This is the feedback and discussion thread for My post has been deleted. Help!

If you have any criticism, ideas for more questions, or improvements to existing answers then please post them below!

This thread is not to ask for clarification on submissions that have been deleted. If you ask about anything concerning a deleted submission your forum post will be deleted.

regarding the mention of only drawings being permitted, would that mean things like these that are "flat" but carved,etched or burned are prohibited?

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/14633130/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/5258225/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/10178954/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/23245995/
...

I think that including something along the lines of "upvotes and/or favorites do not influence approval or the rebuking of a deletion", as a notice, would aid the thread. This is one of the more common arguments I've seen thrown around.

The "Irrelevant to the site" section says that if a post that "has only humans" will be deleted, but isn't is possible for a human only post to stay if it's part of a larger chain of images, like a comic page?

Ruku said:
regarding the mention of only drawings being permitted, would that mean things like these that are "flat" but carved,etched or burned are prohibited?

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/14633130/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/5258225/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/10178954/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/23245995/
...

Carvings and etchings aren't permitted. Burned images may be approved.

Siral_Exan said:
I think that including something along the lines of "upvotes and/or favorites do not influence approval or the rebuking of a deletion", as a notice, would aid the thread. This is one of the more common arguments I've seen thrown around.

Sounds like a good idea, I'll add that tomorrow.

Strikerman said:
The "Irrelevant to the site" section says that if a post that "has only humans" will be deleted, but isn't is possible for a human only post to stay if it's part of a larger chain of images, like a comic page?

Technically correct but the thread is purely aimed at helping people understand why their upload got deleted. If they upload a pure human image as part of a comic or sequence it won't get deleted, thus they won't have reason looking into the thread. As such I deem this superfluous information which would only clutter the thread more.

Mention that old posts uploaded before the deletion rules were codified stay grandfathered in?

Hmm, should there be a section for disputing the relevance or quality of other new posts that have been approved? Sometimes the person whose post(s) got deleted will argue the relevance of other posts, because I guess they need to try walking away with a victory feel unfairly treated. In some cases, their arguments have led to the deletion of those other posts.

For irrelevant to site, clarify that the non-human creature(s) must be a significant part of the artwork, as opposed to a minor inclusion somewhere in the background?

This deletion reason means that the post has been deemed irrelevant to the site based on the content of the image or animation.

Wordy. Basically, means the same as:

The content of the post was deemed irrelevant to e621.

No "inferior/duplicate" among reasons? Really?

A: This is almost always because your post did not adhere to our Uploading Guidelines.

Except for inferior versions, which generally adhere the guidelines.

Ruku said:
regarding the mention of only drawings being permitted

Where does it say that?

Also, are photos of sculptures permitted?

https://e621.net/post/index/1/beth_cavener_stichter%20status:deleted
The first 5 have been "deleted by Ratte. Reason: Sculpture."
post #1231917
post #1231911
post #1231903
post #1231900
post #1207522

https://e621.net/post/index/1/beth_cavener_stichter
but some are still up

Munkelzahn said:
Where does it say that?

Also, are photos of sculptures permitted?

https://e621.net/post/index/1/beth_cavener_stichter%20status:deleted
The first 5 have been "deleted by Ratte. Reason: Sculpture."
post #1231917
post #1231911
post #1231903
post #1231900
post #1207522

https://e621.net/post/index/1/beth_cavener_stichter
but some are still up

Older images are up due to grandfathering. I deleted those posted after said rule was put in place.

abadbird said:
Mention that old posts uploaded before the deletion rules were codified stay grandfathered in?

Hmm, should there be a section for disputing the relevance or quality of other new posts that have been approved? Sometimes the person whose post(s) got deleted will argue the relevance of other posts, because I guess they need to try walking away with a victory feel unfairly treated. In some cases, their arguments have led to the deletion of those other posts.

Good idea, added:

abadbird said:
For irrelevant to site, clarify that the non-human creature(s) must be a significant part of the artwork, as opposed to a minor inclusion somewhere in the background?

I added the following in the section: "Non-human creatures must also be part of the focus of the image, it is not enough if the creature is just in the background."

abadbird said:

This deletion reason means that the post has been deemed irrelevant to the site based on the content of the image or animation.

