NotMeNotYou said:

So, because we're adults we should accept needlessly creepy behavior?
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.

I agree with this, as such a rule does seem necessary. But please, help me understand what is and isn't considered creepy. I'm particularly confused by 3 of the 4 comments that were used as evidence when tiamat5 was temp blocked recently. Could one of the staff (preferably whoever chose those 4 bits of evidence for the block) explain to me (and thus anyone else who may be wondering) the creepiness behind each of these 4 comments individually?

CoupDeGrace said:
I agree with this, as such a rule does seem necessary. But please, help me understand what is and isn't considered creepy. I'm particularly confused by 3 of the 4 comments that were used as evidence when tiamat5 was temp blocked recently. Could one of the staff (preferably whoever chose those 4 bits of evidence for the block) explain to me (and thus anyone else who may be wondering) the creepiness behind each of these 4 comments individually?

It wasn't me who determined them as creepy, but I"ll give this a shot.

Creepy generally means oversharing. Imagine you have a friend that you're pretty comfortable with. You're at a place with each other where you don't mind talking about what turns you on, but it gets weird when you start getting too personally detailed.

So.. for example...

as for Tiamat specifically...

None of those comments are TOO bad... I think the problem is more that they have made over 44,000 comments over the last 8 years. That's something like 15 comments a day. Every day. And a lot of them are... mildly creepy. Most are fine. Almost any of them would be just fine on their own--mostly-- but 15 comments a day ... is a lot of comments. if even jsut 1% of those posts are creepy, that's too many.

A lot of the comments are pick up lines, or fantasies, which isn't really cool.

focus on the art, or the quality or the art, not what you want to DO to the art, or the characters illustrated.

Make sure to lock your threads lads, there've been some hijackings lately.

SnowWolf said:
focus on the art, or the quality or the art, not what you want to DO to the art, or the characters illustrated.

Since the point is to not make it an unpleasant experience for newcomers, can that bit be added to the "no roleplaying" rule? I've already been warned a couple of times for roleplaying when all I was doing was making a joke. But you guys don't like comments that talk to/about the characters? Okay, THAT needs to be made a little more clear so maybe newcomers can avoid that kind of negative attention.

Clearly it's completely, and subjectively only going by what the admin thinks and nothing about what the user thinks.

So no, it's not for a better 'user experience' it's just a general way for an admin to get rid of someone they don't like.

Omniscient said:
Clearly it's completely, and subjectively only going by what the admin thinks and nothing about what the user thinks.

So no, it's not for a better 'user experience' it's just a general way for an admin to get rid of someone they don't like.

You reported a comment twice that isn't explicitly referencing sexual acts, but vague enough to also include something like a cold shower.
We won't go after innuendos that aren't clearly explicit.

Omniscient said:
Clearly it's completely, and subjectively only going by what the admin thinks and nothing about what the user thinks.

So no, it's not for a better 'user experience' it's just a general way for an admin to get rid of someone they don't like.

Of course not.

Jesus Christ, think about that one for a moment.

If all it takes is for one person to complain about another to get that person in trouble saying "I don't like that comment they made," then anyone would have a ready made built in way to get anyone they didn't like banned in a heartbeat.

That's.... an awful idea. o_o

That's why the staff attempts to be an impartial party when making decisions about these sorts of things.

That also said, we're human and not endless encyclopedias, so if you have a specific reason for reporting something, be sure to include it when you do so. We can't be expected to all know that marmalade sandwich is slang for an act of gruesome murder and cannibalism, so feel free to make sure we know why it's improper if you feel it is not immediately obvious.

I'll also take this time time to remind people of some of their options.

If you'd like to hide comments from a specific person, you can add them do your blacklist as such:

Then, go to your Settings page where there is a box reading "Apply Blacklisted Users to Forum Posts, Comments, Dmails, and Blips." Checking this will effectively hide a user from you entirely, except in the event that someone replies to text they've said, and quotes their text. This includes anything they upload.

On the other hand, if you find most comments in general unsettling, on your settings page, you can scroll d own to a section titled "comments" .. where you can completely disable seeing comments at all.

Or if you'd like to only see SOME comments, you can set your 'comment threshold' to something like 5 or 10.. The comment threshold refers to the comment's score, so setting to a number like that will ensure that you only see posts that many people have liked.

SnowWolf said:
Of course not.

Jesus Christ, think about that one for a moment.

If all it takes is for one person to complain about another to get that person in trouble saying "I don't like that comment they made," then anyone would have a ready made built in way to get anyone they didn't like banned in a heartbeat.

That's.... an awful idea. o_o

That's why the staff attempts to be an impartial party when making decisions about these sorts of things.

That also said, we're human and not endless encyclopedias, so if you have a specific reason for reporting something, be sure to include it when you do so. We can't be expected to all know that marmalade sandwich is slang for an act of gruesome murder and cannibalism, so feel free to make sure we know why it's improper if you feel it is not immediately obvious.

I'll also take this time time to remind people of some of their options.

If you'd like to hide comments from a specific person, you can add them do your blacklist as such:

user:bobmcfurryson

Then, go to your Settings page where there is a box reading "Apply Blacklisted Users to Forum Posts, Comments, Dmails, and Blips." Checking this will effectively hide a user from you entirely, except in the event that someone replies to text they've said, and quotes their text. This includes anything they upload.

On the other hand, if you find most comments in general unsettling, on your settings page, you can scroll d own to a section titled "comments" .. where you can completely disable seeing comments at all.

Or if you'd like to only see SOME comments, you can set your 'comment threshold' to something like 5 or 10.. The comment threshold refers to the comment's score, so setting to a number like that will ensure that you only see posts that many people have liked.

Having a vague rule is bad. Creepy is completely subjective. Therefore it only matters if the admin looking at it thinks it is.

Omniscient said:
Having a vague rule is bad. Creepy is completely subjective. Therefore it only matters if the admin looking at it thinks it is.

Yeah... see, here's the thing.... Creepy isn't nearly as subjective as you're saying it is.

It really isn't.

We get thousands of comments every day (we have a total of 4 million comments. Spread equally over every day the site has been active, that's 943 a day. The site is WAY bigger today than it was when it started, so, thousands a day.) yet there have only been 5 people warned in the last 24 hours for being creepy.

and, I'd like to emphasize: warned. Not punished. Not scolded. No one was given a negative mark on their record. A neutral mark is not a negative. it's a warning. It's mom saying "stop running in the house" not getting grounded.

