MissChu said:
The picture can be as grotesque or normal as possible, we don't need you talking about what you want to do with it.

Right-click 'Download'
Save Link As...

post #1870236

MagnusEffect said:

Right-click 'Download'
Save Link As...

post #1870236

You... you... fiend! How could you do such things to an innocent picture?!

I think the trick is to reword a comment so it's not about you doing something, but just the action or idea in general.

Regarding the handling of creepy comments here, I would make a comparison to an actual art gallery or a museum. Imagine you're at one and you're staring at a nude painting, even if it's an abstract, and you comment something like "I wanna fancy her.", how many people nearby would react to that?

AlexYorim said:
Regarding the handling of creepy comments here, I would make a comparison to an actual art gallery or a museum. Imagine you're at one and you're staring at a nude painting, even if it's an abstract, and you comment something like "I wanna fancy her.", how many people nearby would react to that?

Oh wow haha did you just compare e621 to an art museum ? Like, you think the average person here is contemplating art in some kind of intellectual manner, appreciating the technique and their place in furry art history ? Don't kid yourself, e621 is a porn site first and foremost, and a really hardcore one at that.

Still, I see where you're getting at, and I'd say it would be more appropriate to compare it to a sex shop. Like, if someone in there or the owner said to you "that's a really awesome porno/sex toy", it would be more or less acceptable. But if they told you "I wanna do ____ to that pornstar" or "I'm gonna stick this up my ass the second I get home", then yeah, that would be really creepy.

Sharpfuzz said:
Oh wow haha did you just compare e621 to an art museum?

You must be new here, e621 is a curated booru not unlike an art museum. Other such applicable words are art archive, which a museum is another type of archive.

Siral_Exan said:
You must be new here, e621 is a curated booru not unlike an art museum. Other such applicable words are art archive, which a museum is another type of archive.

Suuure, well if it's a curated website that makes it exactly like an actually, physical art museum, the kind you can actually visit. Who can argue with that ?

Also, if you know an art museum with a proportion of their art like this, where (out of 1790740) 367886 "artworks" are of sex, 441702 of genital fluids, 158569 of anal, 52477 of bdsm, 35274 of bestiality, and so on, please, tell me where I can find it, it sounds awesome.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe porn can be a true art in itself, I'm just saying this isn't what you'd get in a typical art museum, and just saying "it's like an art museum" doesn't actually make that the case.

Sharpfuzz said:
Suuure, well if it's a curated website that makes it exactly like an actually, physical art museum, the kind you can actually visit. Who can argue with that ?

Also, if you know an art museum with a proportion of their art like this, where (out of 1790740) 367886 "artworks" are of sex, 441702 of genital fluids, 158569 of anal, 52477 of bdsm, 35274 of bestiality, and so on, please, tell me where I can find it, it sounds awesome.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe porn can be a true art in itself, I'm just saying this isn't what you'd get in a typical art museum, and just saying "it's like an art museum" doesn't actually make that the case.

Do you know the difference between "not unlike" and "is? Not unlike means "like", I did not use "is"; I said it was a curated booru, you said it's a museum. Also, e621 doesn't solely host porn, it is an art archive; porn just comes with the furry fandom, but use this search to see all the artwork that's not porn here. I have to ask... do you know what you're talking about here? Just once glance at the wiki would tell you what this site is for, did you read the wiki?

AlexYorim said:
you're staring at a nude painting, even if it's an abstract, and you comment something like "I wanna fancy her.", how many people nearby would react to that?

So you're prefer to pander to a bunch of prudes who where thinking the exact same thing but didn't have the courage to admit that to themselves or others? Those people are more mentally unstable than the person who voiced their opinion. Personally I don't see anything wrong with sex so saying you want to have it isn't any type of insult or creepiness. The museum comparison was brought up on page 2. You guys might want to read the first few pages.

That said, the site can certainly ban whatever comments they want. Just please be consistent and define what "creepy" and "sexually inappropriate" are so people with poor social skills, expanded morals, and from different cultures can still understand. I think the admins do a better job of that in this topic than they do in the site rules. Adding a link from there to some examples might cut down on the confusion on what creepy is on this site and wouldn't force people reading the rules to read creepy things.

mrox said:
So you're prefer to pander to a bunch of prudes who where thinking the exact same thing but didn't have the courage to admit that to themselves or others? Those people are more mentally unstable than the person who voiced their opinion. Personally I don't see anything wrong with sex so saying you want to have it isn't any type of insult or creepiness. The museum comparison was brought up on page 2. You guys might want to read the first few pages.

This isn't about sex and viewers' comfort level towards it. It's about overly involved comments and viewers' comfort levels towards those. We don't want to read the over-intimate details of your fantasy while we're indulging in our own.

