Furrin_Gok said:
What if it does have a working Furaffinity source already, and we add the dead Pixiv source without overwriting the Furaffinity source?

NotMeNotYou said:
Editing sources to valid ones [...] are fine as long as no currently valid sources are overwritten in the process.

what on earth does being convicted of arson have to do with the usership and/or functionality of the site

null0010 said:
what on earth does being convicted of arson have to do with the usership and/or functionality of the site

By the specific wording, I imagine that it's referring to criminals who commit serious crimes. Having them as users would not only be bad for the site's reputation, but could also land the site in trouble with the law, for 'harbouring/affiliating with criminals', or just be a hassle if the police request records or whatever. I wouldn't know the specifics for the rule change though, these are just guesses.

Munkelzahn said:
i suspect it's more about the site's reputation

JAKXXX3 said:
Having them as users would not only be bad for the site's reputation, but could also land the site in trouble with the law, for 'harbouring/affiliating with criminals',

I'm just curious as to how one would find out someone's a felon.

Now I can literally say "bring on the forum police".

Mdf said:
I'm just curious as to how one would find out someone's a felon.

Now I can literally say "bring on the forum police".

Admitting to partaking in arson, bestiality, kidnapping, manslaughter or other similar serious crimes...

Someone would have to be dumb enough to mention it in a comment or forum post.

JAKXXX3 said:
Someone would have to be dumb enough to mention it in a comment or forum post.

And not be joking about it, like me being a cereal murderer because I murdered a bowl of cereal this morning.

NotMeNotYou said:
But that makes no sense? We want users to report things that go against the best intentions of the site. What you're proposing would mean they shouldn't report things that have the potential to be harmful.

I think someone tampered with my comment, I don't remember posting that.

Wait! I may have gotten confused on a typo, and I just realized this thread is a bit old. For once in a long time, I feel like a goofball...

JAKXXX3 said:
Someone would have to be dumb enough to mention it in a comment or forum post.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but mention that on a furry porn site?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Mdf said:
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but mention that on a furry porn site?

I'll believe it when I see it.

I've slapped numerous people for fucking their pets.

NotMeNotYou said:
Bragging about saving DNP material, or encouraging others to save it

Does this apply to the comments I made in forum #214635? They don't encourage or glorify saving deleted material but I understand if it's objectionable.

leomole said:
Does this apply to the comments I made in forum #214635? They don't encourage or glorify saving deleted material but I understand if it's objectionable.

Comments like those are somewhat in a gray zone. In that particular case Trunchbull only reluctantly removed her creations, so I'd personally give it a pass. On the other hand if it's clear pay content you'd fall victim to the rule without a second thought.

NotMeNotYou said:
Comments like those are somewhat in a gray zone. In that particular case Trunchbull only reluctantly removed her creations, so I'd personally give it a pass. On the other hand if it's clear pay content you'd fall victim to the rule without a second thought.

Okay, thanks for clarification.

NotMeNotYou said:

Changed the title so it is in alphabetical order.
Also added that admitting to, or being convicted of, bestiality or other serious crimes anywhere on the page will lead to their permanent removal. Neither do we need to deal with legal implications of people who actively partake in illegal activities (for Arizona/US), nor do we need to endanger our users by allowing known convicted felons to be on our page.

Note that US Supreme Court just struck down a North Carolina law which banned convicted sex offenders from having any profiles on social media sites where minors are known to be present, on 1st Amendment grounds. If this is a legal mandate from a jurisdiction in US, it is arguably unconstitutional. ( https: slash slash www.supremecourt.gov slash opinions slash 16pdf slash 15-1194_08l1.pdf ) I don't know specifically to which US/Arizona law you're referring to which causes your policies to now require that you close the accounts of anyone who discusses or has ever been convicted of a felony.

FYI, California convicts people of felonies All The Time. People who have paid their debts to society are now having to deal with ongoing ostracization? If you want to drive them to commit more felonies, that's the best way to do it. They need to be brought back into and included in society, not permanently marked with a Scarlet Letter for having had a lapse in judgment.

(Someone very close to me is in prison right now, for shooting someone. I'm aware of the situation surrounding it, and I am confident that a physician-induced benzodiazepine dependence and subsequent withdrawal psychosis cannot ever happen to him again. When he is released, he will be able to be bonded. He would be a fan of this site. But according to you, he can't participate because he would "endanger your users"?)