Wordy. Basically, means the same as:

The content of the post was deemed irrelevant to e621.

That sounds a lot better, changed.

hslugs said:
No "inferior/duplicate" among reasons? Really?

Well that's embarrassing, added:

NotMeNotYou said:

Inferior/Duplicate version of post #XXXXXX

This means the submission you uploaded is either a duplicate of an already existing post, or in some way inferior than another post.
This can be that your upload has a smaller resolution, has worse compressions, an older wip of a finished work, or has been tampered with in other ways.

On the deleted submission you can click the parent link in the upper left corner to view the superior version.

I'd suggest changing this to:

Not perfect, but IMO a refinement. WIPs such as sketches in particular should not be flagged for deletion since there's merit to seeing the baseline the artist worked with, and it's wiser to narrow this scope to prevent users from flagging perfectly fine standalone sketches or linework.

Strongbird said:
Not perfect, but IMO a refinement. WIPs such as sketches in particular should not be flagged for deletion since there's merit to seeing the baseline the artist worked with, and it's wiser to narrow this scope to prevent users from flagging perfectly fine standalone sketches or linework.

Fixed, I may revisit that section in a day or two.

NotMeNotYou said:
Minimum Quality Standards

I think of, and use e621 as an archive.

I often upload old works to e621 for posterity, and, no disrespect, it irks me when I see the old stuff I put here for archival get deleted because, though it may have met minimum quality standards at the time it was made, it doesn't meet the minimum quality standards of today which seems to be the only thing that matters quality-wise.

A post that looks like low quality garbage now, may have been groundbreaking, or at least, just look really good at the time it was made, so while judging quality, keep in mind the year it was made.

This may seem like it's all about me, but I'm sure many others have the same problem.
I am truly sorry if it seems like I'm telling you how to do your job, I'm trying to be as polite as possible.

Thanks for reading and understanding

To me, judging by the now is exactly what makes sense. If we want to look into the past, we look at the lower post numbers.

We're not just any archive, but a quality one.

I have to agree more with Furrin.

Of course there can be some leeway given if the content is old, in a sense that computers were weaker, resolutions lower, internet connections slower, etc. Still, it's not like artwork didn't exist before internet and even most slowest connections should've been able to handle more than 100x100 intensily compressed JPG.

Nostalgia glasses are also really bad thing to have. Does the content seem good because you remember seeing it ages ago and have fond memories of it or is it actually good? If only justification for content to be approved were that it's old, then content deleted in 2017 would be OK in 2023 all of the sudden.

considering how all the past threads about this topic have gone, this seems LONG overdue.

Mario69 said:
Nostalgia glasses are also really bad thing to have. Does the content seem good because you remember seeing it ages ago and have fond memories of it or is it actually good? If only justification for content to be approved were that it's old, then content deleted in 2017 would be OK in 2023 all of the sudden.

I don't think that it's as much about 'approving because it's old' as much as 'taking other qualities into consideration'. So images and videos that don't match today's aesthetic standards but are notable for technical achievement or some sort of historic value. It's a sentiment I can appreciate, but I'm not sure how much those would really apply to furry art.

regsmutt said:
I don't think that it's less about 'approving because it's old' as much as 'taking other qualities into consideration'. So images and videos that don't match today's aesthetic standards but are notable for technical achievement or some sort of historic value. It's a sentiment I can appreciate, but I'm not sure how much those would really apply to furry art.

There should be some sort of tag in place for such "Archived" posts.

Is there a way to delete the tags of a post that you own but the post itself has been deleted? If not, Can that be considered a possibility in the future? Or should that remain unacceptable and therefore impossible?

Makintosh said:
Is there a way to delete the tags of a post that you own but the post itself has been deleted? If not, Can that be considered a possibility in the future? Or should that remain unacceptable and therefore impossible?

I’m pretty sure its against the rules to delete tags from a deleted post.

Edit:
“If a post has been flagged for deletion or even deleted, do not strip its tags. This is never acceptable, and is tag vandalism which will result in disciplinary action.”
Source

The "deletion reason" section of the thread should be updated to address the "multiple consecutive webcomic pages" and "deleted by auto_moderator after pending for ~30 days" deletion reasons.