So what sort of comments have been "Creepy" in the last 24 hours? let's find out. Together.

And that is the last 24 hours.

I'm pretty sure we all agree that that shit's pretty inappropriate.

That said, you are right in that vague rules are not good, but neither are overly specific rules. If you have any suggestions as to how specifically to improve the wording of the rule, please feel free to share.

SnowWolf said:
Yeah... see, here's the thing.... Creepy isn't nearly as subjective as you're saying it is.

It really isn't.

We get thousands of comments every day (we have a total of 4 million comments. Spread equally over every day the site has been active, that's 943 a day. The site is WAY bigger today than it was when it started, so, thousands a day.) yet there have only been 5 people warned in the last 24 hours for being creepy.

and, I'd like to emphasize: warned. Not punished. Not scolded. No one was given a negative mark on their record. A neutral mark is not a negative. it's a warning. It's mom saying "stop running in the house" not getting grounded.

So what sort of comments have been "Creepy" in the last 24 hours? let's find out. Together.

24 hours

And that is the last 24 hours.

Let me slide into the previous 24 hours where we get such gems like..

I'm pretty sure we all agree that that shit's pretty inappropriate.

That said, you are right in that vague rules are not good, but neither are overly specific rules. If you have any suggestions as to how specifically to improve the wording of the rule, please feel free to share.

Technically, out of those, the "I'd love to cream that rabbit!" is also vague. As Notmenotyou mentioned, it's not overtly sexually as a result of 'that could mean many other different things.' of which they did refuse to take any sort of action on/

Omniscient said:
Technically, out of those, the "I'd love to cream that rabbit!" is also vague. As Notmenotyou mentioned, it's not overtly sexually as a result of 'that could mean many other different things.' of which they did refuse to take any sort of action on/

The difference is the one, that got the record, is talking about doing something to the character, the comment I refused to give a record for doesn't reference doing any actions towards, or with the character, just that they have knowledge about something.
We do draw the line for inappropriate comments whenever an action is aimed towards the characters depicted. Those usually go directly into creepy, or inappropriate, territory. If it doesn't involve the character directly as participant of any actions, it's usually more mild, though exceptions exist for both.

We do have internal guidelines for what we feel is creepy or inappropriate, we just don't have those written down in public, or even written down at all. We talk a lot in our chats about whether or not specific things cross the line, and why they do or don't, and then use these group decisions to make similar decisions in the future. It works pretty well because we aren't a very big team, but in the case of something being seemingly unfair I'm always open to have a look. Whether it's a record I gave or the record of another admin doesn't matter.

Omniscient said:
Technically, out of those, the "I'd love to cream that rabbit!" is also vague. As Notmenotyou mentioned, it's not overtly sexually as a result of 'that could mean many other different things.' of which they did refuse to take any sort of action on/

I mean... as a general rule of thumb, if a comment can be distilled down to "I want to X that Y".... then it's probably not really a good comment, unless it's like "aw! I want to bake her a big tray of brownies!" Or "aww... I wish I could give her a big hug"

SnowWolf said:
I mean... as a general rule of thumb, if a comment can be distilled down to "I want to X that Y".... then it's probably not really a good comment, unless it's like "aw! I want to bake her a big tray of brownies!" Or "aww... I wish I could give her a big hug"

and if I, as a Janitor/Admin decided mentioning wanting to hug someone is creepy.. See where this is going? Ya'll already admitted that it's completely on your whim whether something is creepy or not despite it not being directed at you.

Would karma modifiers be possible in a future site update? (like e.g. slashdot, or any other site based on slashcode)

When voting on a comment you could use a modifier to flag something as 'creepy' without actually reporting it. Comments that are creepy but still entertaining could be upvoted, and users who don't want to see that can just blacklist based on that modifier.
(would also save mods the trouble of dealing with them)

Omniscient said:
and if I, as a Janitor/Admin decided mentioning wanting to hug someone is creepy.. See where this is going? Ya'll already admitted that it's completely on your whim whether something is creepy or not despite it not being directed at you.

Yes, except we're *reasonable human beings* and can use out *minds* and life experience to determine if something is creepy or not. PLUS, as NotMeNotYou said there is no single mod acting as a singular hand of god.

We regularly consult each other on all topics.
We regularly look at what other people are doing and if we disagree, we say something.
We are encouraged to share our opinions.
We do not fear reprisal if we tell someone that we think they're wrong.
We are human and we can make mistakes!

You have the ability to say "I think you are incorrect". Which you have. That's good!

But... basically every janitor and administrator has looked at this and said "That's not creepy."
This is not creepy under our rules.
The only one who thinks that this is creepy is you.

So what you're basically saying is that being a member of the staff means that our opinions are now invalid, because the group of us cannot, mutually and unanimously, make a valid decision.
You are also suggesting that your singular opinion is worth more than our collective opinion.

So if this happens to be the case, what, precisely, do you propose to solve the problem if the very people in charge of keeping this place from becoming a spooge-covered den of horror are not capable of doing so?

Or is the answer simply "I want to be right, no matter what"?

SnowWolf said:
Yes, except we're *reasonable human beings* and can use our *minds*

Technically one of you is a peafowl, which is neither human nor reasonable and has a mind the size of an acorn.

Ijerk said:
Would karma modifiers be possible in a future site update? (like e.g. slashdot, or any other site based on slashcode)

When voting on a comment you could use a modifier to flag something as 'creepy' without actually reporting it. Comments that are creepy but still entertaining could be upvoted, and users who don't want to see that can just blacklist based on that modifier.
(would also save mods the trouble of dealing with them)

That is pretty genius

Ijerk said:
Would karma modifiers be possible in a future site update? (like e.g. slashdot, or any other site based on slashcode)

When voting on a comment you could use a modifier to flag something as 'creepy' without actually reporting it. Comments that are creepy but still entertaining could be upvoted, and users who don't want to see that can just blacklist based on that modifier.
(would also save mods the trouble of dealing with them)

I agree that this kind of system sounds quite interesting. Only real negative situations I could come up with is false flagging, and how far measures to prevent that would have to go. If a single person can flag something as 'creepy' by this method, then it's bound to be taken advantage of to hide posts without alerting staff to that. And the more people are required to flag something as 'creepy', the more people have to first be exposed to his creepy post. Essentially making the system moot.

A post that is flagged for deletion for some sort of rule violation has a clear red outline around it, even without filters applied, so it's easy to avoid such posts if one is easily disturbed or offended. While doing the same to 'creepy' flagged comments could be enough, perhaps they should be sorted to the bottom of the comment list?