Are you going to start requiring legal name, birthdate, and other information so that you can look up your users' conviction data to enforce this rule? Or are you going to accept allegations made by other site users? If the former, how are you planning on keeping the personally-identifible information private? If the latter, how can one prove the lack of such a conviction? What happens in the case where the user had a conviction for a felony but the conviction is later reduced to a misdemeanor, dismissed, or pardoned? What policies or procedures exist to prevent this from becoming a site-legitimized means of harassment?

Also, under which jurisdiction's laws would a felony have to be a felony to trigger the removal of the user account? The most restrictive laws that your site can reach? (Guess what, if you have any users from the Muslim nations of the Middle East, all your homosexual users would be felons in those places -- and thus all discussion of homosexual sex would likewise be felonious.) The jurisdiction(s) of your administrators and moderators? Which jurisdictions are those? The jurisdiction where your servers are located? Which jurisdiction is that? The jurisdiction where the user is located? You don't even know or track that (unless you do, in which case your privacy policy needs to be updated), so you can't even make judgments based on that.

Does the Arizona law purport to say that anything that's a felony in Arizona cannot be discussed on any computer system anywhere, even amongst users and a site which are all located completely outside of Arizona and for which none of the traffic touches Arizona? I am not a lawyer, but that appears to me to be gross legislative overreach, and amounts to lawfare (the attempt to impose political or legal change on other jurisdictions with no standing to make or enforce any laws upon or within).

I respectfully request:
1) the "convicted felon" rule be struck because it's impossible to enforce with the data available to you.
2) the "discussion of felonious activity" clause be redrafted to more closely align with the actual mandates involved, combined with the realities that different jurisdictions define different things as felonies, that there is no way to identify which jurisdiction's laws the user is actually subject to, and that you are too small to have a legal staff with full knowledge of the entire world's felony codes.
3) you give users the necessary information to help them help you comply with the law, so that you don't apparently arbitrarily start lowering the banhammer.
4) that you cite the actual laws which you claim require you to change your policies to conform to them (such as the Arizona law you're alluding to).
5) that you consult with a lawyer to figure these things out.

wolfoftheair said:
Note that US Supreme Court just struck down a North Carolina law which banned convicted sex offenders from having any profiles on social media sites where minors are known to be present, on 1st Amendment grounds.

e621's policies are not law. There is no First Amendment right to post on a private website. The North Carolina law was struck down because it was the government that was limiting speech, not the private websites or social media companies.

Lance_Armstrong said:
e621's policies are not law. There is no First Amendment right to post on a private website. The North Carolina law was struck down because it was the government that was limiting speech, not the private websites or social media companies.

That's kind of why I would like to know the Arizona law that is being alluded to, honestly, which appears to be the impetus for at least this part of the policy updates.

What about cases that were dismissed after it was clear the charges constituted perjury?

wolfoftheair said:
I don't know specifically to which US/Arizona law you're referring to which causes your policies to now require that you close the accounts of anyone who discusses or has ever been convicted of a felony.

No laws require us directly to do that, this is more an meant to say that anything illegal under Arizona state law is off-limits. This is mainly aimed to ensure we have to deal less with police requests for data if push comes to shove. This has also happened before and will most likely happen again regardless.

wolfoftheair said:
Are you going to start requiring legal name, birthdate, and other information so that you can look up your users' conviction data to enforce this rule? Or are you going to accept allegations made by other site users? If the former, how are you planning on keeping the personally-identifible information private? If the latter, how can one prove the lack of such a conviction? What happens in the case where the user had a conviction for a felony but the conviction is later reduced to a misdemeanor, dismissed, or pardoned? What policies or procedures exist to prevent this from becoming a site-legitimized means of harassment?

Also, under which jurisdiction's laws would a felony have to be a felony to trigger the removal of the user account? The most restrictive laws that your site can reach? (Guess what, if you have any users from the Muslim nations of the Middle East, all your homosexual users would be felons in those places -- and thus all discussion of homosexual sex would likewise be felonious.) The jurisdiction(s) of your administrators and moderators? Which jurisdictions are those? The jurisdiction where your servers are located? Which jurisdiction is that? The jurisdiction where the user is located? You don't even know or track that (unless you do, in which case your privacy policy needs to be updated), so you can't even make judgments based on that.