Mildly off-topic perhaps, but the thread might benefit from having a section addressing contesting the deletion of another user's post.

if pictures get deleted after 30 days due to nobody approving them but they meet the quality standards, can you upload them again?

Berylium said:
if pictures get deleted after 30 days due to nobody approving them but they meet the quality standards, can you upload them again?

No, instead ask a janitor about the post and they should inform you if it's worth undeleting or not and give a reason why [invalid information]
As corrected lower by Kira & Mairo only NotMeNotYou can handle events related to the auto moderator.

Versperus said:
No, instead ask a janitor about the post and they should inform you if it's worth undeleting or not and give a reason why

oh hi versp, thanks for the quickreply. i'll keep it in mind.

Berylium said:
oh hi versp, thanks for the quickreply. i'll keep it in mind.

sounds like a plan

The Wikipedia link under the "Does not meet minimum quality standards" area of the "What does the deletion reason mean?" section links to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact[/sup 

which is incorrect.

AgentParadox said:
The Wikipedia link under the "Does not meet minimum quality standards" area of the "What does the deletion reason mean?" section links to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact[/sup 

which is incorrect.

To clarify I do believe they are talking about the entry on this forum post
https://e621.net/forum/show/235851

So who do I dmail to remove a post if it was removed by automod? the reason given was minimum quality standards but I can't see how it falls under that, having read the guidance, and I believe the approval probably just timed out.

Waff said:
So who do I dmail to remove a post if it was removed by automod? the reason given was minimum quality standards but I can't see how it falls under that, having read the guidance, and I believe the approval probably just timed out.

Any staff member will do.

Siral_Exan said:
Any staff member will do.

Thank you, and I'm sure this has been answered before but I wasn't able to find the answer myself; how / where do I see my deleted posts? Right now I can only do it by reuploading to trigger the image recognition.

Siral_Exan said:
Any staff member will do.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. Posts deleted by the automod are handled by NotMeNotYou, as the profile for auto_moderator states. Please contact them regarding questions and feedback for automod related actions.

Waff said:
Thank you, and I'm sure this has been answered before but I wasn't able to find the answer myself; how / where do I see my deleted posts? Right now I can only do it by reuploading to trigger the image recognition.

From your user page, click the number next to deleted posts, it's in the second row of your user statistics.

Waff said:
So who do I dmail to remove a post if it was removed by automod? the reason given was minimum quality standards but I can't see how it falls under that, having read the guidance, and I believe the approval probably just timed out.

Like Kira said, message to NotMeNotYou. This way all of the feedback of the working of the bot is in one place and it can be tuned accordingly.

I do remember at least two of those deleted posts, both had enough small issues that I did not feel comfortable approving those.

Waff said:
Thank you, and I'm sure this has been answered before but I wasn't able to find the answer myself; how / where do I see my deleted posts? Right now I can only do it by reuploading to trigger the image recognition.

On your userprofile (My Account -> My Profile) there's amounts and links to everything related to your account, from records, to pool updates to deleted posts.

You can also search for posts which have deleted status with status:deleted or status:any, which combined with searching uploads from you should give you all of them: user:Waff status:deleted
For more search metatags, see ^{(Search Help)} next to searchbar or search cheatsheet from help pages or over wiki: e621:cheatsheet.

KiraNoot said:
Unfortunately this is incorrect. Posts deleted by the automod are handled by NotMeNotYou, as the profile for auto_moderator states.

Where does it say that Notme is the only person who can handle automod deletions? The Automod only says "Please contact NotMeNotYou as this is not a real user", not "only NotMeNotYou can handle Auto_Moderator's deleted posts". I see this as "here is the lead admin, this is not a real user", whereas you seem to see this as "you must contact the lead admin, this is not a real user". And if you're correct, then why the exclusivity? Any moderator, including Notme, has the choice to handle deletion requests and/or undelete posts; is it solely being a bot that makes Notme the only person who can handle Automod's actions?

Since Automod is a janitor, I can't see their moderator actions (easily). Is anyone willing to provide evidence to prove or disprove this? Who does handle these undeletion post requests?

notmenotyou said:
This is the feedback and discussion thread for My post has been deleted. Help!