That said, the site can certainly ban whatever comments they want. Just please be consistent and define what "creepy" and "sexually inappropriate" are so people with poor social skills, expanded morals, and from different cultures can still understand. I think the admins do a better job of that in this topic than they do in the site rules. Adding a link from there to some examples might cut down on the confusion on what creepy is on this site and wouldn't force people reading the rules to read creepy things.

I'm not so sure. Ofttimes, I suspect the creepy commenters deliberately aim for creepiness. They know better, but enjoy creeping out other members of the audience.

Siral_Exan said:
Do you know the difference between "not unlike" and "is? Not unlike means "like", I did not use "is"; I said it was a curated booru, you said it's a museum. Also, e621 doesn't solely host porn, it is an art archive; porn just comes with the furry fandom, but use this search to see all the artwork that's not porn here. I have to ask... do you know what you're talking about here? Just once glance at the wiki would tell you what this site is for, did you read the wiki?

Why bring up the museum analogy at all ? I'm not saying it has anything to do with a museum. AlexYorim was the one saying that people should be expected to behave as they would in an art museum, and I was arguing that the comparison didn't work. You then replied to me saying that the comparison was in fact, an appropriate one. I then tried to argue why I thought that was absurd.

You (strongly) disagree with me, and insist I have no idea what I'm talking about because e621 isn't just a porn site, but that seems to be down to the way we define what a porn site is. You say it can't possibly be a porn site, because about 3/4 of the art here isn't porn. I say it is a porn site precisely because about 1/4 of the art is porn.

So how do you define a porn site ? Is it when it was designed and made solely for hosting porn ? Ok, then e621 isn't porn site. But where does it leave it standing ? It's still not exactly a family friendly site is it ? That's what I'm trying to get at here.

It's not like any of this matters anyway, since at the end of day the admins will moderate the site as they see fit and that's that.

Sharpfuzz said:
Why bring up the museum analogy at all ? I'm not saying it has anything to do with a museum. AlexYorim was the one saying that people should be expected to behave as they would in an art museum, and I was arguing that the comparison didn't work. You then replied to me saying that the comparison was in fact, an appropriate one. I then tried to argue why I thought that was absurd.

You (strongly) disagree with me, and insist I have no idea what I'm talking about because e621 isn't just a porn site, but that seems to be down to the way we define what a porn site is. You say it can't possibly be a porn site, because about 3/4 of the art here isn't porn. I say it is a porn site precisely because about 1/4 of the art is porn.

So how do you define a porn site ? Is it when it was designed and made solely for hosting porn ? Ok, then e621 isn't porn site. But where does it leave it standing ? It's still not exactly a family friendly site is it ? That's what I'm trying to get at here.

It's not like any of this matters anyway, since at the end of day the admins will moderate the site as they see fit and that's that.

I brought up the museum analogy because you laughed at someone who was (mostly) right...

Why do you think e6 is a porn site? I linked what the lead admin said about this site, so why choose to argue aggressively? E6 defines itself, and it doesn't define itself as a porn site. We've told you it's treated as an archive, yet you laugh at someone who compared it to an archive?

Insert all the white knight jokes, but why did you continue to argue instead of ask why it may be considered? You ridiculed someone else instead.

Siral_Exan said:
I brought up the museum analogy because you laughed at someone who was (mostly) right...

Why do you think e6 is a porn site? I linked what the lead admin said about this site, so why choose to argue aggressively? E6 defines itself, and it doesn't define itself as a porn site. We've told you it's treated as an archive, yet you laugh at someone who compared it to an archive?

Insert all the white knight jokes, but why did you continue to argue instead of ask why it may be considered? You ridiculed someone else instead.

Sorry, I intended that in a much more lighthearted way, but reading back on myself I can see how it can come off as very aggressive. I'm not trying to rub anyone's face in the dirt !

Well, I continued arguing probably for the same reason you did, because we both think we're right ? I could say the same thing about you, you didn't exactly ask why my own point could be considered either. I don't think either of us are very convinced by each other's arguments, but that's okay, I think we can both survive knowing that a total stranger on the internet disagrees with us ;D

Sharpfuzz said:
Oh wow haha did you just compare e621 to an art museum ? Like, you think the average person here is contemplating art in some kind of intellectual manner, appreciating the technique and their place in furry art history ?

I for one do, though I've been spending most of my time on e926.

mrox said:

Don't be passive-aggressive.
Don't tell other people what you do with your bits.

This is not complicated.

NotMeNotYou said:
The line we draw for creepy comments is mostly centered around self-insertion. Saying you want to do X to Y, saying you'd like to be in Y's position, etc.

I like how you say that, but then a lot of the comments that tiamat5 was banned for did not contain any self-insertion.

You say that you want to make e621 a better place, but did you ever consider what makes this place good? Why do you think people use this place? One of the main reasons is definitely comments. People love getting comments on the stuff they post. Even if a few comments are bad, overall it's a positive experience.