SymiletheHarbinger said:
I agree that this kind of system sounds quite interesting. Only real negative situations I could come up with is false flagging, and how far measures to prevent that would have to go. If a single person can flag something as 'creepy' by this method, then it's bound to be taken advantage of to hide posts without alerting staff to that. And the more people are required to flag something as 'creepy', the more people have to first be exposed to his creepy post. Essentially making the system moot.

A post that is flagged for deletion for some sort of rule violation has a clear red outline around it, even without filters applied, so it's easy to avoid such posts if one is easily disturbed or offended. While doing the same to 'creepy' flagged comments could be enough, perhaps they should be sorted to the bottom of the comment list?

It would likely require letting users set a threshold for number of creepy flags before the comment is hidden(or possibly as a % of the total flags), similar to how downvotes work right now.

Impossible to say for sure, but it may actually be faster than waiting for a mod to delete something. I'm sure I could go leave a literal 'This make my boner the big boner' comment and be downvoted multiple times within minutes, so I'm guessing the same thing would happen with flags.

BUT-
The system has other uses as well. For example the site I mentioned has flags for informative, insightful, funny, disagree, redundant, troll, offtopic and several others. So if you don't want random puns or jokes you could even filter that.
We could even have a flag for the comments that are just "Yes" or "Cool" or the several other 1-word replies that get spammed to death continuously. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE

Ijerk said:
the comments that are just "Yes" or "Cool" or the several other 1-word replies that get spammed to death continuously. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE

The reason those 1 word replies are spammed continuously is because they don't want to run afoul of the very vague "creepy comment" rule.

Personally, I find it better to not comment at all ...

And that opens up a whole other ball of waxy complaints about up/down votes without commenting.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess.

This is an image board / forum. These new rules being required is a symptom of people treating it as a social media... ridiculous that mostly adults looking at furry can't behave themselves (pun intended).

I'm not saying the new rules are bad; it's more of a comment, really. Makes me realize that demonous chatter has intruded every **facet of online activity.

SnowWolf said:
Yeah...

[...]

I'm pretty sure we all agree that that shit's pretty inappropriate.

If the posts are on e rated images, sexually explicit comments about the character being labeled "unacceptable" is a double standard.

There's this great feature that was just released for the human brain. It's called the ignore app. It let's you block out things you find distasteful, and get on with your life.

Another joke that's really a comment on our lives.

I'm kind of used to creepy comments about my characters, because I can separate myself from my work, but sometimes it delves into a whole other field. I think the worst comment I ever got was in response to a voice acting clip I did where someone said "I want to stick my dick in the mouth that made this voice"

jamboi9000 said:
There's this great feature that was just released for the human brain. It's called the ignore app. It let's you block out things you find distasteful, and get on with your life.

Another joke that's really a comment on our lives.

There's this great feature that's existed for years: The edit button. Use it.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's this great feature that's existed for years: The edit button. Use it.

Yes, lets .

jamboi9000 said:
If the posts are on e rated images, sexually explicit comments about the character being labeled "unacceptable" is a double standard.

Not really. If I sell you a paper porn mag, I don't expect you to start talking about your favorite set of tits, or to whip your dick out right then and there.

I expect you to act like an adult, and be polite, as described by the local rules of our culture. If our culture says no public fapping, then no dicks on the counter.

The culture of e621 says to keep the comments non-creepy.

Do excuse the dust in here. The latest update is pretty straightforward, we renamed the rule to be a bit more objective and clarified more what exactly is inappropriate. In addition to that we've made a small help page to add some examples and explanations on what is and is not appropriate.

First of all the rule text:

Inappropriate Comments
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days
This category includes:

• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that cause an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease, or are sexually inappropriate
• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that share explicit details about personal sexual fantasies or actions
• Creating comments that exceed the rating of the submission
• For a few examples and elaborations please see here

This is intended to ensure that users do not express their personal fetishes/desires publicly. Users have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse comfortably without unneeded or unnecessary commentary of those who wish to express their desires.
We ultimately do not want people discussing their personal sexual encounters (past or present) or any explicitly detailed desires, fetishes, or fantasies. All users, artists, commissioners, the subjects of works of art, and other people browsing the website all have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse our website without seeing comments from our users that may make them uncomfortable.

And the help page:

Examples that (most likely1) won’t get you a record:

• God I wish that were me
• I’m loving those tits
• That is one hot / wet pussy
• Pump that donut!

idk, i feel like i've seen users get marks for comments like that even with appropriate context (rip tiamat5)

regardless, that news notification got my hopes up that this was going to be more of a revision to make the rules on inappropriate comments a bit more lax than just rewording, but if those examples given for comments that won't get you banned really won't get you banned, then i've got no complaints

also:

"Fine addition to my collection for erection."

i'm sorry, that one is just too funny to me

The line between "God I wish that were me" and "I wish I could get fucked like that" is razor thin.

ngl it's rules like these that make me way prefer e621 to other websites like rule34 since yeah you can blacklist stuff but that doesn't stop people from commenting the most out-of-context creepy stuff on a mild pic, it's one of my biggest pet hates about these kind of sites so im glad something is being done to regulate that kinda stuff.

Finally. Calling them "creepy comments" was more inappropriate than most of those comments that people got records for.
I still would prefer if this rule was loosened/reworded, because it's just silly.

All users, artists, commissioners, the subjects of works of art, and other people browsing the website all have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse our website without seeing comments from our users that may make them uncomfortable.

I'd say that seeing comments wishing to be a part of given scenario is very much a thing realistically expected from porn artwork. Like, we're nearly all here to browse pictures that show things we enjoy doing, or to find new ones to do. If people expressing that out loud makes you uncomfortable, you should probably take a break to figure out if you're mature enough to browse PORN.
What i would see instead, is a rule against pointless/irrelevant/spam comments.
If you have nothing more to say than "i like it" or "it's nice", use an upvote/favorite.
"i wish that was me"? Dude, we all do. Shush.
I also really don't like to see comments like "FIRST!", or "it's alive!" on pages of comics that were released not even a month since the last page.

Comments that exceed the rating on the picture
In the shortest way possible, if something is rated safe nobody will want to hear about how you’d like to see the character getting lewded or fucked. Similarly goes for submissions rated questionable, nobody will want to know how you’d like them to get railed by a pack of 14 werewolves in the parking lot of an Arby’s if they’re only being suggestive or in the nude.

