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

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

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 :/

Please be very careful not to confuse "hate" with "someone else's opinions".

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Please be very careful not to confuse "hate" with "someone else's opinions".

A very common misunderstanding, imo. People can't take opinions :P

Xch3l said:
A very common misunderstanding, imo. People can't take opinions :P

post #227758

Xch3l said:
A very common misunderstanding, imo. People can't take opinions :P

This, so much this.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
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

Just throwing this in here but something like this is a combo and also one of the reasons why the have a lol_comments tag

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Please be very careful not to confuse "hate" with "someone else's opinions".

Setting a furry on fire, with text bubbles saying how terrible furries are......thats hate art, not confusion.

Conker said:
Setting a furry on fire, with text bubbles saying how terrible furries are......thats hate art, not confusion.

If only furries were real, then that might be correct :o Unless you mean the actual person and not the fursona

Conker said:
Setting a furry on fire, with text bubbles saying how terrible furries are......thats hate art, not confusion.

By that, we should also censor vore, the one where one character eats the other through various means (can't remember the name at the moment), and slavery.

Just because it depicts furry in a negative light does not make it "hate art". However, if you would like, can you provide the link and I will ask the admins to weigh in on if it is or isn't hate art.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
By that, we should also censor vore, the one where one character eats the other through various means (can't remember the name at the moment), and slavery.

Just because it depicts furry in a negative light does not make it "hate art". However, if you would like, can you provide the link and I will ask the admins to weigh in on if it is or isn't hate art.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I am NOT saying we should censor anything. I am pointing out we DO infact have troll art, and super low quality images that are approved on this site. I only brought up one image as an example, but yeah there is a lot of it still on the site so you cant really say its "never allowed"

Conker said:
You are misunderstanding what I said. I am NOT saying we should censor anything. I am pointing out we DO infact have troll art, and super low quality images that are approved on this site. I only brought up one image as an example, but yeah there is a lot of it still on the site so you cant really say its "never allowed"

Quality is in eye of the beholder and very much subjective, some things look like shit but redeem themselves by either being really funny or otherwise good.

NotMeNotYou said:
Quality is in eye of the beholder and very much subjective, some things look like shit but redeem themselves by either being really funny or otherwise good.

Which brings us allllllll the way back around to admin/mod subjective judgement. Which sounds like very little progress is made at all.

Foobaria said:
Which brings us allllllll the way back around to admin/mod subjective judgement. Which sounds like very little progress is made at all.

Oh for fucks sake, how about instead of whining like a siren you actually do something productive for once and suggest something to solve your perceived problem?

Or how about you start your own booru someplace else? I heard the cost to rent a server is pretty cheap these days.

But both would require you to do something else than being useless all day long so chances are really small that we'll ever see you change something.

Now when NotMe swears, that's when you know you are in deep shit.

Patch said:
Now when NotMe swears, that's when you know you are in deep shit.

I wonder in how deep shit you need to be to make EDFDarkAngel1 make posts like this.

NotMeNotYou said:
Quality is in eye of the beholder and very much subjective, some things look like shit but redeem themselves by either being really funny or otherwise good.

Thats my point, so the other admin saying that this stuff "never" gets approved is wrong. Its up to whoever approves it but there is no quality control

" Numbering a thread, IBTL, TL;DR, or any other fad statements"

A few points about this:

The wording here can give the miss-impression that acronyms are under fire. I think the inclusion of "TL;DR" in this is misleading, because it's most often used as an acronym just like IMHO, LOL, etc. The only way I've seen "TL;DR" being used as a fad statement has been in flippant one-liner posts, where it could easily be argued the real problem was because the post was a flippant, one-liner which added nothing to the discussion and was meant to diss or provoke someone else's comment. Maybe something like "Fad statements which otherwise add nothing to the discussion are to be avoided, excessive use of them will result in discaplinary action. Examples of fad statements include post numbering declarations [aka, "First post! woo!"], "in before the ___" predictions, flippant one-liners meant to provoke or diss another member's comment, pointless commenting games, spam, [whatever else you want to specifically add here]."

I think chain combos should be allowed with caveats. Because often they're just about formatting or style mimicry, but the body of those comments are still adding something to the discussion. Other times they're a mindless comment game, and that's when they qualify as being a disruption. So they're a mix of fine and not fine.