Does the Arizona law purport to say that anything that's a felony in Arizona cannot be discussed on any computer system anywhere, even amongst users and a site which are all located completely outside of Arizona and for which none of the traffic touches Arizona? I am not a lawyer, but that appears to me to be gross legislative overreach, and amounts to lawfare (the attempt to impose political or legal change on other jurisdictions with no standing to make or enforce any laws upon or within).

Pointless slippery slope arguments. Our servers are based in Arizona, all traffic goes through Arizona, all data is saved and stored in Arizona. As such all local laws fully apply, regardless of where the user lives because everything that happens on e6 happens in Arizona.

Also, no. We're anonymous here and it will stay that way. We take privacy seriously and won't pry for any data (unless it's basic admin duty like checking for banned alternate accounts, vote cheating, or other things). However, the fandom is small and details leak through anyway. We will only act on those leaks or when people spill the beans themselves.
If someone wishes to incriminate someone else they will have to provide sufficient proof, and we are very skeptical.
There was also a situation earlier this year where a rather well known furry kidnapped an underage girl, he was banned pretty much instantly on all pages for that. As such this is neither a unique thing, nor are we the first to do this.

In essence, if someone says they like burning down houses, beating up people for fun, selling drugs, or likes having sexual relations with their pets they are out of here instantly. This is not aimed at creating witch hunts.
On the other hand, we have the right to remove anyone for any reason, this is just putting another one of those instances down into writing.

wolfoftheair said:
I respectfully request:
1) the "convicted felon" rule be struck because it's impossible to enforce with the data available to you.
2) the "discussion of felonious activity" clause be redrafted to more closely align with the actual mandates involved, combined with the realities that different jurisdictions define different things as felonies, that there is no way to identify which jurisdiction's laws the user is actually subject to, and that you are too small to have a legal staff with full knowledge of the entire world's felony codes.
3) you give users the necessary information to help them help you comply with the law, so that you don't apparently arbitrarily start lowering the banhammer.
4) that you cite the actual laws which you claim require you to change your policies to conform to them (such as the Arizona law you're alluding to).
5) that you consult with a lawyer to figure these things out.

1) people give us the data or it's public knowledge presented to us from another trustworthy source
2) All laws mentioned are local Arizona laws, since all actions happening on e621 go through there.
3) Might be worth to throw something about that into the TOS. Afaik it's still the old one from under Arcturus and horribly outdated, which is why it's my next big rewrite project.
4) No law requires those changes, we do them because we, as staff, see them as required.
5) see 4, this is not in relation to any laws

NotMeNotYou said:
Rather significant update: All records will now slowly "decay" in 6 month intervals. This means that any negative record old enough will become a neutral, and then eventually being deleted. So if you haven't broken the rules in a couple years you're actually now able to get back to a pristine account.

Actual text on the CoC:

This is not something that is performed by the page itself but instead must be done manually by a member of staff, so if you have old records that qualify please let one of us know and we'll clean them up for you.

Not sure how I've only just noticed this post, but...does this mean both of my negatives should qualify for removal?

Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??

stvndm14 said:
Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??

There's a separate section for that, "Sexual Orientation". It specifies behaviour that "Insultingly refer to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other members".

stvndm14 said:
Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??

A better question is, does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards caucasians? Countless people have been slapped for using black racial slurs but has anyone been slapped for using a white one?

BlueDingo said:
A better question is, does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards caucasians? Countless people have been slapped for using black racial slurs but has anyone been slapped for using a white one?

Yes.

So, just so we're all on the same page here.

The people who run this cartoon animal porn website believe it's required to ban people from participating in this cartoon animal porn website because those people did a bad thing in real life once. Letting people who used to do bad things in real life participate in this cartoon animal porn website gives this cartoon animal porn website a bad reputation and endangers the other people who participate in this cartoon animal porn website without doing bad things in real life.

Right?

Catachan said:
snip

Never accept a terrible scenario just because you already have a bad one.

Catachan said:
[text]

Honestly, that just reads like a word salad.

Hello yes I would like to lose my negative record

Sinking_Stone said:
Hello yes I would like to lose my negative record

It is done.

