that post should be on this website. It has the required qualities and as shown above there are others similar to it here. I'm asking you, please. Reconsider your stance here. Maybe modify the rules to specify that without certain animalistic traits such as a tail or ears any remaining traits, such as eyes or skin patterns, have to be animalistic to qualify so that you don't start getting just people with weird eyes in here?

I don't know. What I do know, however, is that your decision on this is not a good one and it's one decision that needs to be rectified. That character looks as animalistic as any other animal-person, the only striking issue is the lack of ears or a tail and that shouldn't disqualify them from being on this this website.

Mairo said:
Please, not the "but X was approved" game.
Always refer to currently in use guidelines with posts, not earlier posts. Especially if you mean post #343300, that's grandfathered as it was posted in 2013.

Also in these kind of cases where only small portion of the image could be considered relevant they can still be ruled irrelevant as whole. Doesn't make much sense to make everyone to look at the tail of the pikachu showing single frame on minute long video or if 100 page comic only has single page with cat in it.

Yes the "but X was approved" game. Because this stuff needs to be debated and considered and not simply brushed aside. I brought Lisa and the Twlight doll up, not because of a simple issue, but because it makes my point. The site still allows far less and as stated above, there are pictures of Wilykit hanging around where you still cant see her tail and even the slit eyes.
Humans dont have slit eyes. Those are traits you would only really find on a cat and if it was a human, they would be some type of monster which are also allowed on the site.
If eyes cant be something to go off of, than how would you determine if characters like the Chippettes belong on the site if they didnt have button noses?

Playfur_Cinema said:
Yes the "but X was approved" game. Because this stuff needs to be debated and considered and not simply brushed aside. I brought Lisa and the Twlight doll up, not because of a simple issue, but because it makes my point. The site still allows far less and as stated above, there are pictures of Wilykit hanging around where you still cant see her tail and even the slit eyes.
Humans dont have slit eyes. Those are traits you would only really find on a cat and if it was a human, they would be some type of monster which are also allowed on the site.
If eyes cant be something to go off of, than how would you determine if characters like the Chippettes belong on the site if they didnt have button noses?

Because that game usually ends up being something that has been already specified in the guidelines, so it becomes absolutely and utterly pointless discussion. And that's exactly what happened in this case, you picked up grandfathered post, well done. You are free to direct attention to individual posts of course, but actually link to them instead of "but there's this one post here" and make sure that it's not actually something already mentioned in the uploading guidelines which we reflect new uploads towards.

In this case it's also good to consider that the post had four clear humans and one extremely human looking humanoid with slit instead of circle (similar case with post #1510891 why it's most likely still hanging, as now there's human, human, human, human, human and human with tail buttplug and bodypaint). Accessories, costumes, color alterations, etc. do not count. If we get to the pointy ears area, you can just buy novelty contact lenses but you would need some actual surgery to get your ears pointy. Same with button noses, they are smaller than regular human nose would be that chanches of it being decorative gets low.

I didn't actually have any involment of any posts handled in this topic as of now, but I was thinking of deleting the post originally mentioned for similar reasons, but I do have bias towards human looking humanoids and I don't want that to have unintentional effect on post handling.

Mairo said:
Because that game usually ends up being something that has been already specified in the guidelines, so it becomes absolutely and utterly pointless discussion. And that's exactly what happened in this case, you picked up grandfathered post, well done. You are free to direct attention to individual posts of course, but actually link to them instead of "but there's this one post here" and make sure that it's not actually something already mentioned in the uploading guidelines which we reflect new uploads towards.

In this case it's also good to consider that the post had four clear humans and one extremely human looking humanoid with slit instead of circle (similar case with post #1510891 why it's most likely still hanging, as now there's human, human, human, human, human and human with tail buttplug and bodypaint). Accessories, costumes, color alterations, etc. do not count. If we get to the pointy ears area, you can just buy novelty contact lenses but you would need some actual surgery to get your ears pointy. Same with button noses, they are smaller than regular human nose would be that chanches of it being decorative gets low.

