TheHuskyK9 said:
Turns out he was ban evading from another permabanned account from a long time ago

I suspected something.

Renard_Queenston said:
I suspected something.

I knew it when I saw the pig balls.

Seven_Twenty said:
I knew it when I saw the pig balls.

Ah, furryfan

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
So, how many dildos do you have in the house?

Currently, 5, but before I sold a bunch of my BD toys to pay some bills I had like 30.

Why does all the fun stuff happen when I'm at work ;_; I want to ban people tooooo

Okay I am a bit worried about a new change I have noticed

"- Having someone post on your behalf "

If a user is banned and a friend on the site posts to an admin a ban appel since the banner user can not get in touch with the admin....would they be banned for that? or does "- Having someone post on your behalf " mean something else?

Isn't the tag wait a bit too much?
A lot of times i miss out some or even make a mistake i want to correct in a post.

Fox2K9 said:
Isn't the tag wait a bit too much?
A lot of times i miss out some or even make a mistake i want to correct in a post.

It's to prevent trolls that just joined from tag vandalizing

Conker said:
Okay I am a bit worried about a new change I have noticed

"- Having someone post on your behalf "

If a user is banned and a friend on the site posts to an admin a ban appel since the banner user can not get in touch with the admin....would they be banned for that? or does "- Having someone post on your behalf " mean something else?

I would say a PM to an admin would likely not earn you a ban.

Either way though, the proper method of appeal is likely email since the contact details of those you would appeal to have been provided.

Seven_Twenty said:
I knew it when I saw the pig balls.

http://i.imgur.com/zI8Mt.jpg

All I get from these "forbidden topics" are that they are so vague and misinterpretable that they've increased ambiguity and double-standard application rather than decreased it. Starting to feel like there's not really any point to being logged into this site anymore, and it's safest to just log out and browse that way from now on. With the added benefit that you don't have to listen to me complain anymore.

Foobaria said:
All I get from these "forbidden topics" are that they are so vague and misinterpretable that they've increased ambiguity and double-standard application rather than decreased it. Starting to feel like there's not really any point to being logged into this site anymore, and it's safest to just log out and browse that way from now on. With the added benefit that you don't have to listen to me complain anymore.

I agree with you on that. Its way to vague, too full of misinterpretation and loopholes...

Foobaria said:
All I get from these "forbidden topics" are that they are so vague and misinterpretable that they've increased ambiguity and double-standard application rather than decreased it. Starting to feel like there's not really any point to being logged into this site anymore, and it's safest to just log out and browse that way from now on. With the added benefit that you don't have to listen to me complain anymore.

Conker said:
I agree with you on that. Its way to vague, too full of misinterpretation and loopholes...

That's because both of you are negative nannies, I looked at the past ninety pages of forum threads and couldn't find a single topic that would have needed to be locked additionally.
We already lock troll, spam or otherwise dumb threads, only additional thing would be political threads and when was the last time we had one of those with any resemblance of actual discussion going on? SOPA and DOMA come to mind (and where the only topics in those 90 pages) and at least DOMA got locked because it turned into a shit fest.

So, how exactly do we censor you by forcing things to be a bit more civil and less waste of space/time/spam?

NotMeNotYou said:

That's because both of you are negative nannies....

Its not about being negative, its unclear vague rules. I mean just read the replies to this thread, some users have already pointed out a few flaws in these rules along with myself. All I am saying is....it should be made a bit clearer in writing, thats all.

TheHuskyK9 said:
It's to prevent trolls that just joined from tag vandalizing

Is this just for the first X [time] for the new members or globally for all members?

I usually avoid posting on the forums but I felt the genuine need to add feedback regarding the Code of Conduct changes that have been thrust upon the community arbitrarily. I echo the sentiment of others in that the CoC as it stands is so ambiguous, so unclear, that it could be summarised with "We may ban you at any time, for any reason, at moderator discretion". Beyond that sentiment the CoC adds no substance or clarity what so ever.

For example, the CoC details "categories" whose general purpose is not clearly defined. That is to say, not once is it explicitly stated "Engaging in conduct as defined in any of the categories below is against the Code of Conduct and may attract administrative sanctions". In fact, it's not even implied. Granted you've provided a reasonably concise definition for "Advertising", but not once have you stated that "Advertising" (or any of the other categories) is actually against the Code of Conduct.

I hope the Admins will address the gaping deficiencies in how these changes are being communicated to users sooner rather than later.

Edit: Also having conflicting messages regarding the scope of the rules. Given that the very first line of them is "Welcome to the e621 Discussion Forums!" - That would usually lead a reasonable person to assume that the text that follows pertains to the forums only. While the announcement banner and text above that is along the lines of "Updated site / forum rules have been posted".

Edit: Interestingly enough, one of the promotional points for the change was to prevent "double standards". And yet one of the first lines stated is "No one is going to enforce these with an iron fist" (Translation: We'll selectively enforce these rules when we feel like it)

Edit: Also of interest "We reserve the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. The action we take may be more lenient or more severe than those listed under each category:" - Wait, the categories have actions listed under them? Where? I don't see it.

prom3th3an said:
it could be summarised with "We may ban you at any time, for any reason, at moderator discretion".