NotMeNotYou said:
Numbering a thread, IBTL, ITT, TL;DR, or any other fad statements

As always please let us know what you think about those changes, and if there is anything we should change or rework!

The only part I disagree with. A picture can paint a thousand words and doesn't imply spamming imo

If you write out a long wall of text on a public forum about why you're oh so sad or something, "tl;dr" is a short way to say "Dude, no one cares and that's huge. Stop embarrassing yourself". Similar to "k" implying absurdity in the OP or "IBTL" implying the thread goes against rules.

I don't see why tl;dr should be classified as trolling when "That's way too long to expect people to read it" is fine. These "fad statements" are just ways to quickly give opinion.

notawerewolf said:
The only part I disagree with. A picture can paint a thousand words and doesn't imply spamming imo

If you write out a long wall of text on a public forum about why you're oh so sad or something, "tl;dr" is a short way to say "Dude, no one cares and that's huge. Stop embarrassing yourself". Similar to "k" implying absurdity in the OP or "IBTL" implying the thread goes against rules.

I don't see why tl;dr should be classified as trolling when "That's way too long to expect people to read it" is fine. These "fad statements" are just ways to quickly give opinion.

Any of those statements offer nothing of value for any discussion they are used in. They are superfluous at best, and malignant at worst. Of course actually showing the courtesy of saying "This is far too long to read, could you please summarize it?" is more welcome than "I can't be arsed to read this crap". The tone makes the music and all that.

Besides that, this rule is purely aimed at repeat offenders. We're not going to slap someone for using it once for comedic purposes, but we absolutely will crack down on someone who is doing nothing but posting those things in threads.

NotMeNotYou said:
Any of those statements offer nothing of value for any discussion they are used in. They are superfluous at best, and malignant at worst. Of course actually showing the courtesy of saying "This is far too long to read, could you please summarize it?" is more welcome than "I can't be arsed to read this crap". The tone makes the music and all that.

Besides that, this rule is purely aimed at repeat offenders. We're not going to slap someone for using it once for comedic purposes, but we absolutely will crack down on someone who is doing nothing but posting those things in threads.

Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

Pretty sure Nimmy was saying that's what it reads as, which is not acceptable, whereas if you type out a sentence, you could easily word it nicely, ie "This is far too long, could you summarize it?"

notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

You know what would be a good alternative to posting those comments? Nothing. As in, the thing that is better is "nothing".

notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

"I can't be arsed to read this crap" would absolutely not be acceptable.

kamimatsu said:
You know what would be a good alternative to posting those comments? Nothing. As in, the thing that is better is "nothing".

nah fam

NotMeNotYou said:
"I can't be arsed to read this crap" would absolutely not be acceptable.

what, really? good to know

I get the idea of not wanting links to bestiality but I'm legit curious why linking to animal mating stuff isn't allowed especially since you can even find that on youtube.

Hmm, odd, did not find anything in the changes about "increased art standards policy", based on which NotMeNotYou says I cannot submit my art here anymore. So what changed, then? Considering that I have been uploading here for 2 years and my stuff was posted by others here long before that?

Rage_Inducer said:
I get the idea of not wanting links to bestiality but I'm legit curious why linking to animal mating stuff isn't allowed especially since you can even find that on youtube.

to protect e621's reputation
while animal cocks being inserted into animal vaginas are not illegal (as opposed to when they're inserted into human vaginas)
people will still go "look, the furries get off on animal cocks"

SwiftNimblefoot said:
Hmm, odd, did not find anything in the changes about "increased art standards policy", based on which NotMeNotYou says I cannot submit my art here anymore. So what changed, then? Considering that I have been uploading here for 2 years and my stuff was posted by others here long before that?

Banish the thought, but maybe the quality of your current art decreased. This has been brought up for one artist before, cherished by Notme themself (poetically), so it shouldn't be without reason to say it can happen to anyone...

Check your old images to your new ones; I believe there was a list that me or another made about quality of an image, so also search for that.

Siral_Exan said:
Banish the thought, but maybe the quality of your current art decreased. This has been brought up for one artist before, cherished by Notme themself (poetically), so it shouldn't be without reason to say it can happen to anyone...

Check your old images to your new ones; I believe there was a list that me or another made about quality of an image, so also search for that.