That's just not true.
Me, just like, i assume, most users of this site, have a very fluid interests ranging from safe to explicit, so we rarely browse stuff by the specific rating, and if some character is sexy, but clothed in a "safe" artwork, it's not hard to have some lewd thoughts anyway.
The existence of people writing those comments is a literal proof that there are ones out there who think this way, and i'm sure they don't mind each other.
However, i'm not against this rule overall - IMO it should just be rewritten, especially if we want to treat the "In the shortest way possible" seriously, to something like:
"People searching for artwork by a specific rating don't want to see content of rating exceeding it, and that includes other people's comments."

dripen_arn said:that news notification got my hopes up that this was going to be more of a revision to make the rules on inappropriate comments a bit more lax than just rewording

I would be ok with them being more lax- I would also be ok with them being more strict. What I don't like is how vague the rules are in this and in many other cases. As someone commented above, the line between OK and getting a record is razor-thin... even in the sample comments it's confusing how similar the examples are.

If the rules were 100% clear it would make mods' jobs easier, and give users a little more security that we won't receive a random bad record for something ambiguous.

shingen said:
That's just not true.
Me, just like, i assume, most users of this site, have a very fluid interests ranging from safe to explicit, so we rarely browse stuff by the specific rating, and if some character is sexy, but clothed in a "safe" artwork, it's not hard to have some lewd thoughts anyway.
The existence of people writing those comments is a literal proof that there are ones out there who think this way, and i'm sure they don't mind each other.
However, i'm not against this rule overall - IMO it should just be rewritten, especially if we want to treat the "In the shortest way possible" seriously, to something like:
"People searching for artwork by a specific rating don't want to see content of rating exceeding it, and that includes other people's comments."

If I had to guess, it will remain dependend on context. Like, I don't think there will be punishment to making lewd comments on a safe page of an explicit comic and stuff like that. If it is a safe post with explicit context, I doubt people would get mad.

Rules are being relaxed? Inconceivable!

shingen said:
I also really don't like to see comments like "FIRST!", or "it's alive!" on pages of comics that were released not even a month since the last page.

Please consider adding 'great time to login' to your list.

As a user said above, I too would like additional clarification as some of my own comments had come under fire in the past few years. Never mind the largely harmless roleplay which I'll never do again... I spent a couple of hours looking through sergal artwork to add some proper context to a comment I was going to make. In the end, I had to word it out and left it at that. Let's just say the next morning I woke up with a less than pleasant surprise in my inbox. Decided to turn off commenting for I don't know how long purely out of said confusion, ah well.

Hey guys

shingen said:

I'd say that seeing comments wishing to be a part of given scenario is very much a thing realistically expected from porn artwork. Like, we're nearly all here to browse pictures that show things we enjoy doing, or to find new ones to do. If people expressing that out loud makes you uncomfortable, you should probably take a break to figure out if you're mature enough to browse PORN.

I would argue the opposite.
Wanting to be part of something is one thing, but if you are incapable of not posting those kind of comments on a site, you've been online too much.
And I don't think "not everyone wants to read about a stranger's sexual fantasies" is too hard to wrap one's head around either.

Hentai foundry is more YMMV (depending on the artist) but it generally has way less of those kind of comments despite artists/pages having a much more welcoming & unrestricted attitude towards comments.
creepy comments are not a "porn site" thing, they're a community one.

Mentioning, that jokes are not an excuse would be good. I have seen so many people arguing about their punishment because "it was just a joke".

And I'd add the e621 Community Code of Conduct and Site Rules page in the footer, for easier access. I know it's accessible on the rules page, but a single click seems like a big step for some people.

I approve this rule.
I think this site is full of edgy teens in horny state. And i think these teens are the firsts in argue "we are adults and we can tolerate these 'creepy' comments".
And we don't are just a website, we are a community that wish be accepted by the other. This site serve porn because we'd accepted that the normal people have sexual desires, and these isn't excuse for shout it to the rest of the people.
Also, this is firstly a site serving art, and we want see comments about the art. Draw nude characters is an ancient tradition, and in the ancient times these drawings have received just comments about the quality, not about explicit things that the people have wanted to do after see that art.
Sorry for bad english (?), and good night.

Holy fucking shit this is stupid as hell

pokelova said:
The line between "God I wish that were me" and "I wish I could get fucked like that" is razor thin.

Yeah, I'm honestly surprised to see "God I wish that were me" as being acceptable now, since it used to be the quintessential example of what wasn't acceptable, and now it's the top example of what is. These two examples in particular come across as the same thing to me, expressing a desire for "that" (getting fucked) as something they wish to happen to them, but one is appropriate and the other isn't? I mean, the phrase "get fucked" (as a pleasurable action, not the pejorative) isn't in itself bad (it depends on who you're talking about and in what context), but when it's in an inappropriate context, replacing it with "that" turns an inappropriate comment into an appropriate one? I don't see the distinction.

Based and creep pilled. This is exactly the kind of elaboration I wanted to see of this particular rule. Makes it a lot more obvious what exactly wants to be avoided and even gives examples.

watsit said:
Yeah, I'm honestly surprised to see "God I wish that were me" as being acceptable now, since it used to be the quintessential example of what wasn't acceptable, and now it's the top example of what is. These two examples in particular come across as the same thing to me, expressing a desire for "that" (getting fucked) as something they wish to happen to them, but one is appropriate and the other isn't? I mean, the phrase "get fucked" (as a pleasurable action, not the pejorative) isn't in itself bad (it depends on who you're talking about and in what context), but when it's in an inappropriate context, replacing it with "that" turns an inappropriate comment into an appropriate one? I don't see the distinction.

The obvious solution to this would be for the commenter to just post this in place of text: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/427/474/4cc.jpg

Makes it real apparent they're just making a reference in jest, even if it does reflect their desires. The commentator just needs to be smart about their phrasing/presentation.

At the same time though, I feel that it's enough of a well-known reference that people will get it even without specific context. See the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhXA2zHCU

binagon said:
The obvious solution to this would be for the commenter to just post this in place of text: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/427/474/4cc.jpg

Makes it real apparent they're just making a reference in jest, even if it does reflect their desires. The commentator just needs to be smart about their phrasing/presentation.

Problem is they can still mean it even when referenced in jest. "It's just a joke" isn't a defense against statements that otherwise break the rules; not everyone will see it as a joke, and people will try to dress it up as a joke when they're completely serious. Or something will be seen as serious because it wasn't clear enough as a joke, even if it's a clear reference for anyone that knows about it (e.g. comment #5425548, which the user got a record for being creepy even though they were quoting the song lyrics that the picture was humorously implying; someone who knows the lyrics would see the humor, while someone who doesn't may think it's an admission of illegal behavior).