No, this was what it was like before the code.
This is a big improvement on before, as now there are at least guidelines about what will get you banned. If you do the things mentioned here you will probably be punished, if you don't do these things you probably wont.

Yeah these aren't exactly set in stone but they're by no means arbitrary or ambiguous.

For example, the CoC details "categories" whose general purpose is not clearly defined. That is to say, not once is it explicitly stated "Engaging in conduct as defined in any of the categories below is against the Code of Conduct and may attract administrative sanctions". In fact, it's not even implied. Granted you've provided a reasonably concise definition for "Advertising", but not once have you stated that "Advertising" (or any of the other categories) is actually against the Code of Conduct.

It is explicitly stated that breaching the terms
"When a member is found to have violated the Code of Conduct in one or more ways, disciplinary actions will be given" Sounds pretty explicit to me.
It may not include in the code of conduct the terms "do" or "do not" by each category, but it doesn't take a genius to work out what the meaning is.

[edit]in retrospect yes the code should probably clarify that all the categories are "do nots"

prom3th3an said:Edit: Also of interest "We reserve the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. The action we take may be more lenient or more severe than those listed under each category:" - Wait, the categories have actions listed under them? Where? I don't see it.

That's true. There are no actions listed per category, just a single general entry for possible actions.
The introduction should probably be cleaned up to say something along the lines of "We reserve the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. Some categories may be considered more severe than others but no minimum or maximum action is implied for breach of the individual categories listed below:"

Sorry for the double post.

Incidentally, I happened to be looking through the list of Moderator Actions when I came across this (albeit old) ban. Regardless of the worthiness of said ban, surely the Admins of E621 aspire to hold themselves to a higher standard than the trolls they are banning?

...That ban reason does not inspire much confidence nor does the fact that the Admin felt the need to put so much (trolling) effort into an otherwise routine action. (Banning an Alt Account)

But getting to the point, would the aforementioned behaviour be against the "Spamming or Trolling" provisions of the new code of conduct? Or would I be naive to assume that staff are held to the same rules as members? A Yes/No answer would suffice and I do realize I am asking a difficult question, though since this topic is all about conduct reform I figured it was worth raising.

Ippiki can ban through a song cause it's fucking amazing.

prom3th3an said:
Incidentally, I happened to be looking through the list of Moderator Actions when I came across this (albeit old) ban. Regardless of the worthiness of said ban, surely the Admins of E621 aspire to hold themselves to a higher standard than the trolls they are banning?

...That ban reason does not inspire much confidence nor does the fact that the Admin felt the need to put so much (trolling) effort into an otherwise routine action. (Banning an Alt Account)

But getting to the point, would the aforementioned behaviour be against the "Spamming or Trolling" provisions of the new code of conduct? Or would I be naive to assume that staff are held to the same rules as members? A Yes/No answer would suffice and I do realize I am asking a difficult question, though since this topic is all about conduct reform I figured it was worth raising.

Administrators and moderators do need to hold themselves to a higher standard than that. As you said, it is an older ban but, going forward, that will not be allowed.

To answer your question: Yes, but, as staff members, they go through a different process of discipline if they screw up. Becoming a staff member is not easy, and we want to work with them as much as we can to correct their behavior before having to resort to suspending/banning.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Administrators and moderators do need to hold themselves to a higher standard than that. As you said, it is an older ban but, going forward, that will not be allowed.

To answer your question: Yes, but, as staff members, they go through a different process of discipline if they screw up. Becoming a staff member is not easy, and we want to work with them as much as we can to correct their behavior before having to resort to suspending/banning.

Thanks for your prompt response, it is good to know that reforms such as these are applying to everyone and not just us underlings.

Well, as long as ippiki doesn't swear in one of his song-bans, then they'll still be around :)

Renard_Queenston said:
Well, as long as ippiki doesn't swear in one of his song-bans, then they'll still be around :)

Going forward, bans are going to get a LOT more standardized and clear. Records structured like this are intended to become the norm: https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=112396

No, they're not as interesting or fun as how records have been worded so far, but trust me, it's also no fun having to explain to a user WHY they were banned, when their record on their account should have made it very clear to begin with. =/ Not to mention it makes it a pain in the ass for other admins later on trying to figure out what exactly someone received a record for X months ago.

It was more acceptable back when the site was small and easier to keep track of, but now it just really has to be standardized because it's just so frustrating otherwise.

Char said:
Going forward, bans are going to get a LOT more standardized and clear. Records structured like this are intended to become the norm: https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=112396

No, they're not as interesting or fun as how records have been worded so far, but trust me, it's also no fun having to explain to a user WHY they were banned, when their record on their account should have made it very clear to begin with. =/ Not to mention it makes it a pain in the ass for other admins later on trying to figure out what exactly someone received a record for X months ago.