If you have any criticism, ideas for more questions, or improvements to existing answers then please post them below!

This thread is not to ask for clarification on submissions that have been deleted. If you ask about anything concerning a deleted submission your forum post will be deleted.

What do we do though if we've messaged the moderator directly who deleted our post but hasn't responded (Over 2 months)

wigwoo1 said:
What do we do though if we've messaged the moderator directly who deleted our post but hasn't responded (Over 2 months)

Exactly my situation as well. I have uploaded three pictures that weren't approved (and in my modest opinion, they're good pictures), I asked for moderator directly for the feedback and to contest the deletions, but got no answer and it has been 6 months. I sent a new message about another post recently and I'm afraid I won't get any answers as well.

-In the case you've tried to contact the moderator and then waited a moderate amount of time for a response (7-14 days seems appropriate?), but have gotten no response to your message,
what should one do in that case?

Contact another moderator that seems to be more active, or try to send another message and wait another while?
If the latter, then how long should one wait before trying to contact someone else, as the first moderator doesn't seem to be active, or doesn't seem to respond to messages?

If you have been contacting the moderator by the name of @auto_moderator, then obviously nobody would respond since that is a bot.
As for other "human" moderators (i.e., Janitors), you can send them a note requesting for a clarification on the deletion reason.
If they too do not respond within a week or so, then you can reach out for one of the admins such as @NotMeNotYou.

Alternatively, you can ask for assistance from the helpdesk on the e621 Discord server.

I don't find it very useful to only being able to contact the initial moderator that deleted a post.
There should be at least one other moderator also be informed of the appeal, otherwise the risk of posts being deleted due to subjective opinions are a certainty.

lornlynx said:
I don't find it very useful to only being able to contact the initial moderator that deleted a post.
There should be at least one other moderator also be informed of the appeal, otherwise the risk of posts being deleted due to subjective opinions are a certainty.

If you don't like the opinion of the janitor that deleted it, you're always free to escalate it to the head admin NotMeNotYou.

But deletions generally aren't that subjective in the first place - if something is borderline on quality or relevancy, it's not usually outright deleted by the first janitor to see it. There's a "voting" system in place for borderline content, where janitors will see how many people before them reviewed it as unsuitable, and eventually somebody will delete it. Either manually, or automod will eventually do it.

So while it only displays that one janitor deleted it, there's probably already multiple opinions that back up that decision.

why is this thread not a sticky?

benjiboyo said:
why is this thread not a sticky?

It used to be, I believe, but was removed because of how many stickies were crowding the first page of threads.

benjiboyo said:
why is this thread not a sticky?

It's the feedback thread for topic #23578, which is a sticky.

I'd actually forgotten that was there though. I should probably just link people to that instead of giving detailed explanations myself.

faucet said:
If you don't like the opinion of the janitor that deleted it, you're always free to escalate it to the head admin NotMeNotYou.

But deletions generally aren't that subjective in the first place - if something is borderline on quality or relevancy, it's not usually outright deleted by the first janitor to see it. There's a "voting" system in place for borderline content, where janitors will see how many people before them reviewed it as unsuitable, and eventually somebody will delete it. Either manually, or automod will eventually do it.

So while it only displays that one janitor deleted it, there's probably already multiple opinions that back up that decision.

That's good to know, the whole process just isn't very transparent to an outsider.

Not my post in specific but I keep seeing people delete posts under the humans only excuse while ignoring.

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.

Seems like a lot of people stop reading at

If it appears like a human it counts as a human, regardless of what in-universe lore specifies.

And decide by themselves what counts as a human.

konyaku said:
Not my post in specific but I keep seeing people delete posts under the humans only excuse while ignoring.
Seems like a lot of people stop reading at
And decide by themselves what counts as a human.

Sometimes, trying to determine if something is non-human enough or too human-like to be acceptable is very difficult.

clawstripe said:
Sometimes, trying to determine if something is non-human enough or too human-like to be acceptable is very difficult.