I don't see this particular change working well at all, because either you're going to get an influx of people saying it now that it's "legitimized", that will both annoy people and make them uncomfortable as it's one way people can express their desires, or people will still get in trouble for saying it because it expresses their desires, which they'll get angry about because they honestly thought it was fine since it's right there in the rules explicitly as acceptable. Or even worse, some people will get in trouble for saying it and others won't, creating an appearance of favoritism because some admins see the joke in it and others don't.

watsit said:
Problem is they can still mean it even when referenced in jest. "It's just a joke" isn't a defense against statements that otherwise break the rules; not everyone will see it as a joke, and people will try to dress it up as a joke when they're completely serious. Or something will be seen as serious because it wasn't clear enough as a joke, even if it's a clear reference for anyone that knows about it (e.g. comment #5425548, which the user got a record for being creepy even though they were quoting the song lyrics that the picture was humorously implying; someone who knows the lyrics would see the humor, while someone who doesn't may think it's an admission of illegal behavior).

True, but that's why if you are making a comment that could be regarded as contentious, you need to make it more obvious it is a reference instead of just one's desires, even if it means adding a link to the context (which the next commenter did end up doing after he saw that comment being downvoted).

I don't see this particular change working well at all, because either you're going to get an influx of people saying it now that it's "legitimized", that will both annoy people and make them uncomfortable as it's one way people can express their desires, or people will still get in trouble for saying it because it expresses their desires, which they'll get angry about because they honestly thought it was fine since it's right there in the rules explicitly as acceptable. Or even worse, some people will get in trouble for saying it and others won't, creating an appearance of favoritism because some admins see the joke in it and others don't.

As it stands, this was pretty much already happening. Mostly because unless a comment is reported, it will likely fly under an admin's radar, which tends to happen a lot on less popular posts. There obviously has to be more nuance to this, like if the thing being referenced is super creepy or controversial itself, but either way it end's up being an admin's decision weather or not it flies, as it has always been. At least now you can appeal to it if it's a more well known joke that perhaps the moderator might not be aware of.

Well, this is a welcome surprise. I once had a long conversation about this topic and It's nice to see some improvements have been made. Over all, I think the new phrasing is much better. But I do have two issues.

First. Ambiguines between "I wish I could get fucked like that." and "God I wish that were me."
I know I'm not the first nor only one to bring this up. If I was a mod, both comments would get a record. Reason? Both are personal, (i.e. I wish x) and both are sexual*.
*Depends on the post.

Regardless, the rule page currently dose not distinguish between the two. And without context, people will assume "God I wish that were me." is ok under any post.

So that's a lot of complaining out of me. What's my solution then? I have a few ideas. 1. remove the line "God I wish that were me." completely. 2. Replace the line with something else. Such as, "Man, you're really good at drawing penises." (I'm not entirely sure if that comment would fly, but at least it's being less personal, and it's complimenting the artist.) Or 3. Make it much more clear what you mean by "God I wish that were me." is an ok comment. such as I have done above. If any one else has any other ideas, I'm open ears.

-

Second. I think shingen hits the nail on the head.

shingen said:
IMO it should just be rewritten, especially if we want to treat the "In the shortest way possible" seriously, to something like:
"People searching for artwork by a specific rating don't want to see content of rating exceeding it, and that includes other people's comments."

While I don't agree with every thing shingen says. This is a good point and a nice solution.
I think the last section feel a bit wordy and not very concise. Further more, it come off as playful and silly. While I love a joke as much as the next guy, as the old saying goes, "There's a time and a place." And when you're laying down the ground rules for the entire comments section. It's not advisable to muddy the waters with playful banter that's hard to take seriously.

Once again, if you disagree or have other ideas on what could be done, I'm all ears.

watsit said:
(e.g. comment #5425548, which the user got a record for being creepy even though they were quoting the song lyrics that the picture was humorously implying; someone who knows the lyrics would see the humor, while someone who doesn't may think it's an admission of illegal behavior).

to be fair, the user didn't even put it in quotes, or try to say it in a way that'd make it clear that it wasn't a something said genuinely. so it's pretty easy to see where the creepy comment ding came from.

Will there be a retroactive repeal of Feedback scores, or scores on this exact thing now can be appealed somehow?

xuncu said:
Will there be a retroactive repeal of Feedback scores, or scores on this exact thing now can be appealed somehow?

How would a score be appealed?

It's rather depressing how many people just don't get that even if this is a porn site (which it isn't specifically,) that isn't license for you to do whatever you want. Even brothels have standards of behavior. Even the nastiest bars have standards of behavior. Every social environment on the goddamn planet has a level of etiquette you have to observe or get thrown out.

Why do you think it would be any different here!?

xuncu said:
Will there be a retroactive repeal of Feedback scores, or scores on this exact thing now can be appealed somehow?

No. Plus, the comments you made would still be against the rules now.
Normal record decay is applicable, though. Send me a DM if you would like those to be removed.

i actually really like the creepy comment restriction thing. i don't use e621 entirely for porn; i like to browse sometimes, so it makes it more engaging and even a little fun when i can scroll to a comment section and see a witty joke or a legitimate artistic appreciation of a picture as opposed to people just being horny.

lonelylupine said:
It's rather depressing how many people just don't get that even if this is a porn site (which it isn't specifically,) that isn't license for you to do whatever you want. Even brothels have standards of behavior. Even the nastiest bars have standards of behavior. Every social environment on the goddamn planet has a level of etiquette you have to observe or get thrown out.

Why do you think it would be any different here!?

i think this is a great way to put it. i never thought of it like this before, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

This entire topic is a great example of why censorship is bad.

Any amount of it can only be made on vague morals that not everyone agrees on.

And make no mistake, this rules *is* a form of censorship, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The staff could save themselves a billion headaches by just dropping any and all rules regarding what can and cannot be said outside of those that confirm with a user's country of origin.

That being said, I am also a reasonable person and know that that is entirely non-sensicle.

Instead I think it would be much better to make this particular rule be guided strongly by context.

Instead of having a vague list of examples of what is and isn't appropriate to say at all, set a much more reasonable rule describing what can be discussed within the parameters of the images rating.

The general rule of thumb would be not to include anything in your comments that would fall outside the images rating. So no references to sexual anything on a safe rated image, while allowing anything sexual(or otherwise) on images rated Explicit.