It was more acceptable back when the site was small and easier to keep track of, but now it just really has to be standardized because it's just so frustrating otherwise.

Stop making records three miles long. No one is going to read through that to find out what they did wrong, especially not when it's as long as the one Dave just did yesterday. It's fine to be standardized, but that doesn't mean records have to look like a legal document.

corgi_bread said:
Stop making records three miles long. No one is going to read through that to find out what they did wrong...

Well according to what char said, they will. Also you have to admit that it makes the reasons more detailed :P

Butterscotch said:
Well according to what char said, they will. Also you have to admit that it makes the reasons more detailed :P

No it doesn't, it makes them look like a clusterfuck.

corgi_bread said:
No it doesn't, it makes them look like a clusterfuck.

That does not explain anything lol.

Most of us admins don't plan on having records that long, no. As long as we at least tell them what rules were broken and link to the offending page/post/comment if possible, it's very possible to have a nice, pretty, one-wrapped-line record.

I wonder how long will it be before EDFDarkAngel1 gives up and instead of long, detailed ban he will write something like "Just go away, and don't come back." when faced with 20 alternative account of someone.

BTW, does the dtext works in user records? If yes, than using section for lengthy bans seems like a good idea.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I wonder how long will it be before EDFDarkAngel1 gives up and instead of long, detailed ban he will write something like "Just go away, and don't come back." when faced with 20 alternative account of someone.

BTW, does the dtext works in user records? If yes, than using section for lengthy bans seems like a good idea.

We have been working on that for a few days now, we are just making sure it does as is intended. Trust me, I have no intention of having admins place more bans that explain nothing as to what happened, and what caused the issue(s). Char is completely correct regarding that.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Administrators and moderators do need to hold themselves to a higher standard than that. As you said, it is an older ban but, going forward, that will not be allowed.

Stop having fun guys

Char said:
Going forward, bans are going to get a LOT more standardized and clear. Records structured like this are intended to become the norm: https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=112396

No, they're not as interesting or fun as how records have been worded so far, but trust me, it's also no fun having to explain to a user WHY they were banned, when their record on their account should have made it very clear to begin with. =/ Not to mention it makes it a pain in the ass for other admins later on trying to figure out what exactly someone received a record for X months ago.

It was more acceptable back when the site was small and easier to keep track of, but now it just really has to be standardized because it's just so frustrating otherwise.

Perhaps a "flavor text" portion of user records in addition the the standard rules text.
That way we have the "this is why you were banned/warned/etc." section what we need, but admins can still have a bit of fun to alleviate the stress of dealing with all the idiots.

Fox2K9 said:
Is this just for the first X [time] for the new members or globally for all members?

My bad, I thought you were talking about the 3 day tag wait when you create a new account. The member tag limit applies to all Members and I think it's suppose to give you a break from tagging. Consistently tag fixing for several minutes is bad for your eyes, so when you hit the limit, you can take a break and continue right after :I

These changes aren't too bad. Most are common sense, related to limiting flaming (politics/religion), or act as legal cover. With softening and tightening of the language in some of these sections and discretion against punishing minor rule breaking (as in the past), it should be fine.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Consistently tag fixing for several minutes is bad for your eyes, so when you hit the limit, you can take a break and continue right after :I

lol

Char said:
Going forward, bans are going to get a LOT more standardized and clear. Records structured like this are intended to become the norm: https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=112396

No, they're not as interesting or fun as how records have been worded so far, but trust me, it's also no fun having to explain to a user WHY they were banned, when their record on their account should have made it very clear to begin with. =/ Not to mention it makes it a pain in the ass for other admins later on trying to figure out what exactly someone received a record for X months ago.

It was more acceptable back when the site was small and easier to keep track of, but now it just really has to be standardized because it's just so frustrating otherwise.

While it's understandable for a first time ban, or even a second/third time ban, if it's an obvious constant offender that is ban evading and is being banned for the 8th-9th-10th or more time, why can't it be something funny and enjoyable, a little easter egg that no dobut also gave Ippiki a lot of enjoyment to write and blow off steam of having to deal with a constant repeat ban evader? Certainly, having a one-line "professional" format of "Ban Reason: Ban Evasion" or something in every ban posting would be optimal, but sometimes seeing those gems of a ban reason made my day- and no doubt many others.

TL;DR: Don't stop the fun ban reason posts, just make it standard to include a specific formatted reason regardless, so we can all still enjoy those who can enjoy themselves and make it fun to go about their job for themselves and other people to look in on. :x

corgi_bread said:
Stop making records three miles long. No one is going to read through that to find out what they did wrong...

If you cant even read 10 lines of text, than you shouldn't be on this site to begin with. I mean how can a user read the rules if you expect everyone not to be able to read more then 3 lines of text?

Conker said:
If you cant even read 10 lines of text, than you shouldn't be on this site to begin with. I mean how can a user read the rules if you expect everyone not to be able to read more then 3 lines of text?

On the other hand having a succinct line of "Reason: <reason>" is professional and easy to understand at a glance, with the remainder of the body being dedicate-able to either further information about why if it wasn't a simple reason, or the admin/moderator enjoying themselves in the case of the people who are repeat rule breakers.