If he said that, I would have been OK with that, but no, he simply told me my art "does not cut it anymore". Not my latest pic or anything, just in general. Honestly, I feel I improved over the years and mastered new techniques in Photoshop, not taken a step back. But all this talk about quality is rather subjective, I feel. You can easily find terrible art here with very little searching, but it got approved because the approver liked it for some reason. Others get rejected because say, the artist draws in a sketchy uninked style - I have seen a lot of great art barred for this reason.
But all this does not explain why after checking with the Admins 2 years ago, my art was deemed to be acceptable, and now suddenly (and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems) everything I post is deleted....

SwiftNimblefoot said:
(and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems)

Correlation =/= Causation. No need to make passive-aggressive accusations. Besides, it's Janitors who approve or reject posts. Did you honestly think every single post was decided by one person?

Also, sole admin? Really?

kamimatsu said:
Correlation =/= Causation. No need to make passive-aggressive accusations. Besides, it's Janitors who approve or reject posts. Did you honestly think every single post was decided by one person?

Also, sole admin? Really?

The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

SwiftNimblefoot said:
The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

Here's a list of admins.
Here's a list of janitors.

SwiftNimblefoot said:
The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

This role's been in place as long as I've been around, And it's even listed in the rules/Wiki section of the site.

SwiftNimblefoot said:
If he said that, I would have been OK with that, but no, he simply told me my art "does not cut it anymore". Not my latest pic or anything, just in general. Honestly, I feel I improved over the years and mastered new techniques in Photoshop, not taken a step back. But all this talk about quality is rather subjective, I feel. You can easily find terrible art here with very little searching, but it got approved because the approver liked it for some reason. Others get rejected because say, the artist draws in a sketchy uninked style - I have seen a lot of great art barred for this reason.
But all this does not explain why after checking with the Admins 2 years ago, my art was deemed to be acceptable, and now suddenly (and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems) everything I post is deleted....

Your art is bad.

Your anatomy makes no sense most of the time (vulva on the stomach, deformed limbs, wrong proportions), your linework is shoddy, your coloring basic at best, and your shading might as well not be there at all.
Dave allowed your art to stay because it was literally the lowest quality he would allow on the page, and I heavily disagreed with his decision back then. I now hold Dave's position and I have no reason to let your art in anymore.

I am sorry to be so blunt but I've already explained my position to you back before Dave overturned my decision to delete your art. As such I simply don't see a reason to repeat what I've said back then in more words than absolutely necessary.

Edit: If you'd actually like some constructive criticism I can give you some. Draw from life, not from memory. Find a reference and compare your work to the reference(s). Especially your faces and hands need a lot of work still. Also look into using differently thick lines for your linework. Use the thickness to give different parts different weights. It looks very strange that fine fur has the same "weight" as heavy objects. Your coloring should follow the curve of bodies better. Your shading should also better follow established physics rules, as in highlights and direction of light need to be consistent at least.

Action figures are cheap, Plentiful and a great way to have readily-posable bodies, Both fantastic and mundane, From which to get ideas from.

Also a hell of a lot cheaper than those overrated wood mannequins.

NotMeNotYou said:
Your art is bad.

Your anatomy makes no sense most of the time (vulva on the stomach, deformed limbs, wrong proportions), your linework is shoddy, your coloring basic at best, and your shading might as well not be there at all.
Dave allowed your art to stay because it was literally the lowest quality he would allow on the page, and I heavily disagreed with his decision back then. I now hold Dave's position and I have no reason to let your art in anymore.

I am sorry to be so blunt but I've already explained my position to you back before Dave overturned my decision to delete your art. As such I simply don't see a reason to repeat what I've said back then in more words than absolutely necessary.

Edit: If you'd actually like some constructive criticism I can give you some. Draw from life, not from memory. Find a reference and compare your work to the reference(s). Especially your faces and hands need a lot of work still. Also look into using differently thick lines for your linework. Use the thickness to give different parts different weights. It looks very strange that fine fur has the same "weight" as heavy objects. Your coloring should follow the curve of bodies better. Your shading should also better follow established physics rules, as in highlights and direction of light need to be consistent at least.