Another related thing that needs brought up is those instances where someone posts a keyword-relevent-but-not-really-relevent-sort-of-funny-mostly-random-youtube-video-link in response to something. Sometimes they don't even say much else. It's part fad and part meme. It happens often enough that it's going to come up in relation to the CoC sooner or later. So I figure now's a good time to decide whether it's allowed or not. I know they do bug a lot of people, while other people love to post them. And cracking down on them too hard might get in the way of the few times a link is relevant. For example, linking to a song which a person thinks complements an animation as a recommendation is very different than linking to a random movie clip because it has a keyword in common or a 'clever' comeback. The latter is more of a commenting/forum game and isn't much better than a fad statement.

furrypickle said:
A few points about this:

The wording here can give the miss-impression that acronyms are under fire. I think the inclusion of "TL;DR" in this is misleading, because it's most often used as an acronym just like IMHO, LOL, etc. The only way I've seen "TL;DR" being used as a fad statement has been in flippant one-liner posts, where it could easily be argued the real problem was because the post was a flippant, one-liner which added nothing to the discussion and was meant to diss or provoke someone else's comment. Maybe something like "Fad statements which otherwise add nothing to the discussion are to be avoided, excessive use of them will result in discaplinary action. Examples of fad statements include post numbering declarations [aka, "First post! woo!"], "in before the ___" predictions, flippant one-liners meant to provoke or diss another member's comment, pointless commenting games, spam, [whatever else you want to specifically add here]."

I think chain combos should be allowed with caveats. Because often they're just about formatting or style mimicry, but the body of those comments are still adding something to the discussion. Other times they're a mindless comment game, and that's when they qualify as being a disruption. So they're a mix of fine and not fine.

Another related thing that needs brought up is those instances where someone posts a keyword-relevent-but-not-really-relevent-sort-of-funny-mostly-random-youtube-video-link in response to something. Sometimes they don't even say much else. It's part fad and part meme. It happens often enough that it's going to come up in relation to the CoC sooner or later. So I figure now's a good time to decide whether it's allowed or not. I know they do bug a lot of people, while other people love to post them. And cracking down on them too hard might get in the way of the few times a link is relevant. For example, linking to a song which a person thinks complements an animation as a recommendation is very different than linking to a random movie clip because it has a keyword in common or a 'clever' comeback. The latter is more of a commenting/forum game and isn't much better than a fad statement.

Some great points here. I will bring up the fad statement revision with the BD group and verify it with the admin team. If everyone likes it, I'll make it happen.

Chain combos as you stated are fine. It'll all about intent. We're not stopping the "fun and games" part, just the "until someone loses an eye" part. If that made any sense.

YouTube video links are fine, as is most any popular social media. The CoC is to prevent against sites that are poorly, or not, moderated against illegal/tasteless content that we wouldn't want on this site. It would be a link to some random and weird website that will likely be filled with viruses and pop-up ads anyway.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I wonder in how deep shit you need to be to make EDFDarkAngel1 make posts like this.

A couple of admins have already found that out... :\

NotMeNotYou said:
Oh for fucks sake, how about instead of whining like a siren you actually do something productive for once and suggest something to solve your perceived problem?

Or how about you start your own booru someplace else? I heard the cost to rent a server is pretty cheap these days.

But both would require you to do something else than being useless all day long so chances are really small that we'll ever see you change something.

Now, while I would normally expect the admin team to show a little bit more decorum, I do understand where NMNY is coming from. The OP stated that we wanted constructive criticism, which a few select users have chosen to forget/ignore.

In all honestly, I like the admin team. For better or worse, I am happy with the staff that Char entrusted to Varka and I. I trust them to make the right calls when I'm not around, especially when I'm not around. So, yes, there are rules subjective to an individual admin/mod's purview. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I mean, I suppose I could just replace the admin staff with a program that auto-approved and -rejected posts, forum posts, and comments, so that I would remove all human element from this tasks, then everyone would hate it, no one would come, not even for the fapping or the lulz. I'm not going to do that (of course).

When it comes down to it, when you have something that affects a group of people, you have a few who won't be satisfied. You try your best, but if they won't budge, then you have to move on to everyone else rather than spend all your time trying to make that one person happy.