A person makes 100.000 comments.
99.990 of them are good.
10 of them are bad.
What do you think is more valuable to the site as a whole?
Keeping the user for the 99.990 good comments that he made?
Or banning him for the 10 bad ones?

No one in the world is perfect. And for a user like tiamat5, who had such an excellent ratio, probably more than a vast majority of users could ever hope for (had they posted as many comments as him), to punish him like that, is not something that can objectively be called a good decision.

For any user of this site, making a bad comment is just a matter of time. Eventually, you will find someone with a skin thinner than paper, who would report you. The more comments you post, the more likely it is to happen. And eventually you'll get banned. This seems to be the end result of any user posting comments heh.

Delian said:
I like how you say that, but then a lot of the comments that tiamat5 was banned for did not contain any self-insertion.

You say that you want to make e621 a better place, but did you ever consider what makes this place good? Why do you think people use this place? One of the main reasons is definitely comments. People love getting comments on the stuff they post. Even if a few comments are bad, overall it's a positive experience.

A person makes 100.000 comments.
99.990 of them are good.
10 of them are bad.
What do you think is more valuable to the site as a whole?
Keeping the user for the 99.990 good comments that he made?
Or banning him for the 10 bad ones?

No one in the world is perfect. And for a user like timat5, who had such an excellent ratio, probably more than a vast majority of users could ever hope for (had they posted as many comments as him), to punish him like that, is not something that can objectively be called a good decision.

For any user of this site, making a bad comment is just a matter of time. Eventually, you will find someone with a skin thinner than paper, who would report you. The more comments you post, the more likely it is to happen. And eventually you'll get banned. This seems to be the end result of any user posting comments heh.

tiamat5 hid most of their comments that did poorly or got reported.

its basically "anything i dont like at the moment" designed to randomly punish people outside of the jet-set for the minimal endorphin rush of enforcing authority, it has no rhyme or reason like most of the moderation on the site.

just make short comments, the less words the less chance you'll get marked for creepy.

Berylium said:
its basically "anything i dont like at the moment" designed to randomly punish people outside of the jet-set for the minimal endorphin rush of enforcing authority, it has no rhyme or reason like most of the moderation on the site.

admins don't have feelings, don't be silly

God, yall keep talking as if there's some biological imperative that forces people to make creepy comments.

Delian said:A person makes 100.000 comments.
99.990 of them are good.
10 of them are bad.
What do you think is more valuable to the site as a whole?
Keeping the user for the 99.990 good comments that he made?
Or banning him for the 10 bad ones?

"Good" according to whose standards? Site staff? Translators? People who fix posts with no artist or sources? People who themselves use the site to only communicate how much they wanna smash digital pussy? A bunch of schmucks who choke their chicken and then close the tab once they're done?
Popularity isn't an excuse to break the rules. DNP artists are still DNP no matter how much people want to see them on the site.

Delian said:
For any user of this site, making a bad comment is just a matter of time. Eventually, you will find someone with a skin thinner than paper, who would report you. The more comments you post, the more likely it is to happen. And eventually you'll get banned. This seems to be the end result of any user posting comments heh.

It's a good thing comments can't just be reported based solely on feelings, then, and that there are actual standards for what is or isn't considered acceptable.

Delian said:
A person makes 100.000 comments.
99.990 of them are good.
10 of them are bad.
What do you think is more valuable to the site as a whole?
Keeping the user for the 99.990 good comments that he made?
Or banning him for the 10 bad ones?

A person does 100 things a day. 90 of them are legal. 10 of them aren't. Should we not make them face criminal charges if they have a higher ratio of unbroken laws to broken ones?

MissChu said:
A person does 100 things a day. 90 of them are legal. 10 of them aren't. Should we not make them face criminal charges if they have a higher ratio of unbroken laws to broken ones?

Personally, I think I'd prefer the medieval Catholic church method: They can break the rules as long as they don't speak against the admins and either pay an exorbitant fee for these "indulgences", or pledge to spend 3-5 years murdering the populations ruled by the admins' political enemies.

MissChu said:
A person does 100 things a day. 90 of them are legal. 10 of them aren't. Should we not make them face criminal charges if they have a higher ratio of unbroken laws to broken ones?

That's not what I'm saying at all. The world isn't quite black and white like that. Because judgement based on the "creepiness" is such a subjective gray area, you cannot equate it to RL laws. You also will never be able to avoid it, which is why the ratio at which this rule gets broken becomes incredibly important. There's a big difference between a person that breaks the rules in 0.1% cases, versus a person that breaks them 50% of the time.

To better illustrate my point, let me provide another example.

You have a community of 101 users.

- 100 of these users post 10 comments each.
- Of these 10 comments, 9 are good, and 1 is bad.
- Each of these 100 users gets 1 warning. None get banned.
End result: 900 good comments, 100 bad comments.