No, he allowed it to stay because I draw R34 of characters nobody else draws.
I draw using reference art. And I have been drawing longer than you have been on FA. Furry artist is not my "job", as it is for some, I draw because I enjoy it, so don't expect me to take art classes because someone does not like my art.
I fail to see your reasoning here - I could easily point you to a lot of pics on E621 that have the same or more flaws than mine. This place is not some classy highbrow art site. It is a collection site for furry porn, dude. The whole tagging system serves the only purpose to make it easy to find art relating to a character or a franchise. By limiting who can upload what, you are just making it harder for people to find art relating to a character/show - which is why 90% of people come here. Why else? If you want to find generic furry art of generic OCs, you can search for tags on FA, DA, Weasly, Inkbunny, ETC. This place was meant to be a collection of art from ALL these places. Your predecessor understood that, and that was why R34-Paheal died out slowly while people moved here.
If you start to limit art upload based on personal taste - because that is what you are doing - then you are just turning this place into an elitist snobfest, same as Hentaifoundry.

BlueDingo said:
Here's a list of admins.
Here's a list of janitors.

NotMeNotYou is an Admin, yet pretty much 80% of pics are approved by him.
So, do the other admins have any say in what he does? I have half a mind to contact them all.

SwiftNimblefoot said:
No, he allowed it to stay because I draw R34 of characters nobody else draws.
I draw using reference art. And I have been drawing longer than you have been on FA. Furry artist is not my "job", as it is for some, I draw because I enjoy it, so don't expect me to take art classes because someone does not like my art.
I fail to see your reasoning here - I could easily point you to a lot of pics on E621 that have the same or more flaws than mine. This place is not some classy highbrow art site. It is a collection site for furry porn, dude. The whole tagging system serves the only purpose to make it easy to find art relating to a character or a franchise. By limiting who can upload what, you are just making it harder for people to find art relating to a character/show - which is why 90% of people come here. Why else? If you want to find generic furry art of generic OCs, you can search for tags on FA, DA, Weasly, Inkbunny, ETC. This place was meant to be a collection of art from ALL these places. Your predecessor understood that, and that was why R34-Paheal died out slowly while people moved here.
If you start to limit art upload based on personal taste - because that is what you are doing - then you are just turning this place into an elitist snobfest, same as Hentaifoundry.

I have talked to Dave more often than you have about this issue, I also still have any and all email correspondence between the three of us available. Don't tell me you know his reasoning better than I do.

Besides that I approve a lot of things I dislike or am outright disgusted by. If you're trying to make this out like I have some sort of personal vendetta against you then you're wrong. Other people's art on your level of expertise have been deleted as well.

SwiftNimblefoot said:
NotMeNotYou is an Admin, yet pretty much 80% of pics are approved by him.
So, do the other admins have any say in what he does? I have half a mind to contact them all.

I outrank all of them.

Hi. I remember posting about few months ago about losing one of my two negatives and I not sure if enough time has passed but since I haven't had any infractions since then if it is applicable I would like to request the removal of the other one if you please. Thank you.

tiamat5 said:
Hi. I remember posting about few months ago about losing one of my two negatives and I not sure if enough time has passed but since I haven't had any infractions since then if it is applicable I would like to request the removal of the other one if you please. Thank you.

Dmail the admin(s) who had given the record(s) in the first place. They'll be the ones to remove it.

Faux-Pa said:
Dmail the admin(s) who had given the record(s) in the first place. They'll be the ones to remove it.

Those records have been deleted for a couple days already.

That's neat. I've been a member of this site since 2009. I was pretty proud of my record (the fact that I've never had a negative). Now that negative records can be removed though, it feels a lot less like an accomplishment. :(

Shouldn’t this thread be stickied?

BlackLicorice said:
Shouldn’t this thread be stickied?

No, I sticky it temporarily whenever we update the guidelines, but beyond that it'd be pointless.

I wish that notes could be deleted even if they are in the note history of that post, also something seems wrong with the sets. (Just my opinion)

IllinoisBoi1 said:
I wish that notes could be deleted even if they are in the note history of that post, also something seems wrong with the sets. (Just my opinion)

Could you elaborate on both points? Notes can always be deleted (but their history can't).

NotMeNotYou said:
Could you elaborate on both points? Notes can always be deleted (but their history can't).

I just want to know why you can’t delete notes from their history and why the sets don’t work. I’ve tried picking “owned” or “maintained” and nothing works, I’ve tried clicking the add button, too.