NotMeNotYou said:
"Report for Awesome" and "Report for negative Awesome".

Or "Good" and "UnGood"? And high-five to anyone who gets the reference. =^.^=

Conker said:
If you cant even read 10 lines of text, than you shouldn't be on this site to begin with. I mean how can a user read the rules if you expect everyone not to be able to read more then 3 lines of text?

You must be new to the internet.

tony311 said:
<snip>

Hey Tony? Remember when it was almost expected of us to put "Go fuck off" in a ban message? Or something along the lines of "You are a horrible person, and should die in a hole?"

There are huge volumes of posts/comments posted, some don't get reported for multiple years because they're tucked away. Even if the user doesn't get disciplined due to the timeframe differential, shouldn't the post/comment/thread still be scrubbed?

123easy said:
There are huge volumes of posts/comments posted, some don't get reported for multiple years because they're tucked away. Even if the user doesn't get disciplined due to the timeframe differential, shouldn't the post/comment/thread still be scrubbed?

There's no point in bothering at all with old comments.

Which is why I'm bringing it up here, so that it can be defined for all definitively, since that is the point of this post, isn't it?

CamKitty said:
The only major changes I see from before is a more severe look at racism, sexism, trolling, etc. I mean, it did before, but now it is written in stone. E6 is putting on its professional face, so to speak

Well who ever liked racism and sexism in the first place. as for trolling there will always be some!

Sorry for the delay in responding to everyone - compiling a list of all the feedback and getting everything straightened out has proven to be a quite herculean task, so sorry about that.

- So we're not allowed to link to http://e621.net? :P

Linking to stuff on e621 is just fine :p

- I guess that this would include mentioning commission prices on posts etc, not just starting forum topics for advertising?

That's a good point, wolframite! I read over the Code of Conduct and couldn't find any specific information as to what rules apply to the forum, and what rules apply to the website! We'll work on getting that clarification added in the next few days (before it goes into effect, obviously).

To answer your question, we would like to allow and encourage artists to promote their work commercially on e621 via the description field. We have high hopes in the future to be able to offer additional ways for artists to promote their work and increase their exposure - Varka's the one spearheading that project.

- Not that I approve of that sort of thing, but would this ban art containing swastikas?

Another case where your feedback highlighted a gap in the wording. Thanks for this.

To answer your question, No, this rule would not restrict the posting of artwork containing swastikas. It would, however, restrict the posting of comments on posts and forum threads containing racial/ethnic hatred.

To clarify the 'Is it OK in art?' versus 'is it OK on the forums?' question, the standard we are going to be upholding is that of intent. Does the artwork in question fall afoul of the 'Hate Art' rule? Is it intended to cause offence to a specific person or group of people? Swastikas themselves are not banned, but if it's intentionally malicious or trying to offend someone, then that's not cool.

- And what about pointless combos too?

Pointless combos? Do you have any examples of this? As a general response, memes are not prohibitied in comments or forum posts (though if you generally behave like a dick, you're probably going to fall afoul of the 'Creating disturbances in forum threads', or 'making non-constructive or derailing posts').

- Is that a typo that should say "forum" not "from"?
Why yes, yes it is. Now fixed!

- It seems weird that only the lead admin can appeal bans. If I'm a little too hard on someone with a ban (which has totally never happened before :P) then they should come to me since I made the decision. Why bother the lead with petty issues that can be handled on a lower level? That's the whole point of a chain of command.

The intention with the ban appeals going to the lead admin is such that there is to avoid conflicts of interest (eg, appealing to the same person who banned you), and to ensure that the moderator's actions in banning someone are examined carefully by the right people. The lead admin is responsible for communicating with and ensuring discipline of all moderators - as such, it's most appropriate for those kinds of inquiries to go to them.

- This. e6 now just needs a mission and vision statements (if they don't have one already)

Varka's really excited about this one, and I agree - we do need a mission and vision statement. We're kicking around a basic draft of this as a result of you reminding us about this; I think this would be a fantastic addition to the site! =)

-Even if it falls in the rule of funny or rule of cool? I mean, it could be like cartoony, whacking somebody with their own symbol for comedic reasons

- If the *intent* is for something to be funny, or cool, then that's fine - the intent was to be funny or cool, not to be malicious. That's actually a really good reference you linked to there to illustrate your point.

- Edit: This should be stickied, no?

Yup, it should be stickied now!

- By the way, does this also affect the IRC chat?

The IRC is hosted and run seperately to e621, and falls under FurNet's rules. These policies are not intended to cover the IRC channel at the present time or anywhere else offsite.

- I hope we're not just giving out promotions are we? Users should earn it instead of requesting it

We will be taking many factors into account when considering any potential promotion or addition of privileges - including post count, track record, ongoing contributions and their general level of maturity. As such, promotions will not be 'just given out' - as with all positions on the site, they have to be earned.