- 1 of these users makes 1000 comments.
- Of these 1000 comments, 5 are bad.
- This user gets 5 warnings. The user gets permanently banned.
End result: 995 good comments, 5 bad comments.

Is the website better off with 100 bad comments, or with 5 bad ones?
Logically, it would be better off with only 5 bad comments. And yet, we banned the user with 5 bad comments. Was this justice, compared to the other 100 users with bad ratios? And what happens now?

We get another 1000 comments on the posts. 100 of these comments are bad, because they're only made by users with 10:1 bad comment ratio.
Would it have been better if these comments were made by a user with a good ratio?
Yes, yes it would be. Because it would result in only 5 bad comments.

Now, I know what you're gonna say. The best result would be if there was no bad comments at all. That is true. But again, we don't live in a perfect world where everyone understands everyone else's feelings. People have good days and bad days. Posting an offensive comment isn't the same as robbing a bank, because no one is losing anything. If anything, an occasional bad comment helps people build walls and better coexist with one another. So don't judge people by their lows, but by their... good-to-bad-comment ratio ;)

As for an actual solution to this problem:
Have offenses decay based on activity and not just time.
- If a person gets a record for creepy comments, have this record decay after 1000 comments.
- If a person gets a record for mistagging, have this record decay after 1000 meaningful tag edits.
- etc

Delian said:
<snip />

This presents comment ratings as a false choice between "good" and "bad", though, and your solution provides a trivial workaround for folks to brrbrrdrrs as much as they like: Simply spam inoffensive comments, because those are "good".

In reality, very few comments from the lot are "good", and what makes a comment "good" is entirely subjective. So decaying a user's record for "bad" comments in response to posting "good" comments is just multiplying the perceived subjectivity, because now mods have to deal with it both ways.

Delian said:
... As for an actual solution to this problem:
Have offenses decay based on activity and not just time.
- If a person gets a record for creepy comments, have this record decay after 1000 comments.
- If a person gets a record for mistagging, have this record decay after 1000 meaningful tag edits.
- etc

Wouldn't this just cause an excess of good or neutral comments, which can be considered spam? And define meaningful, because I can probably find 10+ missing tags on a 50-tag post (unless it's tagged by Versperus ;) ).

And what about other offenses?

ikdind said:
"good" and "bad"

I used those words for simplification purposes. "normal" versus "punishable" would be more precise.

Siral_Exan said:
excess of comments which can be considered spam?
define meaningful
what about other offenses?

We have rules against spam, so I disagree.

Meaningful as in, not abusive. e.g. not adding and removing one tag from a post 1000 times.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of ways to measure activity for other offenses.

Delian said:
I used those words for simplification purposes. "normal" versus "punishable" would be more precise.

We have rules against spam, so I disagree.

Meaningful as in, not abusive. e.g. not adding and removing one tag from a post 1000 times.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of ways to measure activity for other offenses.

I think you've brushed off a significant problem. If I comment "/thumbsup", "Nice", "Liked!", etc. to 1000 images, who's to say that's spamming?

Give the wrong person a thesaurus and a Python interpreter, and they'll be miles ahead of your system, snickering all the way as they automatically generate banal comment traffic over a span of several hours, so as to mask their robots, and then finally open their web browser and knuckle-drag themselves over to the first upvoted post that turns them on and promptly vomit out comments about how badly they want to X the Y of Z.

Delian said:
I used those words for simplification purposes. "normal" versus "punishable" would be more precise.

We have rules against spam, so I disagree.

Meaningful as in, not abusive. e.g. not adding and removing one tag from a post 1000 times.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of ways to measure activity for other offenses.

Y'see, you say we have a rule against spam, yet you suggest someone makes 1000 comments to get rid of a record about creepy comments. Unless they comment very slowly, which would be slower than 6 months, or if they have 1000 creative comments stored somewhere and hit their maximum every hour... this suggestion would likely get them a record for spamming. Care to prove me otherwise?

With that example for tagging, I can put the minimum effort of 1 tag over 1000 posts, or even 10 tags over 1k posts, with 150 tag edits an hour, and get rid of that record in less than a day? What did they learn from this, might I ask?

Lastly, what about abuse of site tools, posting abuse, and (for example) the adversities advertisement rule? 1000 correct flags, good posts, and "good" advertisements?

Delian said:
- If a person gets a record for creepy comments, have this record decay after 1000 comments.
- If a person gets a record for mistagging, have this record decay after 1000 meaningful tag edits.
- etc[/section]

People who don't make a lot of comments, a lot of tag edits, a lot of note edits, etc. are arbitrarily punished for not participating enough by having their records stay for longer.
Thus, should you have a negative record, the logical conclusion is to either never comment/edit again, or to do it often enough that you can wipe out any negative records within a month or so.
Yet, this fails to address the actual problem because people with low activity will keep the record forever even if they've actually learned from their mistake.
People who are already extremely active have to worry less and less about the records they do receive, solely because they can just go into overdrive and have a negative record gone in about a month.
This is not a solution.

ikdind said:
If I comment "/thumbsup", "Nice", "Liked!", etc. to 1000 images, who's to say that's spamming?