IllinoisBoi1 said:
I just want to know why you can’t delete notes from their history and why the sets don’t work. I’ve tried picking “owned” or “maintained” and nothing works, I’ve tried clicking the add button, too.

well, if you mean why you can see the history of notes.. .well.. I present to you a concept:

• Kinky McFoxy uploads some Horribly Lewd Japanese Comic.

Yamanda Taroneko-san helpfully translates all of that sexy lewdness.
Bob Furryson rages unresonably because... well, shit, I don't know why people flip out and thing that deleting all the tags off a post, or spamming is a good idea, but it happens sometimes and today, Bob Furryson is the dude who's raging because he just cannot deal with that Horrible Lewdness.
So he deletes the notes. Because if he deletes the notes, he makes it harder for people to enjoy this thing that enraged him. If he deletes the tags, he makes it harder for people to find the thing that enraged him.

So, we keep the history around, so that any person can be a good neighbor, so to speak, and fix what was broken.

Or another scenario:

• Kinky McFoxy's at it again, uploading lewd things.

Kandi Neko-chan is sugoi at her nihongo because she's been taking it for the last roku months, so she can totally translate this manga doujinshi that makes her little kokoro go doki doki. She "translates" as best she can, leaving out words here and there, guessing at other places, and generally not doing very good. because Japanese is pretty hard.
Yamada-san comes along, deletes her old translation, and replaces it with his own translation.
Kandi-chan OBJECTS! her translation was SO kakoi! How could he be so hidoi! to a kawaiisou bishoujo like her! She deletes his notes and replaces it with her own. Ganbate, chibi senshi
Kink McFoxy says "um." and puts Yamada-san's translation back.
Kandi objects again. and replaces her own.
Someone, somewhere, lets the staff know that there's an issue, and they can easily have a look and see who's translation is better, and who's being a little brat.

as for sets--I havn't had a problem with them--what exactly are you having a problem with? creating one? Adding to one? be more descriptive :)

You can't delete the notes from history, but you can revert to an earlier state of the note. This is to make it harder to vandalize notes, as anybody who wants to get rid of them (or even make bad edits) has to manually go through every single one. A note that's been deleted, as explained above, is still marked on the history so that it can be fixed more easily.

As for sets, I'm not sure what your problem is. Could you explain further? If you're just asking for clarification on the terms, a maintainer is somebody who doesn't own the set, but is qualified to edit it and add more images. An owner is somebody who created the set, and has the authorization to add more maintainers. If you're wondering why you can't add posts to somebody else's set, that's because you're not a maintainer of it.

SnowWolf said:

Or another scenario:

Had something like this happen just once that I can remember, though it was kind of in reverse and involved a small handful of people over a period of nearly five years. When I finally grew bored of it, I just locked the notes.

The only negative record I've got hasn't been removed yet, for some odd reason, so I kinda call BS on this...and I do it because this negative record is at least 4 years old.

PSM760 said:
The only negative record I've got hasn't been removed yet, for some odd reason, so I kinda call BS on this...and I do it because this negative record is at least 4 years old.

the record removal is not automated, admins remove them manually. you have to message an admin and ask for it to be removed. also the negative record on your profile is from 2 years ago, not 4.

WTF!!! all my porn has been removed!! NOW I HAVE ONLY 2 PAGES OF IT!! why? So many saved images for this?! come on! :C

Farenjeit said:
WTF!!! all my porn has been removed!! NOW I HAVE ONLY 2 PAGES OF IT!! why? So many saved images for this?! come on! :C

Unless there's something I'm missing, only 28 of your nearly 2700 favorites have been deleted.

Knotty_Curls said:
Unless there's something I'm missing, only 28 of your nearly 2700 favorites have been deleted.

when i posted that comment only 2 pages appeared, now i have 36 returned pages

This is not something that is performed by the page itself but instead must be done manually by a member of staff, so if you have old records that qualify please let one of us know and we'll clean them up for you.

I still have that -1 from 6 years ago... any chance of that being taken care of?

New CoC update: This time we added language that vote cheating is against the rules, specifically using more than account to vote on the same thing(s).

