Posted under General
Might end up using this thread as a general dumping ground for humanoid/ambiguous questions, rather than risk getting an image deleted for being irrelevant.
First off, the characters from Among Us! There's already a few images of them on this site, but since rulings have flip-flopped back and forth a lot, I wanted to ask here. If I uploaded this screenshot, would these characters be relevant enough for the image to stay?
yes I know screenshots get deleted, pretend it's not
Updated
That does not look furry to me.
Considering pictures like this, this, and this are perfectly acceptable (due to slightly deformed ears making them technically humanoid/not-human), I have trouble thinking any other slightly deformed/not-fully-human thing wouldn't also be accepted. That said, it is a technicality, which could one day be corrected or tightened against. I mean, this site is specifically for "the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork" or "Any art or animations that are relevant to "furries"", and there's been recent moves for deleting posts that clearly contain animal/anthro aspects but the overall content of the post having more of a focus on non-animal/anthro aspects; you can't convince me the listed posts are more "furry-relevant" or has more of a focus on furry-related elements than some of the stuff that's been deleted somewhat recently.
watsit said:
Considering pictures like this, this, and this are perfectly acceptable (due to slightly deformed ears making them technically humanoid/not-human), I have trouble thinking any other slightly deformed/not-fully-human thing wouldn't also be accepted. That said, it is a technicality, which could one day be corrected or tightened against. I mean, this site is specifically for "the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork" or "Any art or animations that are relevant to "furries"", and there's been recent moves for deleting posts that clearly contain animal/anthro aspects but the overall content of the post having more of a focus on non-animal/anthro aspects; you can't convince me the listed posts are more "furry-relevant" or has more of a focus on furry-related elements than some of the stuff that's been deleted somewhat recently.
that's not really the question I asked, but okay!
strikerman said:
that's not really the question I asked, but okay!
What I mean to say is that, as far as things stand right now, I don't see how your post couldn't "count" for this site given what else currently counts. But it may only be on a technicality, and if the rules are ever tightened, it may or may not continue to count.
you could just like, search among_us status:any and see what posts are and are not accepted. or, if you want a more general sense, status:deleted delreason:irrelevant* hassource:true humanoid will give you a good idea of where the line is.
darryus said:
you could just like, search among_us status:any and see what posts are and are not accepted. or, if you want a more general sense, status:deleted delreason:irrelevant* hassource:true humanoid will give you a good idea of where the line is.
I did, but most of the posts are still pending, and with the deleted posts, I'm not sure why post #2395612 was accepted but post #2401317 (original) was deleted.
It's one of those things that sit on the border of what's acceptable or not, depending on who approves it.
I can see comparisons being made with fall_guys and minion_(despicable_me).
For me, the Minions and the Among Us people look like bean people.
Speaking of Among Us, do the people of Henry Stickmin (the last game has Among Us cameos) count as human despite being depicted as stick people?
Unearthing this thread for the Tragedians from Pathologic. Pathologic is a weird game, so it's up in the air whether they're supposed to be humans in costumes or freaky non-humans (I've always leaned towards the latter; the proportions just don't look natural). At the same time, maybe they could skirt by under ambiguous form, similar to post #595017. I'll ask about a specific image: would this (NSFW) image be accepted on the site?
Among Us is very borderline, I'd argue that the floating hands of the characters (if they're drawn) should be enough to pass the "non-human" threshold, but I guess it's up the mods whether they see the characters as armless blobby aliens or just over-simplified humans.
I note that post #2424385 has been approved, yet post #2419869 by the same artist drawn in the same style has almost reached its auto-deletion deadline with two disapprovals.
versperus said:
screenshots of videogames aren't allowed to make things simple.Bad things to upload:
Screen captures: Screenshots from games, still images from movies, video snippets from youtube, etc. etc
This includes all content created in sandboxes like Second Life, Minecraft, and similar
This also includes all ripped image files from visual novels and similar games.
strikerman said:
yes I know screenshots get deleted, pretend it's not
darryus said:
ironically me hiding my comment and you exposing for the same reason happened around the same time.
jockjamdoorslam said:
yet post #2419869 by the same artist drawn in the same style has almost reached its auto-deletion deadline with two disapprovals.
That sequence literally features a panel where they're de-abstracted into showing they're just humans in spacesuits.
alexyorim said:
Speaking of Among Us, do the people of Henry Stickmin (the last game has Among Us cameos) count as human despite being depicted as stick people?