The existing rules.

Siral_Exan said:
this suggestion would likely get them a record for spamming. Care to prove me otherwise?

If a guy posts 10 comments per hour (that is 6min per comment, not sure how long you require to write a creative one), 10 hours per day, it would take them 10 days to make 1000 comments. Not hard and not 6 months. The spam rules would prevent those comments from being simplistic, which is intended.
Btw, the number 1000 I chose arbitrarily and it would be up to admins to decide on a more fitting number.

1 tag over 1000 posts, or even 10 tags over 1k posts, with 150 tag edits an hour

I said "not abusive". I would consider it abusive to post 1 tag to 1000 posts.
Again, the details of how activity (tag edits? tags changed?) is measured here is not up to me to decide. But if you think about it, a person doing a lot of tag editing to get their mistagging decayed is a pretty good deal. Community service. Also, not everyone's a tagging expert like you. If they were, they wouldn't break this rule in the first place.

Lastly, what about abuse of site tools, posting abuse, and (for example) the adversities advertisement rule? 1000 correct flags, good posts, and "good" advertisements?

Off topic.

Lafcadio said:
either never comment/edit again, or to do it often enough that you can wipe out any negative records within a month or so.

You misunderstood, the 6 months decay would stay either way.
However, you do make a valid point. How about this. The decay would be 6 months minus activity. So even if you had little activity, it would still help the decay a bit.

Delian said:
The existing rules.

If a guy posts 10 comments per hour (that is 6min per comment, not sure how long you require to write a creative one), 10 hours per day, it would take them 10 days to make 1000 comments. Not hard and not 6 months. The spam rules would prevent those comments from being simplistic, which is intended.
Btw, the number 1000 I chose arbitrarily and it would be up to admins to decide on a more fitting number.

I said "not abusive". I would consider it abusive to post 1 tag to 1000 posts.
Again, the details of how activity (tag edits? tags changed?) is measured here is not up to me to decide. But if you think about it, a person doing a lot of tag editing to get their mistagging decayed is a pretty good deal. Community service. Also, not everyone's a tagging expert like you. If they were, they wouldn't break this rule in the first place.

Off topic.

You misunderstood, the 6 months decay would stay either way.
However, you do make a valid point. How about this. The decay would be 6 months minus activity. So even if you had little activity, it would still help the decay a bit.

You had me up to "off topic". If you can't make all the rules follow your logic, maybe your logic is flawed. You still haven't given an actual example to what "not abusive" is, you just label what is abusive. Should you be the deciding factor of how tagging etiquette is considered, since you don't want to tell us. Have you even considered tagging scripts, or are you going to decide those are not OK either.

I don't believe this would work. I would rather wait 6 months for a guaranteed record removal than risk another record with yours, because all it takes is one mistake to get another record. One tagging abuse can equal one record, out of your 1000 tags.

Delian said:
(Snip-snip.)

There's still a list of rules, like laws, to abide by. It doesn't matter how many rules/laws you don't break, it matters which ones you do. And to what severity.

Siral_Exan said:
You had me up to "off topic". If you can't make all the rules follow your logic, maybe your logic is flawed.

If someone tells you that you're going off topic, it means that you should stop doing it instead of continuing. Do I need to report you or something?
My logic is not flawed because I never said that there should be an activity for every rule. It's entirely possible to have a record for which there is no activity to help it decay faster.
I should also mention that my proposed solution is an example of a system that I've already seen used in many other places to great effect. Of course, none of it matters because it's never going to be implemented here. Nothing ever changes on e621.

MissChu said:
There's still a list of rules, like laws, to abide by. It doesn't matter how many rules/laws you don't break, it matters which ones you do. And to what severity.

I don't know what's your point because I never said that a person should not be punished if they break a rule.

Delian said:
If someone tells you that you're going off topic, it means that you should stop doing it instead of continuing. Do I need to report you or something?

Siral has a valid point. Just because it doesn't benefit your argument doesn't mean it is going off topic.
Additional, this is really grey area of mini-modding. Don't try and enforce rules with threats of reporting people.

Delian said:
I don't know what's your point because I never said that a person should not be punished if they break a rule.

You seemed to be implying that things should be more lenient if the person has more positive/normal comments than rule-breaking ones. If that wasn't your intent, my apologies.

Delian said:
(Stuff)

(I have an example here. It's not likely, but still possible. People never cease to amaze me how far they are willing to go with things.)