Abuse of Site Tools
Suggested Suspension Length: 7 days
This category includes:

• Using any of the site tools, such as Flag for Deletion, ticket reporting system, takedowns, notes, or any other site tool in a fashion that can be construed as disruptive, spamming, or defamatory
• Putting gibberish in any of the description fields
• Repeatedly submitting invalid, incorrect, or unnecessary requests
• Repeatedly submitting username change requests
• Using any of the site tools to “backseat moderate”
• Reporting forum posts, threads, comments, blips, or any other site media that is older than 6 months
• Voting with multiple accounts on the same posts or comments

It should be noted that if a user reports a post, thread, comment, or any other site media that is older than 6 months, but contains a publicly visible malicious link, that they will be exempt from this rule

In addition, if a person who is submitting content wishes it for it to be removed, for any reason, within 48 hours, that request will be honored.

Circumventing a Suspension / Ban
Suggested Suspension Length: Permanent
This category includes:

• Posting anything on another account
• Having someone post on your behalf

If someone is found to have violated this rule, they may be banned with no appeal, regardless of previous disciplinary action
Alternate accounts are generally okay, so long as they are neither used to evade a suspension/ban, nor to abuse the vote tools

Please note that this is merely us writing this down, we have enforced this as general abuse of site tools for years now, but people keep thinking it's okay to make accounts to vote on things more than once.

NotMeNotYou said:
New CoC update: This time we added language that vote cheating is against the rules, specifically using more than account to vote on the same thing(s).

Please note that this is merely us writing this down, we have enforced this as general abuse of site tools for years now, but people keep thinking it's okay to make accounts to vote on things more than once.

How do you determine they're alternate accounts? If it's done by IP, this might catch households where multiple people with unique accounts will upvote the same posts. (My partner and I tend to do this, and I would hope it's not considered vote cheating.)

Neko_Ed said:
How do you determine they're alternate accounts? If it's done by IP, this might catch households where multiple people with unique accounts will upvote the same posts. (My partner and I tend to do this, and I would hope it's not considered vote cheating.)

We go by IP and general behavior. It's hard to believe it's different people when there's a bunch of new accounts made in a short timeframe, that always vote on the same things within just a few minutes, for example.

NotMeNotYou said:
We go by IP and general behavior. It's hard to believe it's different people when there's a bunch of new accounts made in a short timeframe, that always vote on the same things within just a few minutes, for example.

Makes sense to me!

... I just find your icon (https://e621.net/post/show/896454/2016-anthro-black_fur-black_hair-black_nose-blizza) ... and the fact that you have to be what some may call a "rule nazi" rather ironic.

Especially the "creepy comments" rule. This is an adult website, supposedly populated by adults. But some insist on being treated like children with a superiority complex.

/rant off.

Heuvadoches said:
... I just find your icon (https://e621.net/post/show/896454/2016-anthro-black_fur-black_hair-black_nose-blizza) ... and the fact that you have to be what some may call a "rule nazi" rather ironic.

The irony of my avatar goes a lot deeper than that.

Heuvadoches said:
Especially the "creepy comments" rule. This is an adult website, supposedly populated by adults. But some insist on being treated like children with a superiority complex.

/rant off.

So, because we're adults we should accept needlessly creepy behavior? Try going to a sex shop and, if they have a female clerk, tell her that tits would be the perfect size for giving titjobs. Then report back to us how well that went.
Just because we host adult content doesn't mean we have to accept people trying to tell the world how they're planning on jacking off to any given image. Just because FA, pornhub, inkbunny, and most other places have unmoderated comment sections doesn't mean we have to as well.

Heuvadoches said:
Especially the "creepy comments" rule. This is an adult website, supposedly populated by adults. But some insist on being treated like children with a superiority complex.

/rant off.

Honey.

You have NO IDEA what people were posting because we started putting in the creepy comment rule.

the comments section were an endless war between people verbally masturbating themselves as they think about yiffing the fox, and other people trying to appreciate the art and discuss it like adults.

And then there were the roleplayers.

... There were several people who devotedly commented on every picture, all sorts of lewd and unpleasant things. Ain't nothing like looking at a pin up, then scrolling down to read a graphic description about how someone wants to **** that ***** until ***** **** *********

And when I say verbally masturbate, I mean it. I am positive that some of these people were getting off on commenting. I don't want to take unwilling part in someone else's jerk off session. (seriously, when you take your fetish out in public, you're forcing everyone else to participate, and that isn't okay.)