I mean, let's do some quick comparison:

Foobaria said:
Which brings us allllllll the way back around to admin/mod subjective judgement. Which sounds like very little progress is made at all.

versus...

furrypickle said:
A few points about this:

The wording here can give the miss-impression that acronyms are under fire. I think the inclusion of "TL;DR" in this is misleading, because it's most often used as an acronym just like IMHO, LOL, etc. The only way I've seen "TL;DR" being used as a fad statement has been in flippant one-liner posts, where it could easily be argued the real problem was because the post was a flippant, one-liner which added nothing to the discussion and was meant to diss or provoke someone else's comment. Maybe something like "Fad statements which otherwise add nothing to the discussion are to be avoided, excessive use of them will result in discaplinary action. Examples of fad statements include post numbering declarations [aka, "First post! woo!"], "in before the ___" predictions, flippant one-liners meant to provoke or diss another member's comment, pointless commenting games, spam, [whatever else you want to specifically add here]."

I think chain combos should be allowed with caveats. Because often they're just about formatting or style mimicry, but the body of those comments are still adding something to the discussion. Other times they're a mindless comment game, and that's when they qualify as being a disruption. So they're a mix of fine and not fine.

Another related thing that needs brought up is those instances where someone posts a keyword-relevent-but-not-really-relevent-sort-of-funny-mostly-random-youtube-video-link in response to something. Sometimes they don't even say much else. It's part fad and part meme. It happens often enough that it's going to come up in relation to the CoC sooner or later. So I figure now's a good time to decide whether it's allowed or not. I know they do bug a lot of people, while other people love to post them. And cracking down on them too hard might get in the way of the few times a link is relevant. For example, linking to a song which a person thinks complements an animation as a recommendation is very different than linking to a random movie clip because it has a keyword in common or a 'clever' comeback. The latter is more of a commenting/forum game and isn't much better than a fad statement.

Notice the difference? One person is not only discovering potential flaws, but also suggesting fixes. That's what we are looking for and it will likely get put into the next batch. I do thank furrypickle, along with corgi_bread, Gilda, and everyone else that has helped so far on this thread.

Keep it coming!

OP has been updated to Friday's revision.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
OP has been updated to Friday's revision.

and that would be? ....If you are going to update the CoC, at least make a change log comment so we can tell what has changed.

Conker said:
and that would be? ....If you are going to update the CoC, at least make a change log comment so we can tell what has changed.

Changes were mentioned in a previous post :) The one where I said, I will be implementing these changes in a few days.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Changes were mentioned in a previous post :) The one where I said, I will be implementing these changes in a few days.

Edit in the change log in the post of yours? I cant find the other post :v

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Changes were mentioned in a previous post :) The one where I said, I will be implementing these changes in a few days.

hey you why you wanna banned me .for no reason! i can say whatever i want and you are not a god!

Musketeers said:
hey you why you wanna banned me .for no reason! i can say whatever i want and you are not a god!

Oh look its you again...

Needs more "no creepy comments" because holy christ some of the latest ones are just terrible. Why this was removed, I really don't know. We don't need to know how you see a "nice, thick, delicious, otter butt that absolutely NEEDS deep penetration" or how you would "make that ass fold every time I thrust in and out I'll close my eyes and listen to my body ram his."

This is ridiculous.

Ratte said:
Needs more "no creepy comments" because holy christ some of the latest ones are just terrible. Why this was removed, I really don't know. We don't need to know how you see a "nice, thick, delicious, otter butt that absolutely NEEDS deep penetration" or how you would "make that ass fold every time I thrust in and out I'll close my eyes and listen to my body ram his."

This is ridiculous.

No, Ratte, apparently this is "all good."
They just can't talk about boning an actual otter - because that is animal abuse. No, they're perfectly well within their rights to turn every picture into a FurAffinity comment section.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Changes were mentioned in a previous post :) The one where I said, I will be implementing these changes in a few days.

What about putting the text of the CoC in a locked wiki page, so we can identify and compare the changes, with it's edit history tracking?

leo_nine said:
What about putting the text of the CoC in a locked wiki page, so we can identify and compare the changes, with it's edit history tracking?