So let's say a user in good standing.
Does a lot of good tag edits, uploads, lots of activity, etc.

(So then this person thinks he/she can get away with a creepy comment every once in a great while)

So the user purposely makes a creepy comment. Not even a bad joke kinda creepy comment, but one that's... pretty bad.

*record*

Does a lot of site stuff which helps with the decay. It's second nature to this user, so it's not that big a deal to put in some effort.

So the user purposely makes a creepy comment again.

*record*

Rinse and repeat. Isn't it basically giving the users permission to be creepy? Or do you leave that up to administrations discretion when it comes to dealing with purposeful repeat offenders who put in an extreme amount of effort?

Just a thought I had.

Chaser said:
Just because it doesn't benefit your argument

So you're implying that by telling someone that they're going off topic, it is somehow hurting my argument?

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

He was going off topic because:
- we're not discussing site tools abuse here
- we're not discussing tagging abuse here
- we're not discussing advertising abuse here

I intentionally chose not to go into details on off-topic parts, because that would be hurting the topic. The fact that I need to explain this to you is... strange to say the least.

MissChu said:
You seemed to be implying that things should be more lenient if the person has more positive/normal comments than rule-breaking ones.

They would get records the same way they do now. So from that perspective, things would not be any more lenient.
However, depending on how much good they do on the site, their records would be forgiven faster.

vex714 said:
I have an example here.

Your example is entirely possible and I already considered it.
The conclusion is, the pros would outweigh the cons.

If a person gets a permission to be creepy 1 in 1000 comments, that's a price I'd be willing to pay to get 999 non-creepy comments. Again, the number 1000 is arbitrary.

But if this becomes a problem, which I highly doubt it would, there's another solution. That is, that the "price" would get higher after every decay.

Delian said:
But if this becomes a problem, which I highly doubt it would, there's another solution. That is, that the "price" would get higher after every decay.

Doesn't that functionally cause the exact same problem you're proposing to solve?

tiamat5 is the poster child for this case - many comments, many of which were popular, many of which were within the rules of the site, but that user's insistence on playing near the boundaries of creepiness caused them to cross it too many times. So now they're gone.

I like to comment because I like to foment and encourage people to actually leave a comment instead of just upvote + fav but I can't define a precise line on which by passing it I could get reported, I've seen comments like "Nice!" or "Good job!" getting reported with the criteria as something like "I'd fuck that fox all night long!", it doesn't make any sense so most of my opinions has been reduced to simple words like "Amazing, wonderful, lovely, etc.", I feel that I cannot give a more sincere assessment about what I'm watching due the constant risk of get banned.

I think the site needs a fair review about this whole matter and along it, the definition of an identity that from what I've seen in this post nobody knows which one is it, some say it's an art boorum, some others say it's a porn site, some say it's a mix but the concept should be adapted to the furry fandom, etc.

HarleyCS said:
I've seen comments like "Nice!" or "Good job!" getting reported with the criteria as something like "I'd fuck that fox all night long!"

What? I frequently read the reports, and I have literally never in my entire time on this site seen this happen. I have seen people report them for being spammy (you know that when someone comments literally nothing besides just "nice" on dozens of posts), but never for being creepy.

HarleyCS said:
I like to comment because I like to foment and encourage people to actually leave a comment instead of just upvote + fav but I can't define a precise line on which by passing it I could get reported, I've seen comments like "Nice!" or "Good job!" getting reported with the criteria as something like "I'd fuck that fox all night long!", it doesn't make any sense so most of my opinions has been reduced to simple words like "Amazing, wonderful, lovely, etc.", I feel that I cannot give a more sincere assessment about what I'm watching due the constant risk of get banned.

I think the site needs a fair review about this whole matter and along it, the definition of an identity that from what I've seen in this post nobody knows which one is it, some say it's an art boorum, some others say it's a porn site, some say it's a mix but the concept should be adapted to the furry fandom, etc.

hiekkapillu said:
What? I frequently read the reports, and I have literally never in my entire time on this site seen this happen. I have seen people report them for being spammy (you know that when someone comments literally nothing besides just "nice" on dozens of posts), but never for being creepy.

Basically this. If they got a mark for stuff like 'Nice!' then they were spamming, which is a different matter entirely from being creepy. Also, the identity of this site doesn't matter. If new people coming here have read the rules (and I sincerely doubt they will), they should have a general idea of what is acceptable conduct in the comments.

Edit: Funny how a lot of the people wanting more lenient rules seem to be the ones who already have grey marks.

The way i see "Creepy comments" just boils down to TMI

like "I want to smell her feet"
TMI

or like "did you know that Dogs can do THIs"
TMI

MissChu said:
Edit: Funny how a lot of the people wanting more lenient rules seem to be the ones who already have grey marks.