You could even refine it to be even more and less exclusive at once by allowing discussion of anything referenced in the image itself. That way tags can inform what sorts of comments are allowed on an image.

I.e. A discussion about which characters you'd like to see hugging in a Safe image with hugging

Versus

Discussion about x, Y, or z fetish being limited only to images displaying those types of fetish.

Idk, seems a lot more logical and easy to enforce to me, since the staff would then be able to point to the Taglist to explain exactly why their comment was inappropriate.

hygiene said:
As one user replying to one of my comments referring to the "don't be creepy" rules said: "Yep, this is a very nonsense rule for a site like this but ok"

It's nice to see this rule become a little less stupid, but I know certain mods will always find a way to give people a record for the slightest thing cough cough millcore cough cough

I mean, some people do come here for the art aspect. Erotic art is still art (and not everything here is even erotic). Just because an artist drew something lude or lush doesn't mean they want to know people fantasies on it. Other viewers may not want to know either. Particularly if they aren't relevant to the artwork. A really bad comment can even damage/alter the way you see a piece in a manner that's not fair to it. Like, if someone wrote something really messed up on picture I enjoyed I might end up remembering a comment that had nothing to do with said picture, which again, isn't really fair to piece.

Just my $0.02.

reallyjustwantpr0n said:
A really bad comment can even damage/alter the way you see a piece in a manner that's not fair to it.

boy howdy have i seen my fair share of comments like that on my uploads the past 1-1/2 weeks

Honestly only time will tell if this is enough of a change. Though imo there's still enough vagueness to make a shitty situation, and on the topic of context I do agree that it has more meaning than the words attached to it, so it should be the thing subject to judging. In terms of jokes I think we should really ease up because when you treat every person that explains to you that they wrote something with comedic intent as a liar, then that is how you essenitally create an unwritten rule that comedy is not allowed or censored based on what staff deems right and wrong either way making jokes a risk that new users - or users that were not informed by others - are not aware of because like I said its not written down. I myself made some comments that someone could definetly take out of context and report me because my joke was too much for them or something, honestly surprised I still wasn't given a warning because of that, few times I logged in expecting a message from staff thinking that if someone did miss the joke I could recieve negative score on my account

lonelylupine said:
Every social environment on the goddamn planet has a level of etiquette you have to observe or get thrown out.

Why do you think it would be any different here!?

What about 4chan? Or 8chan? Or "name an even more anarchist and chaotic" chan board?

dripen_arn said:
boy howdy have i seen my fair share of comments like that on my uploads the past 1-1/2 weeks

Bruh, on chikin nuggit posts? Really? I mean, i know there's porn of those characters, but the official posts?

benjiboyo said:
What about 4chan? Or 8chan? Or "name an even more anarchist and chaotic" chan board?

8chan came to be because even 4chan realized that you need some rules.

And then 8chan died because the owner realized that letting people do whatever they want in his house meant terrible, terrible things.

I honestly can't understand how y'all let words on a screen scar you so badly that you have to censor people.

Like.. "A really bad comment can even damage/alter the way you see a piece in a manner that's not fair to it."

Really? People are so fragile that this is a thing? You can't just ignore it and move on with your life?

This site hosts cub porn, scat, goro and lord knows what other unspeakable things but y'all draw the line at reading some words that make you cringe?

coebalt said:
I honestly can't understand how y'all let words on a screen scar you so badly that you have to censor people.

Like.. "A really bad comment can even damage/alter the way you see a piece in a manner that's not fair to it."

Really? People are so fragile that this is a thing? You can't just ignore it and move on with your life?

This site hosts cub porn, scat, goro and lord knows what other unspeakable things but y'all draw the line at reading some words that make you cringe?

While you say that, I want to remind you that it's happened on more then one occasion that people have admitted to raping children and animals here.

coebalt said:
I honestly can't understand how y'all let words on a screen scar you so badly that you have to censor people.

You mistakenly assume that words affect people this much.
Just because you can tolerate something doesn't mean you want to or should.

We could always flip this around too.
Is restraining yourself really asking too much?
Is the idea that not everyone wants to read about a stranger's fantasies truly so difficult to understand & accept?

coebalt said:

This site hosts cub porn, scat, goro and lord knows what other unspeakable things but y'all draw the line at reading some words that make you cringe?

Those are fetishes. People don't need to have reasons for liking them and the blacklist exists for this very reason. Many people happily go on e621 without seeing things like cub or guro.

coebalt said:
I honestly can't understand how y'all let words on a screen scar you so badly that you have to censor people.

Like.. "A really bad comment can even damage/alter the way you see a piece in a manner that's not fair to it."

Really? People are so fragile that this is a thing? You can't just ignore it and move on with your life?

This site hosts cub porn, scat, goro and lord knows what other unspeakable things but y'all draw the line at reading some words that make you cringe?

words can carry a lot of meaning to a lot of people and can just as easily warp one's interpretation of an art piece. just because it doesn't affect you doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't affect everybody. i can think of many occasions where something someone has said has influenced my own perspective, both on-site and in real life.

what we say really holds more weight than we think it does.

There's a proposal of (if not proposed yet) a system that will definitely take more effort to setup, but will satisfy both sides. You could have comments be marked as "creepy/raunchy" either by whoever posts them (can have an option of all of their comments be automatically marked as such) or by some algorithm.
Then any user can opt-in or opt-out in the settings page if they want those comments to be visible to them or not. Those off-put by such comments won't see them, and those who don't mind or even like to read them, will see the comments.
The rule of forbidding creepy/raunchy comments would only apply to those who do not properly mark their comments. I think we could all agree that they'll be in wrong for going around the system. Its similar to the blacklist rule.

versperus said:

While you say that, I want to remind you that it's happened on more then one occasion that people have admitted to raping children and animals here.

Which is why we definitely *should* have rules about *where* those comments are and are not appropriate.

popoto said:

We could always flip this around too.
Is restraining yourself really asking too much?
Is the idea that not everyone wants to read about a stranger's fantasies truly so difficult to understand & accept?

Depends on how much censorship you're willing to accept. You're willing to accept the consorship of "creepy comments" because it doesn't affect *you*. You don't want o write or read those types of comments, so of course you approve of this rule. Turn the rule around, make it where "cute comments" are banned. How would that make you feel? Would it make you feel that it's not fair? That it doesn't make sense why you're not allowed to talk about how cute something is on a picture featuring purposefully cutesy art?