The intention here is to add a channel for the nomination and application of potential good contributors to the site. It's hoped that this will allow us to find motivated individuals who contribute who would not usually be approached.

- It might have something to do with the fact that tickets are named like:
Comment Complaint
User Complaint
etc.

This is an interesting and relevant point, thank you! I think your idea has merit, and that we should definitely take a look and see if we could re-use the 'report' functionality to apply to positive things too!

- Furthermore, I hope it's decided by the staff who deal with the users and know their history rather than the BD management.

Absolutely. Admins and other contributors will be consulted on these kinds of decisions to get their thoughts and feedback - moreover, it's most likely going to be decided by the lead admin in consultation with senior management (usually Varka) for the most part.

- Will this affect images that feature drug use?
No it will not - however, discussing it in comments or forum posts will be prohibited. this does bring up an interesting clarification needed to specify what rules apply to posts on the website, versus comments and forum posts etc. I have added a glossary at the top of the code of conduct and have combed through the rest to clarify this.

- Like what, guro?
In this case, links offsite to 'guro' content would probably fall afoul of this rule. In-house posts, however, would be permitted if the content is hosted on e621.

- I don't know how they do things at BD, but around here, if you're mistreated by a staff member (regardless of position), it will be rectified by the other staff. We hold each other accountable for our actions, and if you truly don't deserve what was done to you, it will be undone swiftly.

The intention is to move the responsibility of judging any mistreatment of users by staff to a specific person, to ensure consistency and accountability. The idea is that different admins may have different criteria for what constitutes 'mistreatment', and the intention is to move this to one person and a set of documented guidelines so it remains consistent.

- National Hatred: I hope it is still ok to say I don't like Americans and not talk about it I hope I don't get banned because of it. I mean I am just saying what I don't like lol

It's fine, as long as you're not attacking anyone. Remember it's intent - if you're intending to piss someone off you're going to fall afoul of this rule. If you're respectfully and politely stating your personal preferences, then it shouldn't be construed as a personal attack.

- Posting Unreleased Content / Hacking Data Files: what if the person did not know....

It's important to know where the content you have came from, and if it's unreleased or obtained as a result of hacking. You should always make sure you know the origins of anything you upload; as yes, if it's unreleased content and we find out about it, you will be disciplined.

- I am not sure what "Can search up to six tags simultaneously" and "constructive behavior" mean...

It means you can search for up to 6 tags at a time (eg 'my_little_pony, applejack, rainbow_dash, etc).

Constructive behaviour indicates the kinds of behaviour which help make e621 a better place - improving tags correctly, making useful and/or helpful posts, helping users and so on.

- As someone who enjoys urine/watersports, which I'm fairly certain most people aren't fans of, I'm still a bit worried in that regard.

Remember, this applies to off-site links to these kinds of content - not to posts made on the site.

- So can I still swear?

As long as you keep within the other rules of the site (no personal attacks, no drug references, racial/national hatred etc etc) then you can swear up a storm just fine!

- Wait, does that mean ANY paid content? Or are there any special exclusions?

Our avoid posting list will still apply.

- So will this effect images of the American flag or nazi furry images?

Please see my earlier response to a similar question on this.

- Lastly, for the spam does this count people making 30 comments of "cute" on a shit ton of images or just making :) faces everywhere? Ive notice users spamming comments like that..

If the end result 'Causes disturbances in forum threads or comments', then yes this would fall afoul of that rule.

- Can we get a list what drugs, and activities are considered illegal? It varies from country to country. Should we banned women who claim that are driving car - it's forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

We're going to consider the rules of common sense for the most part - e621 is based in Phoenix, AZ in the USA, and as a result the rules of what's 'generally acceptable' will reflect that of its jurisdiction. If you're not sure, you can always ask us.

- But seriously though, for most people on earth furry is "extreme" fetish. I really think that this need more clarification. Does this is tasteless/extreme? What about sites that contains extreme kinks, but are not mainly about them? After all e621 has shitting_dicknipples.

Because of the huge spectrum of potential kinds of 'kink' content, we're going to have to play this one by ear and address it on a case by case basis. If we add a kind of prohibited 'kink' content, we'll be adding it to the list and if it's the first instance of said content (ie, not covered by an existing rule), then you'll only recieve a neutral record or a PM informing you of it being over the line.

- If a user is banned and a friend on the site posts to an admin a ban appel since the banner user can not get in touch with the admin....would they be banned for that? or does "- Having someone post on your behalf " mean something else?

The correct way to appeal a ban, is via email using the contact page. There should be no need for anyone to post publically to appeal a ban (as per the rules).

- I usually avoid posting on the forums but I felt the genuine need to add feedback regarding the Code of Conduct changes that have been thrust upon the community arbitrarily. I echo the sentiment of others in that the CoC as it stands is so ambiguous, so unclear, that it could be summarised with "We may ban you at any time, for any reason, at moderator discretion". Beyond that sentiment the CoC adds no substance or clarity what so ever.

As a result of feedback we've recieved since posting these preliminary rules (which is why we posted them, to sort stuff like this), we've made an effort to further clarify the rules to hopefully make it much more clear.