Likely. I see some tagged human and some tagged humanoid. Also good luck getting plain stick figures through the upload standards without some other significant artistic value.
magnuseffect said:
That sequence literally features a panel where they're de-abstracted into showing they're just humans in spacesuits.
well, the last panel also shows something that's blatantly not human
darryus said:
well, the last panel also shows something that's blatantly not human
Then that's probably where the argument should be, not just "it's drawn in the same style." But can you really blame the approvers for placing more focus on the panel drawn with the least abstraction?
magnuseffect said:
Then that's probably where the argument should be, not just "it's drawn in the same style." But can you really blame the approvers for placing more focus on the panel drawn with the least abstraction?
Ah, but then you have the question of whether one panel negates the whole image. When drawn in their "tic tac" form, they have features that it would be impossible for a human to have, namely the floating hands and their "visor" appearing to be one big eyeball with eyelids. I guess it would be like a comic where the first 4 panels showed a normal feral fox running around on four legs, but then the last panel showed a human taking off a fox fursuit - is the feral fox just a human drawn with artistic license? Would the image be rejected, even if it was perfectly acceptable until the last panel?
strikerman said:
Unearthing this thread for the Tragedians from Pathologic. Pathologic is a weird game, so it's up in the air whether they're supposed to be humans in costumes or freaky non-humans (I've always leaned towards the latter; the proportions just don't look natural). At the same time, maybe they could skirt by under ambiguous form, similar to post #595017. I'll ask about a specific image: would this (NSFW) image be accepted on the site?
at some point i asked about another series
strikerman said:
Unearthing this thread for the Tragedians from Pathologic. Pathologic is a weird game, so it's up in the air whether they're supposed to be humans in costumes or freaky non-humans (I've always leaned towards the latter; the proportions just don't look natural). At the same time, maybe they could skirt by under ambiguous form, similar to post #595017. I'll ask about a specific image: would this (NSFW) image be accepted on the site?
I'm pretty sure that Shovel Knight image was from before the changes to the quality standards, if it was uploaded today it'd 100% be irrelevant to site. a character needs to contain visible non-human features to be allowed, a character wearing a mask dosn't make them not a human; a character with a mask for a face may, as long as the is shown to be an organic part of the body, usually through it having articulation.
darryus said:
I'm pretty sure that Shovel Knight image was from before the changes to the quality standards, if it was uploaded today it'd 100% be irrelevant to site.
It's still being used as an example on the ambiguous form page, bit misleading if that's the case.
strikerman said:
It's still being used as an example on the ambiguous form page, bit misleading if that's the case.
it's not not ambiguous_form, but having ambiguous_form characters that are possibly human dosn't make it not irrelevant.
The Tragedians look awfully close to masked humans to me. Even with weird proportions I'm not sure they'd be accepted.
leomole said:
The Tragedians look awfully close to masked humans to me. Even with weird proportions I'm not sure they'd be accepted.
you'd probably have to somehow imply that the mask is the face somehow maybe with blush or sweat or something or maybe just having the seams on the body would be enough to push it into patchwork_creature territory. although in the actual game they're clearly wearing a bodysuit.
jockjamdoorslam said:
Ah, but then you have the question of whether one panel negates the whole image. When drawn in their "tic tac" form, they have features that it would be impossible for a human to have, namely the floating hands and their "visor" appearing to be one big eyeball with eyelids. I guess it would be like a comic where the first 4 panels showed a normal feral fox running around on four legs, but then the last panel showed a human taking off a fox fursuit - is the feral fox just a human drawn with artistic license? Would the image be rejected, even if it was perfectly acceptable until the last panel?
The fox example isn't the same thing. A detailed convincing image of a fox is site-relevant, and the reveal that it was a suit all along is not the same thing as artistic abstraction.
Disembodied_hands and outfit-based eye expression aren't species indicators.
But I'm not interested in deeper argument when as you've said;
I guess it's up the mods whether they see the characters as armless blobby aliens or just over-simplified humans.
All I can do is give the reasonings I'd use if I were an approver.
I'm a little concerned by finding examples of posts by Member level users who have the unrestricted uploads flag though. I have no idea if the user used to be Privileged or higher, but in areas where general users are confused about what's allowed, I don't think it's the best idea for these to sidestep approval.
Updated