Would feel pretty bad right? Like there's something wrong with having those feelings and wanting to share them with others? Make new friends by bonding over your common enjoyment of something?

garfieldfromgarfield said:
words can carry a lot of meaning to a lot of people and can just as easily warp one's interpretation of an art piece.

what we say really holds more weight than we think it does.

Everybody has the *choice* of allowing words to have an affect on them, and yes it *is* a *choice*. We can *choose* too allow knee-jerk. Emotional reactions rule our response, or we can choose to take a moment, reflect, and *choose* how we want to respond rather than being impulsive.

whitev said:
E621's purpose is to archive art, including the gross stuff. The blacklist can easily filter that stuff anyways.

Looking at your forum, comment, and feedback history I'm not too surprised at your take on this. Imagine if Beez or Zourik read some of the shit you comment on their stuff. You're certainly not welcomed to do that at their personal profiles so I don't see why E621 is any different. It's the type of weird and obsessive behavior that make artists hate this site and get on the DNP list, which hinders E621's purpose.

This is the reason people hate creepy comments; not because they're "soft skinned" but because artists have and will vilify the site for allowing them. Just ask what people think of Rule 34 and Paheal.

Yes, and as a result of the type of art they archive, they should expect comments to reflect the art they are being posted on. Hence why I suggest a context based system rather than a flat "we don't want that here" rule that smacks of blatant censorship and intentional vilification of the people that make such comments.

Based on how you are responding to my frankly rather tame responses to very graphic pieces of art I view here, I'm not surprised that you object to my viewpoint. Based on the artwork Beez and Zourik make, I find it *incredibly* hard to believe that they would have a problem with the types of comments I would make. But that's just as much an assumption as the one you're clearly making to insinuate that they'd be shocked and appalled by me *-checks notes-* wanting to experience the things they've drawn art about.

If an artist doesn't want their art being subject to those types of comments, that's their right. Just as it is *supposed* to be the right(at least for Americans) to say what we like as long as it does not bring clear and direct harm to another person.

But that's not why this rule is in place. It has been repeatedly stated that the purpose of these rules is to curate the community. Is Artists wanting to be blacklisted here a symptom of a perceived problem? Yes. But I think it would be a stretch to imply that this has less to do with people not wanting to read about other people and how they relate to an image in context of that image, and more to do with how the artists feel about these comments.

And that's why I will continue to debate this topic until, God forbid, the staff decide to censor the communities ability to criticize them and their rules. I am part of this community, and as long as that continues to be true, I will be entitled to expressing my opinions on its rules.

coebalt said: a lot

i ain't going into all the talking point you mentioned, just gonna mention the main reason why (at least i think) this rule is in place in the first place an why it's a good thing that it's upheld: ya ever been to a pheal.net comment section?

coebalt said:

Turn the rule around, make it where "cute comments" are banned. How would that make you feel? Would it make you feel that it's not fair? That it doesn't make sense why you're not allowed to talk about how cute something is on a picture featuring purposefully cutesy art?

Imagine taking a walk with your dog in a park, 2 dudes approach to you and say...

Dude 1: omg your dog is so cute!
Dude 2: Hey guys, did you know in terms of human and dog breedi-

The whole park dislikes Dude 2. Dude 2 cries for feeling "censored" (even if they can still enter to the park and do Dude 2 things).

coebalt said:
Turn the rule around, make it where "cute comments" are banned. How would that make you feel? Would it make you feel that it's not fair? That it doesn't make sense why you're not allowed to talk about how cute something is on a picture featuring purposefully cutesy art?

I mean it really depends on what you mean, if you're talking about the kinds of people who type comments in OwOspeak, then I'd be totally on board, yes.

edit: honestly, I feel both the OwOspeakers and the types of people who comment shit like "I wish he'd fuck _me_ in the ass!!!" are probably both pretty far toward the "holy fuck, why did you ever think it was okay to say something like that in a public forum?" ends of the "cute" or "horny" spectrums.
there's levels of comments on both spectrums that don't cause other users soul pain, and we'd live in a better world if we didn't encourage the types of comments that do.

coebalt said:
If an artist doesn't want their art being subject to those types of comments, that's their right. Just as it is *supposed* to be the right(at least for Americans) to say what we like as long as it does not bring clear and direct harm to another person.

There it is. The "freedom of speech argument", I was waiting for. You didn't use the word, but I am pretty sure that's your point, right? Being creepy is not freedom of speech...
This is an art archive, so behave like you are in one. As if you were in a museum.
You see the Mona Lisa, and talk about it with a stranger. What do you do?
You say:
A: That slight smile is a nice touch.
B: I want to rip off her clothes and stick my willy in her.
I colored it for you, so the choice is easier.
^{_{(you'd be thrown out of the museum for one of them)}}

dubsthefox said:
There it is. The "freedom of speech argument", I was waiting for. You didn't use the word, but I am pretty sure that's your point, right? Being creepy is not freedom of speech...
This is an art archive, so behave like you are in one. As if you were in a museum.
You see the Mona Lisa, and talk about it with a stranger. What do you do?
You say:
A: That slight smile is a nice touch.
B: I want to rip off her clothes and stick my willy in her.
I colored it for you, so the choice is easier.
^{_{(you'd be thrown out of the museum for one of them)}}

Ah, there is, the "that's not freedom of speech" argument.

Yes, is. Any rule that restricts what you can and cannot say is a violation of the freedom of speech. There are some violations that have been made, more or less, universally accepted, but that doesn't make them *not* infringements on free speech.

What you are more likely trying to argue is that the freedom to say what you want does not excuse you from the consequences of those words, in this case punishment according to the rules. Limiting your speech.

And, again, I'm not arguing legitimately for a space of no rules regarding what Can and cannot be said. No sane person would think that allowing someone to shout "I have a bomb" in a crowded airport is an acceptable thing to do and receive no consequences for.

But, to entertain your premise, I wouldn't make that comment about the Mona. Because there's no context for that kind of statement. Instead I may say "she has a motherly smile, I can look into her face and.. You know, she could be my mother.

Now, substitute that same image for that of a big. Muscle bound Incenaroar sucking the cum out of a Luxray's cock, and you can bet your ass I'd say something along the lines of "Jeez, lookit that. Wish i could be there instead. Wonder how literally hot that Incenaroar's cock feels?" bexause there's *context* for it. If a museum is going to host that kind of graphically explicit art, I would *assume* they would expect that kind of commentary for it. Perhaps others would refrain from saying such a thing because they'd find it embarrassing, but that's not me, nor everyone who views this type of art.

coebalt said:
You're willing to accept the consorship of "creepy comments" because it doesn't affect *you*. You don't want o write or read those types of comments, so of course you approve of this rule.