- For example, the CoC details "categories" whose general purpose is not clearly defined. That is to say, not once is it explicitly stated "Engaging in conduct as defined in any of the categories below is against the Code of Conduct and may attract administrative sanctions". In fact, it's not even implied. Granted you've provided a reasonably concise definition for "Advertising", but not once have you stated that "Advertising" (or any of the other categories) is actually against the Code of Conduct.

Yep, I noticed that upon further investigation. We've altered the rules a bit to make this clearer and to specifically address this. Do you think it's better now?

- I hope the Admins will address the gaping deficiencies in how these changes are being communicated to users sooner rather than later.

We're working on it! I've only been doing community management for a handful of months now, and while I've certainly dropped the ball in terms of being suitably 'proactive' about communicating these things, I'm getting there :p

- Edit: Also having conflicting messages regarding the scope of the rules. Given that the very first line of them is "Welcome to the e621 Discussion Forums!" - That would usually lead a reasonable person to assume that the text that follows pertains to the forums only. While the announcement banner and text above that is along the lines of "Updated site / forum rules have been posted".

Well spotted - that line should be gone now.

- Edit: Interestingly enough, one of the promotional points for the change was to prevent "double standards". And yet one of the first lines stated is "No one is going to enforce these with an iron fist" (Translation: We'll selectively enforce these rules when we feel like it)

There's a big difference between 'double standards' and 'leniency'. We know that these rules are quite a significant clarification and change from existing rules, and as such we're going to be a little more lenient during their introduction, as it'd be unfair to immediately come down on everyone and enforce them as hard as we can. We appreciate our users and their contributions and value their input - and know that making this change as smooth as possible is one way we can thank them.

- Edit: Also of interest "We reserve the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. The action we take may be more lenient or more severe than those listed under each category:" - Wait, the categories have actions listed under them? Where? I don't see it.

We're making some changes now to the wording to clarify this. Thanks for bringing it up.

Apologies for the enormous wall of text; I wanted to get to this and start posting responses and modifying the rules sooner, but this has proven to be quite a time consuming task. I am working on editing the rules right now and hope to have the updated ones posted by the end of the day.

Thanks everyone for your feedback and your patience. We got a lot of very useful information and I think we've substantially improved the rules as a result!

Many thanks,
Dave

Nice.

"- So can I still swear?

As long as you keep within the other rules of the site (no personal attacks, no drug references, racial/national hatred etc etc) then you can swear up a storm just fine!"

Patchi will be happy. :P

I think a list of the Banned "Extreme Kinks" should be posted first, not dealt with later. If you are all going to force your interpretations of what is "Too Far" upon us instead of letting the community define that, then you need to state it up front and be professional instead of holding the cards behind your back. No disrespect, just how I feel on the matter.

Also, this has been asked in previous posts, but not answered. What if you link (via the source on an image you uploaded) to the source of a particular image and that page has some "Disallowed Content" but is not primarily focused on it? It seems to me a lot of pictures are going to start coming up short on source links due to the varying nature of artists' works and tastes and people being too afraid to link to the source. I mean if one "Extreme Kink" pic will result in a ban once that Kink is listed as "Too Far", then folks will have to search through an artist's entire site just to cover their own ass. Also artists themselves would be more limited and scared to post links back to where they post their art if they have ever drawn any single image you end up tossing under the "Too Far" category.

Another thing that i was wondering about. What of artists whose art is paid content, but the artist them self either does not care if it is posted for free or posts it them self? How are situations like that handled?

It all seems a bit ambiguous on those subjects.

Warm Regards, -Nakedpops

Good points on these.

With extreme kinks, when we were talking about it in the office, we realized that there was no language to address things that were completely tasteless (not just one person thinking pee is disgusting) and wasn't really sexual in nature. It was less reacting to something that was on the site, and more to protect the site from it happening in the future. As there are no examples to draw off of, that is why there is no list.

To me, scat, pee, furry, vomit, etc are all just kinks. You can get them searching almost any porn site that caters to niches. The extreme stuff, in my opinion, the closest it comes to is snuff. Since snuff is for real people, and not art, it doesn't really apply.

My question to you is, what would do you with it instead, knowing the intention behind it?

As for paid content, that's rather messy. Typically, with paid content, there is the artist who supplies the art, and the vendor who supplies the server/webspace. Either group could require membership to view their product and, in that, we wouldn't be able to show that on e621.

However, if the artist has their stuff on a paid site AND on a publicly accessible one, then you can upload it so long as the source points to the publicly accessible site.

The best insight I could offer into how I would handle it is this; I have Admined forums before and currently Head Admin a Fan Group of over 500+ people and Co-Admin a particular MLP related NSFW blog. I have always handled what content goes "Too Far" in the same manner. The higher-ups and myself would discuss what we believed went "Too Far" and compile a list, we would then run that list by the userbase to see if it is generally accepted. If the majority of folks offered the same or similar edits or recommendations to the list we took those into account. The list was finalized after a majority of users approved of it. We didn't go for unanimous acceptance as you can never please everyone, but if you get the majority on board it is generally smooth sailing moving forward after that. Obviously we would not budge on anything that could cause us to have concrete legal action taken against us.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Pointless combos? Do you have any examples of this?