The rules include elves in the permitted group so even pointy ears should be enough and there are plenty of images like that and yet I see catgirls and characters with pointy ears plus other non-human body parts deleted.

konyaku said:
The rules include elves in the permitted group so even pointy ears should be enough and there are plenty of images like that and yet I see catgirls and characters with pointy ears plus other non-human body parts deleted.

What posts were deleted

konyaku said:
The rules include elves in the permitted group so even pointy ears should be enough and there are plenty of images like that and yet I see catgirls and characters with pointy ears plus other non-human body parts deleted.

looking through delreason:*human* hassource:true I'm not really seeing all that much stuff I'd disagree with, and definitely not all that many animal_humanoid characters.

konyaku said:
The rules include elves in the permitted group so even pointy ears should be enough and there are plenty of images like that and yet I see catgirls and characters with pointy ears plus other non-human body parts deleted.

You can always dmail NMNY to ask. I had a post deleted for being human only once when the character had visible wings, and a dmail was all it took for it to be restored.

fliphook said:
What posts were deleted

All Dagasi images focusing on Reg despite him having pointy ears and robot body parts and there are plenty of images focusing on him up. Akai's old mikeriumu animation plus the recent edit but for some reason not the new ones. There are some others but these are the ones I remember on top of my head.
Also how much animal human_focus need to have? Because there are images over 10 years in this site with a human and only some animal dicks visible with the entire animal being out of view. If that is enough there are even more stuff.

konyaku said:
All Dagasi images focusing on Reg despite him having pointy ears and robot body parts

only two posts of Reg by Dagasi have been deleted for being human only.

konyaku said:
Akai's old mikeriumu animation plus the recent edit but for some reason not the new ones.

the only thing that akai has made that was deleted for human only was this non-animated Cookie Run post.

dba_afish said:
only two posts of Reg by Dagasi have been deleted for being human only.

And were those legit?

the only thing that akai has made that was deleted for human only was this non-animated Cookie Run post.

Apparently the reasoning for those two is just that they have been deleted in the past.

konyaku said:
And were those legit?

you can check the source links and judge for yourself.

dba_afish said:
you can check the source links and judge for yourself.

That was a rhetorical question. It already was established that Reg is allowed here. Also in at least one set they were being fucked by narehates who are completely non-huma meaning even the one focusing on Riko would be allowed based on the multiple images involving a human being fucked by furries whose bodies aremostly out of the picture

konyaku said:
That was a rhetorical question. It already was established that Reg is allowed here. Also in at least one set they were being fucked by narehates who are completely non-huma meaning even the one focusing on Riko would be allowed based on the multiple images involving a human being fucked by furries whose bodies aremostly out of the picture

Acceptance isn't based on characters, but by what the characters look like in a given image. Link and Princess Zelda for example are allowed here since they're humanoid, but that doesn't mean every image of them is acceptable; if you can't see their pointy ears and they look like non-humanoid humans in a particular image, that image won't be acceptable. This goes for furries/full anthros too, regardless of what they are canonically, it matters what they appear to be in each individual image.

watsit said:
Acceptance isn't based on characters, but by what the characters look like in a given image. Link and Princess Zelda for example are allowed here since they're humanoid, but that doesn't mean every image of them is acceptable; if you can't see their pointy ears and they look like non-humanoid humans in a particular image, that image won't be acceptable. This goes for furries/full anthros too, regardless of what they are canonically, it matters what they appear to be in each individual image.

I don't see why you are trying to make this hard. He have big metal limbs, it is not like Zelda who only have pointy ears to differentiate her from a human. There are approved stuff like these
https://e621.net/posts/96470
https://e621.net/posts/15484
https://e621.net/posts/125177
Why are stuff like the Reg images I mentioned and even a living cookie not allowed here? I think this lack of consistency something that needs to be dealt with.

konyaku said:
I don't see why you are trying to make this hard. He have big metal limbs, it is not like Zelda who only have pointy ears to differentiate her from a human. There are approved stuff like these

I'm not sure if we should be considering prosthetics as non-human features.

konyaku said:
https://e621.net/posts/96470
https://e621.net/posts/15484
https://e621.net/posts/125177
Why are stuff like the Reg images I mentioned and even a living cookie not allowed here? I think this lack of consistency something that needs to be dealt with.

grandfathered_content

konyaku said:
I don't see why you are trying to make this hard. He have big metal limbs, it is not like Zelda who only have pointy ears to differentiate her from a human.