Why wouldn't someone who thinks they're wrongly accused do that?
The implications of this seems like you think that people who try to argue for they're innocence are wrong, or should just lay down and take it.

Shyster5 said:
Why wouldn't someone who thinks they're wrongly accused do that?
The implications of this seems like you think that people who try to argue for they're innocence are wrong, or should just lay down and take it.

I've been looking at the reasons for their grey marks and yes, I do believe they're wrong. Don't pretend to interact with the art. Don't tell us how hot and/or horny a picture makes you. Is that so difficult to do?

In fairness, I think the 'creepy comments' rule could use some examples of comments to avoid posting. So people have a frame of reference.

MissChu said:
I've been looking at the reasons for their grey marks and yes, I do believe they're wrong. Don't pretend to interact with the art. Don't tell us how hot and/or horny a picture makes you.

I think the point is, these people have a higher probability of having run afoul of the rules because they think it should be more lenient. For example, if I thought something I posted is fine and didn't realize the rule was as strict as it was, then am given a record for violating the rule, it makes sense that I would come here to voice my opposition to the rule being so strict if I really think it should be more lenient.

(For the record, I personally don't think the rule is too strict, and am fine with it given the clarifications in this thread. It was just an example.)

Watsit said:
I think the point is, these people have a higher probability of having run afoul of the rules because they think it should be more lenient. For example, if I thought something I posted is fine and didn't realize the rule was as strict as it was, then am given a record for violating the rule, it makes sense that I would come here to voice my opposition to the rule being so strict if I really think it should be more lenient.

(For the record, I personally don't think the rule is too strict, and am fine with it given the clarifications in this thread. It was just an example.)

It's a shame too, because grey marks are not a bad way to do it. It's a warning that will fall off in time. Should it be faster then 6 months? maybe. But they are warnings that will eventually not affect you :P

@Delian I would really like it if you don't threaten me.

So, let's discuss how your suggestion would affect the other rules here.

Let me ask you to put shoe on the other foot: as a person who received backseat moderation records (they decayed, but you can ask Ratte or Notme for proof), how would you react if you had gotten one? I'm not saying you should, I don't want to be petty after being threatened, I want to know whether or not you can come up with a way to apply your idea to other rules. BSM is the quickest example, and could actually be simple to "get rid of" with your concept.

This is not "off topic", because I feel like you want your idea to be in place for 2 rules only. Can you even apply them to the others? Exceptions aren't always good, and if they aren't good, should they be implemented? You know not all rules would work with your system, don't you? You're avoiding the reality of changing how rules work: changes should be applied as fairly to all rules, not just cherrypicked ones.

If 10 comments can be made in an hour, and you only judge comments separately and not collectively, I could get rid of that record in 100 hours by complimenting artists and artwork... no matter how generic I'm being, right?

With 150 tag edits, I could spend 7 hours adding tags that are simple and missing on posts, for example with a tag script I could add an important tag, fan_character, on 1000 posts. Fan character is at least important for blacklisting purposes, though I never use it in a search. So... is this one tag not good enough, despite being necessary and often missing (or even mistagged, another tag script can fix that up)?

I feel like you just want to have exceptions to the rules, or ways around them that you didn't, or don't, fully understand. Your concept works on pen and paper, but would it work on e621? If your idea, 1000x (or any amount) for x-related punishment, cannot apply to all rules, why should it apply to any rule? Why should some records be easier to get rid of, while others are stickier and people should feel bad for having them.

And how would the site implement this? I guarantee you, it is not as straightforward and fair as you make it out to be. Records already decay manually over 6 months, do you suddenly expect the admins (the only people who can handle records on this site) to pay even more attention to people doing "good jobs"? Honestly, do you?

Siral_Exan said: some valid points

At that point I'd rather put up and shut up for six months. Or at least keep my nose clean and learn from a mistake.

Well, learning would be the ideal outcome, but some can really never learn. They become repeat offenders, then they get angry, then they spaz out on the blips, comments, forums. They then blame everyone else (mods) for their bad record.

What is so hard to be understanding of why you got what you got as a record?

But then again, staff has to deal with individuals with varying personalities. Some aren't exactly the listening type.

So, with that said it's looking like it's just gonna be the same old same old thing.

Maybe this can be a solution? Within the six month frame:

Creepy comment -> neutral
Another one-> neutral
Another one->red
Another one->red
Another one->red (three strikes you're out)

Reds stay regardless of the six month frame. The user can have additional neutrals for other things like spamming. Ex: if you get like three or four neutrals in the six months it'll be nothing but reds.

Creepy comment-> neutral
Creepy comment-> neutral
Spamming neutral-> neutral
Creepy comment-> red
Mistagging->neutral
Spamming->red
Mistagging->red (hamburger time, yer gone bucko!)

Then again that's also like giving a user permission to be creepy by just waiting for six months to end... hmmmm...