Yeah, when looking at a image someone posts <3 and then another user posts <3, then a 3rd, and a 4th but all users have 1 comment. Thats a combo on images, not the forums.

- But seriously though, for most people on earth furry is "extreme" fetish. I really think that this need more clarification. Does this is tasteless/extreme? What about sites that contains extreme kinks, but are not mainly about them? After all e621 has shitting_dicknipples.

Because of the huge spectrum of potential kinds of 'kink' content, we're going to have to play this one by ear and address it on a case by case basis. If we add a kind of prohibited 'kink' content, we'll be adding it to the list and if it's the first instance of said content (ie, not covered by an existing rule), then you'll only recieve a neutral record or a PM informing you of it being over the line.

I don't know how you expect anyone to NOT immediately start flipping out over a slippery-slope perception due to this. You just said flat-out that you're censoring particular kinks. So I say again, "How long until the cub art goes? Birth art? Slavery art? Snuff art? How long?". And don't say "We have no plans to ban those topics." because hey...this announcement is a change of plan, so guess what: They can change again.

So seriously: How long? Because I do have enough coding knowledge to make a thing that will (at a reasonable rate, not abusive) rip a personal copy of the entire site and keep it up to date throughout the day as things get posted. I don't want to do that, though, because that's a pain in the ass. But going forward is that my only option to preserving images against the sudden discovery that on X day it's decided that Y is over the line?

In regards to people posting commission prices in descriptions and comments and how that's perceived as spam:

Under your settings, there's a section called My Prices, where you can fill in commission information and prices so long as you have an artist tag attached to your name. This is a good way to have your information presented in such a way that it's not blatant advertising in descriptions and/or comments, which are not for use for advertising things. Since people seem to always forget about this feature, I figured I'd bring it up.

Nakedpops said:
The best insight I could offer into how I would handle it is this; I have Admined forums before and currently Head Admin a Fan Group of over 500+ people and Co-Admin a particular MLP related NSFW blog. I have always handled what content goes "Too Far" in the same manner. The higher-ups and myself would discuss what we believed went "Too Far" and compile a list, we would then run that list by the userbase to see if it is generally accepted. If the majority of folks offered the same or similar edits or recommendations to the list we took those into account. The list was finalized after a majority of users approved of it. We didn't go for unanimous acceptance as you can never please everyone, but if you get the majority on board it is generally smooth sailing moving forward after that. Obviously we would not budge on anything that could cause us to have concrete legal action taken against us.

It seems better to just remove that little bit, we can always change it later on if it becomes a problem.

Conker said:
Yeah, when looking at a image someone posts <3 and then another user posts <3, then a 3rd, and a 4th but all users have 1 comment. Thats a combo on images, not the forums.

Those are just people saying they like the image :) I have no problem with that.

Foobaria said:
I don't know how you expect anyone to NOT immediately start flipping out over a slippery-slope perception due to this. You just said flat-out that you're censoring particular kinks. So I say again, "How long until the cub art goes? Birth art? Slavery art? Snuff art? How long?". And don't say "We have no plans to ban those topics." because hey...this announcement is a change of plan, so guess what: They can change again.

So seriously: How long? Because I do have enough coding knowledge to make a thing that will (at a reasonable rate, not abusive) rip a personal copy of the entire site and keep it up to date throughout the day as things get posted. I don't want to do that, though, because that's a pain in the ass. But going forward is that my only option to preserving images against the sudden discovery that on X day it's decided that Y is over the line?

Please see above two responses from me on that subject!

corgi_bread said:
In regards to people posting commission prices in descriptions and comments and how that's perceived as spam:

Under your settings, there's a section called My Prices, where you can fill in commission information and prices so long as you have an artist tag attached to your name. This is a good way to have your information presented in such a way that it's not blatant advertising in descriptions and/or comments, which are not for use for advertising things. Since people seem to always forget about this feature, I figured I'd bring it up.

Thank you for bringing that up. Honestly, if it's in either place, I'm not likely to throw the banhammer around.

I thought this site's 'mission' was to "Gather the best/strangest collection of furry artwork, REGARDLESS OF CONTENT"?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Thank you for bringing that up. Honestly, if it's in either place, I'm not likely to through the banhammer around.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Honestly, if it's in either place, I'm not likely to through the banhammer around.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I'm not likely to through the banhammer around.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
through the banhammer around.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
through

god damn it...

Halite said:
god damn it...

Halite... why are you editing my posts and making me misspell things? :P

I'm going to edit that right now...

Srsly, man. Why the censoring? Whatever happened to "regardless of content" on the mission page?

Renard_Queenston said:
Srsly, man. Why the censoring? Whatever happened to "regardless of content" on the mission page?