Being an obvious cyborg doesn't make a character non-human. As dba afish says, even highly sophisticated robotic prosthetics don't count. If we did, would that mean Special Olympics athletes and other physically disabled people aren't human?

Why are stuff like the Reg images I mentioned and even a living cookie not allowed here?

As for a cookie character, they need to look like a cookie and not a stylistic human with a skin condition. Remember, lore doesn't count. If it's non-human, it needs to look the part.

Also remember that anything from before early 2015 will be grandfathered in since they were acceptable uploads back then before the standards were tightened up.

Can these be difficult to decide on? Yes. We do our best, but you can't please everyone.

dba_afish said:
I'm not sure if we should be considering prosthetics as non-human features.

grandfathered_content

clawstripe said:
Being an obvious cyborg doesn't make a character non-human. As dba afish says, even highly sophisticated robotic prosthetics don't count. If we did, would that mean Special Olympics athletes and other physically disabled people aren't human?
As for a cookie character, they need to look like a cookie and not a stylistic human with a skin condition. Remember, lore doesn't count. If it's non-human, it needs to look the part.

Also remember that anything from before early 2015 will be grandfathered in since they were acceptable uploads back then before the standards were tightened up.

Can these be difficult to decide on? Yes. We do our best, but you can't please everyone.

We do have stuff like rebecca_(cyberpunk_edgerunners) and peacock_(skullgirls) who are literally humans with prosthetics. What about humans with prosthetic animal ears and tails? There is that too. I don't think we need to delve on what means to be "human" for ethical purposes when we are tagging art. People do body modification to look like all sort of stuff and if we had the technology to let people grow fur and animal traits some people would do that as well. Doesn't means they would lose their rights as humans but for the purpose of tagging drawings in a porn site it sounds reasonable to me.

About the cookie it was much more cookie than most cookie run images we have. Many images make them look 3D while the deleted one was very flat with facial features made of sugar.

konyaku said:
We do have stuff like rebecca_(cyberpunk_edgerunners) and peacock_(skullgirls) who are literally humans with prosthetics. What about humans with prosthetic animal ears and tails? There is that too. I don't think we need to delve on what means to be "human" for ethical purposes when we are tagging art. People do body modification to look like all sort of stuff and if we had the technology to let people grow fur and animal traits some people would do that as well. Doesn't means they would lose their rights as humans but for the purpose of tagging drawings in a porn site it sounds reasonable to me.

most of the solo posts of Rebecca have been deleted, and the ones that remain are way past the point of human with prosthetics into cyborg territory, and Peacock literally has eyes on her arms, those aren't normal prosthetics.

I genuinely find it ridiculous that we still see various images of objectively non-human species (especially common with Pokemon) getting deleted for being too close to being just humans but then there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of pictures of humanoid species with pointy ears that seem fine.
Looking at you, Warcraft.

Why can't we air on the side of allowing it in edge cases and just expect people to use their blacklist like we do with everything else? Why do we have to be so trigger-happy getting rid of content that might be ever so slightly too close to humans, maybe, instead of letting the people who use the site decide what they do and don't want to see? In my opinion, all we're accomplishing is being grossly inconsistent about what is and isn't "human" and causing more trouble than it seems worth.

nevannedall said:
Why can't we air on the side of allowing it in edge cases and just expect people to use their blacklist like we do with everything else? Why do we have to be so trigger-happy getting rid of content that might be ever so slightly too close to humans, maybe, instead of letting the people who use the site decide what they do and don't want to see?