Because it's still in its editing phase. Once it's established, that's exactly what we'll do.

i'd like to know who on earth thinks it's totally acceptable to actually comment saying that an otter butt needs deep anal penetration

i'd also like to ask the person who posted a comment like that what on earth was going through their mind when they thought that would be an acceptable comment to post on /anything/

DarkNoctus said:
i'd like to know who on earth thinks it's totally acceptable to actually comment saying that an otter butt needs deep anal penetration

i'd also like to ask the person who posted a comment like that what on earth was going through their mind when they thought that would be an acceptable comment to post on /anything/

post #387117

I can't believe both comments are from the same picture...

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Because it's still in its editing phase. Once it's established, that's exactly what we'll do.

I'm suggesting this because the CoC is in it's editing phase - it would be useful to have a visual indication of the changes to the site's rules so that those authoring - and suggesting changes to - them know what changes have been made, because all we have as it stands is a vague reference to 'some changes mentioned in a previous post' and a lack of clue as to what has changed, especially as you're running everything past The Powers That Be, who may have other changes to suggest, afterwards.

Butterscotch said:
post #387117

I can't believe both comments are from the same picture...

when i said "i'd like to know" and "i'd like to ask" i actually meant the very opposite

]:

https://e621.net/comment/show/1266364

Yes, I do see it. :P

So, there's nothing about sexism in the Code?

leo_nine said:
I'm suggesting this because the CoC is in it's editing phase - it would be useful to have a visual indication of the changes to the site's rules so that those authoring - and suggesting changes to - them know what changes have been made, because all we have as it stands is a vague reference to 'some changes mentioned in a previous post' and a lack of clue as to what has changed, especially as you're running everything past The Powers That Be, who may have other changes to suggest, afterwards.

There is still google cache copy of CoC from 30 september. The changes are mostly about changing "threads" to "threads or comments" or correcting spelling mistakes

I have few comments about rules again.

Janitor: Can delete forum posts

Actually now I have an option to hide comment, and hide blip, see hidden comments on comment search view, but don't have option to hide forum post.

3. Suspension (negative record): This is a temporary two-week ban from the site and forums.

This was changed comparing to 30 sep version. Is removing flexibility of duration of bans is a good thing?

leo_nine said:
I'm suggesting this because the CoC is in it's editing phase - it would be useful to have a visual indication of the changes to the site's rules so that those authoring - and suggesting changes to - them know what changes have been made, because all we have as it stands is a vague reference to 'some changes mentioned in a previous post' and a lack of clue as to what has changed, especially as you're running everything past The Powers That Be, who may have other changes to suggest, afterwards.

Agreed, thats what I said. If they are going to update the CoC then give us a change log so we know whats changed.

Renard_Queenston said:
So, there's nothing about sexism in the Code?

I think thats under trolling...

Okay as another user mentioned.....why are creepy comments now allowed? ....

Quote:"as long as they are not talking about sex acts with a real-life animal or similar, it's all good."

Wat....wasnt the whole point of no creepy comments so we dont have to see spam of people who want to "fuck rainbow dash's ass til she cums rainbows while licking a rabbit's asshole" and other creepy shit like that.

Please can we add creepy comments back to the list of rules.....its been a rule for so long now, I dont see any real reason for its removal.

Oh yeah, I'm also for no creepy comments rule back.

Conker said:
creepy comments now allowed

Huh... Gonna byte your bits. All eight of them. :3

I thought the "no creepy comments" rule was to prevent artists/character owners from being creeped out and requesting a removal of their art.

Also, I'd like to add my vote for it's return.

Yes please, we really don't need all this creepy bullshit.

Throwing my hat in for punching creepers. :P

Halite said:
I thought the "no creepy comments" rule was to prevent artists/character owners from being creeped out and requesting a removal of their art.

Also, I'd like to add my vote for it's return.

Yeah that too. Matter of fact....where did it say we removed them? Why was there no bloody discussion of its removal? Why is it now said its only for real life animals....I mean I really really really dont want to hear how someone wants to fuck then rim some image's asshole over and over again. Thats just creepy...

Oh wonderful, creepy comments being allowed means I go figure out how GreaseMonkey works so I can hide the comments entirely. Fuck.

No wonder all the recent tickets about creepy commenting were cleared without action. I vote for bringing that rule back. I don't want to know what a user wants to do to a character and etc.

Please don't tell me this decision was based on "people who make creepy comments are somehow more likely to drive traffic and thus ad views". Let me be seeing shapes in clouds.