Well, I wouldn't confuse "censoring" with "quality control". The images we are trying to deny neither attribute e621 to have the best, nor the strangest, collection. Granted, it's one of the reason why we have so much MLP porn on the site, but it's also the reason why we don't have screenshots and Second Life crap on here either.

As multiple admins and users have said, in this thread even, very little is actually changing. This is all the stuff that was normally happening anyway, just made more clear.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:

Conker said:
Yeah, when looking at a image someone posts <3 and then another user posts <3, then a 3rd, and a 4th but all users have 1 comment. Thats a combo on images, not the forums.

Those are just people saying they like the image :) I have no problem with that.

Wouldn't that fall under the spam and rubbish posts ruling? I mean, if it's every so often, but people specifically making chains out of it, or going around posting nothing but "<3" on tons of pictures?

If the same person is doing it, I can see that being spam.

If it's just one post, and eight different people all say "<3", then I'd have to say no. Just being un-original :P

Renard_Queenston said:
Srsly, man. Why the censoring? Whatever happened to "regardless of content" on the mission page?

We've never accepted anything regardless of content. Low quality art, low quality scans/photos of art, blatant hate-art, meme-y or 4chan-ny images, that stuff has never been allowed. The rules regarding what's approved or not hasn't really changed at all.

Also, I really hope the "off-site links to these kinds of content" thing only applies to 1. real content and 2. only that which is illegal. Drawn art is never illegal, so linking to it, regardless of content, should never be against the rules. And linking to real 'extreme' fetishes (watersports, etc.) shouldn't be against the rules either, unless it's illegal in some way, like snuff or bestiality.

Also, no talking about illegal drugs? Now how am I supposed to educate people on how weed isn't actually that bad?

I say drop the "extreme fetish" line. "Snuff" is already covered by "extreme real-life violence".

tony311 said:
Also, I really hope the "off-site links to these kinds of content" thing only applies to 1. real content and 2. only that which is illegal. Drawn art is never illegal, so linking to it, regardless of content, should never be against the rules. And linking to real 'extreme' fetishes (watersports, etc.) shouldn't be against the rules either, unless it's illegal in some way, like snuff or bestiality.

THIS. Especially part about drawn art.

Renard_Queenston said:
Also, no talking about illegal drugs? Now how am I supposed to educate people on how weed isn't actually that bad?

Weed is actually bad though :P
Not as bad as a lot of perfectly legal stuff, but it's still not a good thing to do.

Halite said:
Weed is actually bad though :P
Not as bad as a lot of perfectly legal stuff, but it's still not a good thing to do.

In excess, yes it is kind of bad

But why would it be used in prescriptions if it wasn't as bad as -most- people say-- oh wait im getting banned for this right?

Renard_Queenston said:
In excess, yes it is kind of bad

But why would it be used in prescriptions if it wasn't as bad as -most- people say-- oh wait im getting banned for this right?

We're going to consider the rules of common sense for the most part - e621 is based in Phoenix, AZ in the USA, and as a result the rules of what's 'generally acceptable' will reflect that of its jurisdiction. If you're not sure, you can always ask us.

I think it's common sense that marijuana, as less dangerous drug than alcohol, should be OK. If not than I demand to respect Arizona's law about dildos.

but yea seeya gyus im gettin banned

Marijuana is approved for medical use in Arizona, but recreational use of it is in the media everywhere. I wouldn't have a problem with talk about that.

This for the other, harder stuff like cocaine, meth, prescription abuse, X, etc.

I know you want to know where the line is, what is and isn't okay, but it's a lot of common sense, honestly. If we run into any ambiguity, we'll clarify the CoC to make it more clear.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I know you want to know where the line is, what is and isn't okay, but it's a lot of common sense, honestly. If we run into any ambiguity, we'll clarify the CoC to make it more clear.

Basically common sense and don't push the line and they won't have to rule on drugs with an iron fist :P

Renard_Queenston said:
In excess, yes it is kind of bad

But why would it be used in prescriptions if it wasn't as bad as -most- people say-- oh wait im getting banned for this right?

Its not the drug that harms you, its dosage. Water can kill you in a big enough dosage. lol

tony311 said:
We've never accepted anything regardless of content. Low quality art, low quality scans/photos of art, blatant hate-art, meme-y or 4chan-ny images, that stuff has never been allowed.

Not true, there has been ms paint 4chan art on this site, along with other super low quality images. As for "hate art" there is a image on this site about cooking furries alive while they masturbate and shit themselves as hate art.....yet its still on the site. Now I am not saying things should be removed, but that statement you made is just really wrong given the things approved on this site that are still around :/

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Marijuana is approved for medical use in Arizona, but recreational use of it is in the media everywhere. I wouldn't have a problem with talk about that.

This for the other, harder stuff like cocaine, meth, prescription abuse, X, etc.

I know you want to know where the line is, what is and isn't okay, but it's a lot of common sense, honestly. If we run into any ambiguity, we'll clarify the CoC to make it more clear.

If talk of weed is allowed, then that should be added to the rules as a clear exception.