On the contrary, I'm fine with the rule because it's not about me. I've more than once thought of something I wanted to say, then thought "Hmm, that probably runs afoul of the creepy comments rule", then just didn't say it. I would've liked to say it, but even if what I said wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, erring on the side of caution with a rule meant to improve the site for other people isn't a bad thing. It's not as if I'm the only one that matters when it comes to the rules, or that it should be acceptable because I think it's fine and I want to say it. It does affect me, but I'm still fine with it because it makes the site better for others. A bit of empathy goes a long way.

coebalt said:
Turn the rule around, make it where "cute comments" are banned. How would that make you feel? Would it make you feel that it's not fair? That it doesn't make sense why you're not allowed to talk about how cute something is on a picture featuring purposefully cutesy art?

Depends on the reason. As someone said before, one of the reasons for the creepy comments rule is because those kinds of comments turned artists off of the site and made them go DNP, preventing the site from hosting their art. There's also legal repercussions if anyone is allowed to say whatever creepy thing they want, and then bad things happened as a direct response of what was said. Would a "cute comments" ban be for some similar purpose? If there was this hypothetical "cute comments" ban, my feelings on it would depend on the reason, just as my feelings on the creepy comments rule depends on its reasons.

coebalt said:
Everybody has the *choice* of allowing words to have an affect on them, and yes it *is* a *choice*.

Okay, then choose not to be affected by us wanting a creepy comments rule. You have complete control over how to feel about what others say, so just for a month choose to not be affected by others saying the rule is good. Not just "don't respond", but feel total and complete apathy over such statements. ... you can't, can you? Or you totally could, at any time, you just don't want to right now.

coebalt said:
Based on the artwork Beez and Zourik make, I find it *incredibly* hard to believe that they would have a problem with the types of comments I would make. But that's just as much an assumption as the one you're clearly making to insinuate that they'd be shocked and appalled by me *-checks notes-* wanting to experience the things they've drawn art about.

Well, if Beez and Zourik want to make a booru where they allow those kinds of comments, they're free to. But this isn't a Beez and Zourik fan site, there are more people here than just them, and unlike them, not everyone wants to read about a stranger's fantasy of railing a character just because they happened to draw a pair of balls and an ass. And it gets particularly sketchy when the character you're referring to can end up being a personal representation of a real person. Yes, someone can be fine with nudes and obscene drawings of themselves, but not want to hear how strangers want to jump on and fuck them. Something an artist may be fine with on their characters, can inadvertently become an insinuation of raping a real person, depending on who's depicted.

coebalt said:
And that's why I will continue to debate this topic until, God forbid, the staff decide to censor the communities ability to criticize them and their rules. I am part of this community, and as long as that continues to be true, I will be entitled to expressing my opinions on its rules.

If you want to debate the topic, then I would implore you to come up with better debate tactics. Making false presumptions about how those who are are fine with the rule aren't affected by it, doesn't suit your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect about how the mind responds to external stimuli. Nor does making false analogies to a hypothetical "cute comments" ban. Nor does making a false equivalence that because some artists are fine with creepy comments on their adult art, everyone should be for all adult art.

watsit said:
A bit of empathy goes a long way.

Depends on the reason. As someone said before, one of the reasons for the creepy comments rule is because those kinds of comments turned artists off of the site and made them go DNP, preventing the site from hosting their art. There's also legal repercussions if anyone is allowed to say whatever creepy thing they want, and then bad things happened as a direct response of what was said. Would a "cute comments" ban be for some similar purpose? If there was this hypothetical "cute comments" ban, my feelings on it would depend on the reason, just as my feelings on the creepy comments rule depends on its reasons.

Okay, then choose not to be affected by us wanting a creepy comments rule. You have complete control over how to feel about what others say, so just for a month choose to not be affected by others. Not just "don't respond", but feel total and complete apathy over such statements. ... you can't, can you? Or you totally could, at any time, you just don't want to right now..

If you want to debate the topic, then I would implore you to come up with better debate tactics. Making false presumptions about how those who are are fine with the rule aren't affected by it, doesn't suit your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect about how the mind responds to external stimuli. Nor does making false analogies to a hypothetical "cute comments" ban. Nor does making a false equivalence that because some artists are fine with creepy comments on their adult art, everyone should be for all adult art.

Ya know, you're the only one that responds to me that I feel ever has actually thought out and effective arguments. And I deeply appreciate your ability to do so. I've left a few lines quoted I want to respond to.

A bit if Empathy should go *both* ways. On of my earliest and biggest arguments about this rule is that it vilifies those that break it, knowingly or ignorantly. The simplest of solutions that would go a long way, and one that they *have* heeded, is the term they chose to use for the rule. I.e. How it was "creepy comments" but is now "Inappropriate comments". In this vein, it would be nice(note, Nice, not required or expected), if the staff would acknowledge the desire for these types of conversations to be able to be held in the same space that hosts the images sparking the desire for these conversations, and attempt to find a solution that pleases *everyone*... Unless of course, this really is just about not wanting people to be able to have these conversations at all, rather than a concern about people who don't want to being exposed to them.

I have chosen not to care about the rule. For several months. I made a forum post about it, debated with people, including you if I recall, and for a time was content not to let the rule bother me and obey it as best I could. It's not an easy choice to make, I understand the cumpulsions that the chemical reactions in our brains are difficult to resist, but it is possible.

The purpose of my example of a hypothetical "Cute Comments" rules was not to compare the reasons for such rules existing, but to enforce exactly what you requested. A bit of Empathy. Many of the people I see posting in favor of this rule are actively promoting a toxic attitude towards the people who may be making these comments while ignorant of the rule. It is purely to foster a moment of introspection, not a true comparison of the premises as if they are similar in purpose.

Finally, I'm not a perfect person. I do my best to present arguments that I really do believe to be well thought out, but I will always get something wrong. And I will never cover every angle of my arguments unless I take a good few hours to draft an actual essay in response. But I frankly don't want to put *that* much effort into a forum debate. So I compromise and simply always od my best, and concede where I make mistakes or find myself out witted.

But in reference to your last sentence, my line about those artists came about as a response to someone making a statement implying that those artists would be, as far as I can tell, appaled by the types of comments I have made(twice). As far as I can tell, my wording does not imply that every artist should be fine with such comments, though I can see how such a reading could be made.