Like let's say they make two creepy comments and get neutrals. They wait six months, decayed. Now they can make two more creepy comments. Maybe if they kept repeating the same thing throughout the months it would be up to the staff discretion on the course of action. Because I assume they can still see old records even the ones that decayed and say "ey man, stop it. Seriously". Didn't listen? Slap em with a red.

This is quite a conundrum. It's not that simple as I look at it.

Well it would be if folks didn't keep self inserting and letting the whole world know of their deep dark fantasies.

It's not true. It's bullshit I did not make creepy comments. I did not!

O hi admin

vex714 said:

At that point I'd rather put up and shut up for six months. Or at least keep my nose clean and learn from a mistake.

Well, learning would be the ideal outcome, but some can really never learn. They become repeat offenders, then they get angry, then they spaz out on the blips, comments, forums. They then blame everyone else (mods) for their bad record.

What is so hard to be understanding of why you got what you got as a record?

But then again, staff has to deal with individuals with varying personalities. Some aren't exactly the listening type.

So, with that said it's looking like it's just gonna be the same old same old thing.

Maybe this can be a solution? Within the six month frame:

Creepy comment -> neutral
Another one-> neutral
Another one->red
Another one->red
Another one->red (three strikes you're out)

Reds stay regardless of the six month frame. The user can have additional neutrals for other things like spamming. Ex: if you get like three or four neutrals in the six months it'll be nothing but reds.

Creepy comment-> neutral
Creepy comment-> neutral
Spamming neutral-> neutral
Creepy comment-> red
Mistagging->neutral
Spamming->red
Mistagging->red (hamburger time, yer gone bucko!)

Then again that's also like giving a user permission to be creepy by just waiting for six months to end... hmmmm...

Like let's say they make two creepy comments and get neutrals. They wait six months, decayed. Now they can make two more creepy comments. Maybe if they kept repeating the same thing throughout the months it would be up to the staff discretion on the course of action. Because I assume they can still see old records even the ones that decayed and say "ey man, stop it. Seriously". Didn't listen? Slap em with a red.

This is quite a conundrum. It's not that simple as I look at it.

Well it would be if folks didn't keep self inserting and letting the whole world know of their deep dark fantasies.

It's not true. It's bullshit I did not make creepy comments. I did not!

O hi admin

It used to be that reds were permanent. I definitely appreciate not having my BSM records, I was up to temp ban, but they made me feel like I shouldn't talk at all... and the admins most certainly hate me I at least stopped and and tried to understand, but that's why the decay system works: after 6 months, your removal of a record can be seen as a "reward". That's why this system shouldn't be changed drastically, it works. It's not perfect, but sadly there is just no such thing as a perfect rules system.

As for changing the amount of records (I don't consider this drastic), I'd rather suggest a longer temp-ban than another neutral. At worst, nothing actually changed, a neutral outcome is they forget about their account (not to advocate that), and at best they learned from their mistakes from an extended time out. I have no opinion on the ramping of neutrals with red, could you provide a better or thoroughly explained example?

Siral_Exan said:

Late, had to take care of a bit of work.

Anyways,

huh, I did not know that red could be decayed. I thought they were permanent.

So for my example:

A user getting in trouble for the same creepy comments gets up to two neutrals before receiving a red for the third warning (within 6 months)

A user can get two neutrals for mistagging and spamming categories before getting a red (if in sequence of each other).

So for example within 6 months:

Creepy comment-> Neutral (serves as a warning)
Creepy comment-> Neutral
Creepy comment-> Red

Spamming -> Neutral
Spamming -> Neutral
Spamming -> Red

However, you get like three total neutrals before its just one neutral per category and then its just red after red.

An example of this.

Creepy-> Neutral
Creepy-> Neutral
Spamming -> Neutral

(Your three neutrals are up, now it's just one neutral in some category like mistagging before it's just reds)

Misstagging-> Neutral
Spamming-> Red
Creepy-> Red
Spamming-> Red (buon viaggio)

If that makes sense. Maybe too harsh? Reds don't have to be permanent either now that you mentioned it.

Siral_Exan said:
backseat moderation

Off topic.

This is not "off topic", because I feel

Your feelings don't make an off-topic discussion any less off-topic.

changes should be applied as fairly to all rules

That's not up to me to decide.

no matter how generic I'm being, right?

Wrong. If you're being too generic, then you'd likely get a record for spam.

would it work on e621?

I guarantee it.

how would the site implement this

The details of implementation are not a part of this topic, but I imagine they would first need to be hammered out, perhaps by creating a topic for it in the Site Feature Requests, and then agreed upon by the site's administration. Like any other feature.

do you expect the admins to pay attention to people doing "good jobs"

Nope, the admins would not need to pay any more attention than usual. Unless they wanted to.

why this thread is still unlocked