Foobaria said:
Please don't tell me this decision was based on "people who make creepy comments are somehow more likely to drive traffic and thus ad views". Let me be seeing shapes in clouds.

It will drive a lot of people (myself included) to leave the site or at least take drastic measures (something like Foob mentioned).

If creepers are allowed I am at least turning adblock back on. I feel less inclined to help the site financially when it is shared with THOSE people D:

What's funny is that it had been one of the more consistently-applied rules. The clear violations were nuked, and the ones that are rather int he grey area were left alone to be voted down if more people than not thought it crossed the line.

Maybe something like that would work for posts, too: Things that are "are you fucking kidding me why did you even think we'd want this on our site" would be nuked, and let the votes speak for the rest that are more subjective. I'm pretty sure there's already a blacklist option for score, so just implement an auto-blacklist thing with a threshold for post score (and a checkbox to turn off the auto-blacklist), which would work just like auto-hiding of comments below their threshold.

Foobaria said:
Please don't tell me this decision was based on "people who make creepy comments are somehow more likely to drive traffic and thus ad views". Let me be seeing shapes in clouds.

I'm still shocked the rule was changed with no feedback from any of the userbase....It feels like there was no thought placed into this. Besides....didnt a few artists want their art removed due to creepy comments about their art at one time? ...I still dont get why it was removed without notice.

If there is no more no creepy comment rule...I might just not use the site due to the over flood of "I want to lick that fox-horse's vagina all night long till she cums hard in my face" comments. It just creeps out artists to remove their stuff and makes people not want to use the site.

Creepy comments are allowed?

Are you serious?

Are you fucking serious?

Patch said:
Creepy comments are allowed?

Are you serious?

Are you fucking serious?

I'm cereal...I'm super cereal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU

Want to see what a site without management of creepy comments looks like? Gelbooru. Do you want to be Gelbooru? Because no, you don't. Some of the comments on that site make my skin crawl. And I don't mean figuratively: It actually crawled, like I had been sitting there minding my own business, and suddenly realized that sixteen tarantulas were standing all around me, just staring at me.

Awful site.

Foobaria said:
Want to see what a site without management of creepy comments looks like? Gelbooru. Do you want to be Gelbooru? Because no, you don't. Some of the comments on that site make my skin crawl. And I don't mean figuratively: It actually crawled, like I had been sitting there minding my own business, and suddenly realized that sixteen tarantulas were standing all around me, just staring at me.

Awful site.

Gelbooru isn't that bad (and I actually like it for non-furry images) compared to rule34.paheal comments.

Foobaria said:
Want to see what a site without management of creepy comments looks like? Gelbooru. Do you want to be Gelbooru? Because no, you don't. Some of the comments on that site make my skin crawl. And I don't mean figuratively: It actually crawled, like I had been sitting there minding my own business, and suddenly realized that sixteen tarantulas were standing all around me, just staring at me.

Awful site.

Oh god.. every time I went onto Gelbooru to check sources on doujinshi, it made my skin crawl too. It's so god damn creepy there that I cannot stand to go to it.

Please bring back the 'no creepy comments' rule..

https://e621.net/forum/show/86205

Foobaria said:
Oh wonderful, creepy comments being allowed means I go figure out how GreaseMonkey works so I can hide the comments entirely. Fuck.

Account Settings -> [x] Show comments

Remove the tick, profit.

NotMeNotYou said:
Account Settings -> [x] Show comments

Remove the tick, profit.

Yes, lets have all the helpful people not comment anymore so the creepy people can :o

CamKitty said:
Yes, lets have all the helpful people not comment anymore so the creepy people can :o

He wanted to create a grease monkey script for something the site already supports, I don't see how potentially saving him time is a bad thing.

NotMeNotYou said:
Account Settings -> [x] Show comments

Remove the tick, profit.

Shouldn't have to do that. The rule should remain.

I'm happy there's an easy way to turn off comments. I'm disgusted that I may need to.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Oh yeah, I'm also for no creepy comments rule back.

Mr. EDFDarkAngel, if we're getting rid of the "creepy comments" rule, I think we ought to bring back everyone who was banned because of it!

I mean, it is technically an unfair ban, now. We could also invite everyone we shoo'd away because they were, at the time, below comment quality standards. But now they're completely fine!
It'll be a grand old time!