We already err on the side of allowing edge cases, and I feel we're too lenient with allowing human-like characters.
post #4873187 post #4884566
This isn't what I expect to see when I come to look at furry art and don't see how it's at all relevant to furries. We don't have tags to identify when a post is just basically humans like that (or humans with slightly pointy ears), so it's impossible to effectively blacklist them without the blacklist still missing stuff and/or also catching some relevant posts. humanoid is too broad to catch only cases like those, and it's apparently debatable whether stuff like that first one is human or not (it looks obviously human to me, the ear only looks slightly pointy because of foreshortening from the viewing angle of an otherwise normal rounded human ear).

watsit said:
post #4873187 post #4884566

Those are good examples of why a Mega Banette or a Ceruledge getting deleted while these seem to be fine annoys me immensely. Kinda my point that it's too ambiguous to rely on individual janitors' opinions.

watsit said:
We already err on the side of allowing edge cases, and I feel we're too lenient with allowing human-like characters.
post #4873187 post #4884566
This isn't what I expect to see when I come to look at furry art and don't see how it's at all relevant to furries. We don't have tags to identify when a post is just basically humans like that (or humans with slightly pointy ears), so it's impossible to effectively blacklist them without the blacklist still missing stuff and/or also catching some relevant posts. humanoid is too broad to catch only cases like those, and it's apparently debatable whether stuff like that first one is human or not (it looks obviously human to me, the ear only looks slightly pointy because of foreshortening from the viewing angle of an otherwise normal rounded human ear).

To be fair, I Love that e6 opened the door to humanoid
peeps. Can't tell ya how Rad it is that Orc pics are hosted
on a site with THIS Level of organization, Dood~!
◠‿╹)~★

post #1493589

Absolutely unrelated to the conversation but the malice was deleted by automoderator months ago and I don’t know who to message to contest the deletion.

https://e621.net/posts/4442048

People seemed to like him :(

dimoretpinel said:
Absolutely unrelated to the conversation but the malice was deleted by automoderator months ago and I don’t know who to message to contest the deletion.

https://e621.net/posts/4442048

People seemed to like him :(

Automod deletions should be brought up with NotMeNotYou, since Automod's still considered a staff member for the purpose of contesting deletions; if anyone wishes to contest a deletion, they should either bring it up to the staff member who deleted it or bring it up to Notme since he's the head admin.

[

notkastar said:
To be fair, I Love that e6 opened the door to humanoid
peeps. Can't tell ya how Rad it is that Orc pics are hosted
on a site with THIS Level of organization, Dood~!
◠‿╹)~★

post #1493589

My point is that it's inconsistent and often nonsensical as to what is and isn't allowed.
I'm arguing that content like this should be allowed.
Why are orcs fine but a ceruledge with tits is too close to the real thing.

I mean for fuck sakes-
Why was this allowed if we don't want humans so badly?

post #2212119

nevannedall said:
I mean for fuck sakes-
Why was this allowed if we don't want humans so badly?

post #2212119

Because it's part of a largely furry comic, which is one of the exceptions listed in https://e621.net/help/uploading_guidelines

nevannedall said:
[

My point is that it's inconsistent and often nonsensical as to what is and isn't allowed.
I'm arguing that content like this should be allowed.
Why are orcs fine but a ceruledge with tits is too close to the real thing.

I mean for fuck sakes-
Why was this allowed if we don't want humans so badly?

post #2212119

There's a method to the madness
For the post you linked, that's apart of a series that
has anthro-peeps as the star, Dood.
◠‿╹)~★

(post #2212119)->post #2265397
Series: (Hladilnik) Legoshi enters a diner

Making it one of those technicalities where
even though it's a post with only a human
peep, It's allowed since the comic as a whole
is mostly anthro, Dood.
╹‿╹)~★

scth said:
Because it's part of a largely furry comic, which is one of the exceptions listed in https://e621.net/help/uploading_guidelines

Ahhh~ Ya beat me to it by 2 minutes.
Fair Play, Dood.
T‿T)

I always feel like it's a roulette on what's allowed when it comes to characters like Marceline, Princess Bubblegum and Jenny Wakeman

Some are allowed then other times it's not, to me I just want to archive as much art as I can on as many platforms as I can because ya know, internet being interneting, should there be an allowance for these characters because they are fantasy creatures like Link/Zelda so as long as the art meets quality instead of "Urrrmmm well I feel like naw this time", I feel like as long as the character is a Fantasy Creature wether it be Vampire/Living Food/Robot or Alien it should be allowed considering Elves are allowed

Maybe a clear definition like that would allow more art to be archived instead of a case by case situation with complaints by uploaders everytime this happens cuz I love all the fantasy art uploaded