I didn't actually have any involment of any posts handled in this topic as of now, but I was thinking of deleting the post originally mentioned for similar reasons, but I do have bias towards human looking humanoids and I don't want that to have unintentional effect on post handling.

Now you are making excuses for the viable tail and body fur markings. Yes you can body buy contact lenses, surgery and accessories, but thats not the case in this discussion because that has nothing to do with the character it self and nor can those mentions be proven towards the cat in question. Bias or not, for a person like yourself who uses this site often, you should have accepted that not all anthropomorphic's are equal. Not all of them have long ears, tails, sharp teeth, claws and look overly fuzzy. Point blank being is, we are shooting down a character who has hundreds of pictures on the site suddenly, because it cant go off it's eye pattern and face markings.
And I did give you the link. My apologizes if I didnt post it fast enough for your liking.
Just because you keep bring up refer back to the rules, doesnt mean the rules sometimes need to debated so they can be improved and easier to understand. I admit I didn't read all the compete the details, but it was my understanding, human characters had to be sharing the picture with another beast or supernatural character.
Also this post isnt grandfathered.
https://e621.net/post/show/1506976/2018-alien_-franchise-breasts-butt-clothed-clothin

Playfur_Cinema said:
Now you are making excuses for the viable tail and body fur markings. Yes you can body buy contact lenses, surgery and accessories, but thats not the case in this discussion because that has nothing to do with the character it self and nor can those mentions be proven towards the cat in question. Bias or not, for a person like yourself who uses this site often, you should have accepted that not all anthropomorphic's are equal. Not all of them have long ears, tails, sharp teeth, claws and look overly fuzzy. Point blank being is, we are shooting down a character who has hundreds of pictures on the site suddenly, because it cant go off it's eye pattern and face markings.
And I did give you the link. My apologizes if I didnt post it fast enough for your liking.
Just because you keep bring up refer back to the rules, doesnt mean the rules sometimes need to debated so they can be improved and easier to understand. I admit I didn't read all the compete the details, but it was my understanding, human characters had to be sharing the picture with another beast or supernatural character.
Also this post isnt grandfathered.
https://e621.net/post/show/1506976/2018-alien_-franchise-breasts-butt-clothed-clothin

The linked is part of a series that has a relevant character, an alien that's clearly not human. It wouldn't be deleted for consistency reasons.

Siral_Exan said:
The linked is part of a series that has a relevant character, an alien that's clearly not human. It wouldn't be deleted for consistency reasons.

Actually I was getting ready to replace the link with this one before you quoted me. Thats He-Man. Posted a month ago and hes by himself.
https://e621.net/post/show/1469431/2011-amazing-belt-blonde_hair-brekkist-clothed-clo

Playfur_Cinema said:
Actually I was getting ready to replace the link with this one before you quoted me. Thats He-Man. Posted a month ago and hes by himself.
https://e621.net/post/show/1469431/2011-amazing-belt-blonde_hair-brekkist-clothed-clo

Grandfathered in, it is the BVAS of an old post. Did you not read the description?

I was just following orders

Siral_Exan said:
Grandfathered in, it is the BVAS of an old post. Did you not read the description?

Did you not get my point? It had nothing to do with it's better version. He-Man is a human. Unless I missed out and the rules were updated a month ago. In that case my mistake.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Did you not get my point? It had nothing to do with it's better version. He-Man is a human. Unless I missed out and the rules were updated a month ago. In that case my mistake.

Son, reposts are as grandfathered as their original, inferior version. That one's original was five years ago, so thats five years of grandfathering.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Did you not get my point? It had nothing to do with it's better version. He-Man is a human. Unless I missed out and the rules were updated a month ago. In that case my mistake.

... posts that are grandfathered in are exempt from the present ruling, the ruling that existed when they were posted applies. Posts that are older than the present ruling will not be retroactively deleted, nor will updated posts be deleted due to new rules.