Oh, we'll bring back stink, we'll bring back BHDragn, we'll bring back this guy!

We can bring back G.Sly, we bring back american-lotus and asslover and this person and this guy!

We'll extend an invite to AligaTOR, we'll RSVP dragonrump!
You and you and you; and you get an invite, and YOU get an invite, YOU get an invite, YOU get an invite! Everybody gets an invite!

And 'lo, we'll bring back our one true lord and savior, the one king of the city of on the hill (vaginally)

Yep, that is true. If someone has in the past been banned for no violations other than creepy comments, then it's absolutely a requirement that they be immediately unbanned under the new rules, and their negatives be either removed or at the least changed to neutrals.

Tunguska said:
Mr. EDFDarkAngel, if we're getting rid of the "creepy comments" rule, I think we ought to bring back everyone who was banned because of it!

I mean, it is technically an unfair ban, now. We could also invite everyone we shoo'd away because they were, at the time, below comment quality standards. But now they're completely fine!
It'll be a grand old time!

Oh, we'll bring back stink, we'll bring back BHDragn, we'll bring back this guy!

We can bring back G.Sly, we bring back american-lotus and asslover and this person and this guy!

We'll extend an invite to AligaTOR, we'll RSVP dragonrump!
You and you and you; and you get an invite, and YOU get an invite, YOU get an invite, YOU get an invite! Everybody gets an invite!

And 'lo, we'll bring back our one true lord and savior, the one king of the city of on the hill (vaginally)

Yeah if Dragonrump or Stink come back then it's bye bye Patch. I don't wanna start fixing Dragonrump's god damn tags again.

Patch said:
Yeah if Dragonrump or Stink come back then it's bye bye Patch. I don't wanna start fixing Dragonrump's god damn tags again.

Dragonrump was banned for more than just creepy comments, so he wouldn't come back. Some of them would, though.

Patch said:
Yeah if Dragonrump or Stink come back then it's bye bye Patch. I don't wanna start fixing Dragonrump's god damn tags again.

I think that dragonrump would be still banned for tag vandalism. In fact, many people from that list would be still banned for other things.

But do not fear, if new rule is confirmed then I'm going to personally make comments that would make even Barbados sick. (vaginally) ^_^

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I think that dragonrump would be still banned for tag vandalism. In fact, many people from that list would be still banned for other things.

But do not fear, if new rule is confirmed then I'm going to personally make comments that would make even Barbados sick. ^_^

I knew you would, cheeky Gilda~

But in all seriousness, I was fine with all the changes happening in e621. Sure I was happy about it. But hearing that creepers can post their creepy shit and get away with it? Nah. That honestly makes me want to puke.

I love this site, I love the people and friends I've made on it. I really don't want to have to disable comments just because of this.

For fucks sake, please bring in the no creepy comments rule back. It can be my early birthday present..

NotMeNotYou said:
Account Settings -> [x] Show comments

Remove the tick, profit.

So you want to remove all comments due to allowing creepy comments? That does not solve the problem, ignorance is not bliss.

Problem is....some users UPVOTE creepy comments....so the downvote system wont even help

Lastly, is anyone else asking why this was passed without any feedback? I think the users have spoken, we dont want this site to turn out like a few other creepy image boards (that a few examples my fellow users can name), nor do we want to hear about how a creepy user posting about "wanting to shove their dick in that fat, shit & cum covered, Bunny boy-ass all night long for long deep penetration, until his ass is as open as a train tunnel to shove 12 hotdogs inside and eat out of his ass on the 4th of july while jacking off onto the bunny boy's ass and lower back."

No one wants to hear this, it creeps out the normal user base, it creeps out the artists, it makes the users not want to use the site, and makes artists want to remove their art in mass waves due to creepy comments made about the images they draw.

I think, I and my fellow users have made our points crystal clear. If there was a vote on creepy comments, we would all vote no.

I find this situation a bit funny. Everyone, including me, was thinking that these new rules would bring new restricting prohibitions or censorship. However nobody thought, and checked, whether it removes restrictions that were good.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I find this situation a bit funny. Everyone, including me, was thinking that these new rules would bring new restricting prohibitions or censorship. However nobody thought, and checked, whether it removes restrictions that were good.

I thought the same..