It's grandfathered in. No matter the rules now, if it would not be deleted then it will not be deleted now. Even if it's human only, what made it approved keeps it on the site; why the old post was on the site is knowledge I do not possess, but since it was approved it can be reuploaded as a better version without consequence. If I speculate, this site likely didn't have such strict rules 5 years ago and managed to get appproved due to such.

Knotty_Curls said:
I was just following orders

No ones faulting you for doing your job. I'm just saying, the little things should matter get over looked while the big things that shouldnt sometimes get a pass.

Furrin_Gok said:
Son, reposts are as grandfathered as their original, inferior version. That one's original was five years ago, so thats five years of grandfathering.

... posts that are grandfathered in are exempt from the present ruling, the ruling that existed when they were posted applies. Posts that are older than the present ruling will not be retroactively deleted, nor will updated posts be deleted due to new rules.

It's grandfathered in. No matter the rules now, if it would not be deleted then it will not be deleted now. Even if it's human only, what made it approved keeps it on the site; why the old post was on the site is knowledge I do not possess, but since it was approved it can be reuploaded as a better version without consequence.

Ok

AnotherDay said:
-

We already don't allow different skin colors, disallowing different eye colors is very much the same thing with a different body part. As long as it's the same body part with different colors slapped on it it counts as the same thing.
Also there are veins on the outside of sclera in human eyes, those will actually be visible if the person is stressed or has unaturally high blood pressure. Those bulging eye veins are very much modelled after actual human eyes.

I brought up Naruto's "whiskers" because they're in a special situation: whiskers are too fine to throw shadows. How do you differentiate in a flat color image without shading if whiskers are whiskers or if they're lines on the skin like a tattoo?
The answer is you can't, unless the perspective somehow makes it clear they can't be actual whiskers.
In turn this would also mean Naruto is suddenly a humanoid and should be relevant to us because whiskers are an animal feature.
But no, it's treated as recolored skin and thus irrelevant to our decision making.

Last but not least, if the artist wanted they could have also given the image actual fur and not just shiny recolored human skin, but they didn't.

The decision stands and will continue to stand.

NotMeNotYou said:
Also there are veins on the outside of sclera in human eyes, those will actually be visible if the person is stressed or has unaturally high blood pressure. Those bulging eye veins are very much modelled after actual human eyes.

The bulging veins in question are actually the veins bulging out from the face, not anything on the eye itself.

Playfur_Cinema said:
Ok

If you ever need to check that if post is superior version to currently approved post which shouldn't have been approved, you can simply search with parent:1469431 status:any which brings you post #223787 from 5 years ago.

And this is again one of those many reasons why I did not want to play the "but post X" game, because every time that happens, this happens. Desperate trying to go trough human posts just in case that one single post has accidentally happened to got trough for no good reason to justify your deleted post. In reality cases where fully irrelevant post being approved is really uncommon and in those cases we delete that post, we won't restore the deleted post because of it.

It's the guidelines we are following, not past approvals.

Clawdragons said:
The bulging veins in question are actually the veins bulging out from the face, not anything on the eye itself.

I don't understand how exaggerated veins would make something less human in any way. They're even fairly close to where they are in a real human.

Playfur_Cinema said:
No ones faulting you for doing your job.

post #589553

NotMeNotYou said:
I don't understand how exaggerated veins would make something less human in any way. They're even fairly close to where they are in a real human.

And now you know exactly how I feel about elf ears.

I would argue that abnormal vein structure around the eyes and face is at least as strange as having abnormally pointy ears. Changing the vein structure of the face would be far more difficult than changing the ear shape.

Whatever though. I'm done. I've made my point multiple times, and I'll reiterate it one last time and then shut up: I think that the uploading guidelines ought to be made more clear in this regard, because currently a fair reading of them could easily give the impression slit-pupils and other eye features would be sufficient to make something humanoid.

I don't get why that's such a controversial point. I'm not asking for the rules to be changed. I'm just asking for clarity. Like I said though, I'll step out of the argument, since it's clearly going nowhere, and we've started treading old ground.