I want to start this by saying I understand that moderation is a tough gig. It's a long, thankless job and there's always a LOT more of it to do. Hopefully, if this rule change goes through, it might help remove some of your workload.

I'm requesting that the rule "Creepy Comments - Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that cause an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease, or are sexually inappropriate" be edited to omit the "sexually inappropriate" part.

Much of my time on this site is spent looking through page after page of images, and on the odd occasion that I make a comment it's usually to something particularly intriguing. As a responsible internet-user, I endevour to keep my posts positive, or at least neutral, but a couple times now I've been pulled up by a site Moderator for "Creepy Comments". I can totally understand getting a slap if I'm being a queen or participating in an argument, but both times I've been given a record (thankfully neutral), it was for comments I can't find an issue with. In fact they both have positive scores given by other users. The first was in fact affirming and supporting another user (who was also given a record according to the mod).

I realise I don't see behind the curtain to read all the filth filtered out by moderators, and for that I thank them. I simply feel that the vague line of what constitutes sexually creepy comments is stifling an otherwise vibrant micro-community. My request to remove the "sexually inappropriate" part of the rule, is because:

1. There are other rules that provide a catch net for other more extreme kinds of comments.
2. On a site that hosts sexually explicit images, people will talk about sex regardless.
3. Society should be mature enough to have discussions, or even benign comments about sex without causing others offense.
4. People who ARE offended by sexual comments have access to the site's "Safe Mode".

I appreciate that the rule is there to keep the decorum of the site, but it comes off at best micro-managing, at worst oppressive and I feel we don't need it.
Hopefully you agree and we can enjoy some porn together.

People don't need to know what others wants to do with their pp, butt, if they want a facepaint with sexual fluids. Not being creepy is easy.

abetheblackfox said:
but both times I've been given a record (thankfully neutral), it was for comments I can't find an issue with.

Could you link to the comments in question?

strikerman said:
Could you link to the comments in question?

they're in his records; the comments are here and here.

strikerman said: Could you link to the comments in question?

You can see those in their feedback
Both of those can be summed up as "I wish that was me".

bitwolfy said:
Both of those can be summed up as "I wish that was me".

Right? Nothing over the top imo.

abetheblackfox said:
Right? Nothing over the top imo.

Not over the top, but still creepy nevertheless.
Basically don't comment that you "would like A to do B on your C".

It's a hard no for me: 👎

If people can't refrain from spinning their sexual fantasies in the comments or blips, I'm out. Like, done with the site.

As someone who has a few flags I consider questionable in terms of justification, I can understand the reason you might be upset, but keep in mind what that rule pertain to specifically: expressing one's own desires and fantasies. The issue there lies in that people don't wanna imagine who you are and what you would like to do sexually with another person. It's quite awkward to read, and quite frankly, makes you appear a bit immodest, thinking other people need to listen about your own fetishes. While that kind of talk seems reasonable in a more casual setting, remember you are in a public space, and not everyone knows who you are personally and wants to be chummy with you.

It might seem like suppression of sexual thoughts, but the point of this rule really comes down to phrasing. If you completely eliminate yourself from the context of the comment, it sounds much more reasonable, kind of like the difference between talking in a casual manner versus a more scientific one. Taking your first flag for instance, it would probably been better to say "That is a completely normal desire, don't beat yourself up over it" (again, ignoring the fact it was a reply to someone who spoke their personal desires out loud) I don't think you would have been reprimanded over it. Similarly, on your second flag, if it was phrased to say perhaps "all things considered, backing up seems like a pretty reasonable response" you would again probably been fine. The goal is to move the attention away from yourself and speak in more generic terms, so people can relate to the comment instead of associate it with you.

tl:dr Try to avoid typing comments in first person, and specifically avoid stating your own sexual desires completely

ccoyote said:
It's a hard no for me: 👎

If people can't refrain from spinning their sexual fantasies in the comments or blips, I'm out. Like, done with the site.

That sounds like a massive overreaction.

bitwolfy said:
That sounds like a massive overreaction.

Juvenile users can't keep their fantasies to themselves, but I'm overreacting for not wanting to hear it? No, it's not that on its own, but the amalgam of behavior overall has me hanging by a thread. Honestly, the quality of most of the content isn't that good to begin with. Having to listen to the sexual fantasies of other users would just be the straw to break the coyote's back.

no

ccoyote said:
Juvenile users can't keep their fantasies to themselves, but I'm the one in the wrong for not wanting to hear it? No, it's not that on its own, but the amalgam of behavior overall has me hanging by a thread. Honestly, the quality of most of the content isn't that good to begin with. Having to listen to the sexual fantasies of other users would just be the straw to break the coyote's back.

Never said that you were in the wrong for not wanting to hear it. I frankly don't want to hear it either.
But threatening to quit the site if this one rule changes is really silly.

And let's be real, it won't change. Not because of you taking a grand stand, but because cringy comments would turn away artists.
At least, that's why I believe the rule was introduced in the first place.

bitwolfy said:
Never said that you were in the wrong for not wanting to hear it. I frankly don't want to hear it either.
But threatening to quit the site if this one rule changes is really silly.

And let's be real, it won't change. Not because of you taking a grand stand, but because cringy comments would turn away artists.
At least, that's why I believe the rule was introduced in the first place.

It's not an ultimatum. I was just stating that it would be bridge too far for me.

binagon said:
As someone ... desires completely

Thank you for a lengthy reply and an in-depth explanation. It did actually clarify the problem for me, but didn't change my position on it. It may seem like type-casting from a fox, but I am rather immodest, even with my friends and family in RL. When I came out to my mother I began to normalise the idea for her with occasional gay jokes, now about 10 years later she asks my opinion on her outfits and I'm to keep my eyes open for a straight, funny, hairy man for her. lol

I believe a healthy discussion about shared interests, even sexual ones, especially in a public setting like website comments will not only help people find kinship in what they previously felt isolated them, but will also help society at large to find a sense of community that the proliferation of the internet has removed from many local ones.

abetheblackfox said:
I believe a healthy discussion about shared interests, even sexual ones, especially in a public setting like website comments will not only help people find kinship in what they previously felt isolated them, but will also help society at large to find a sense of community that the proliferation of the internet has removed from many local ones.

I agree with this as well, but the point is that there is an appropriate time and place for everything. The comment section is too public to tell people of such personal things, and we should reserve it as a place for more general mannerisms. Proper discussions should be made in the forums, where people can at least get an idea of what the topic is before deciding to participate in it.

binagon said:
I agree with this as well, but the point is that there is an appropriate time and place for everything. The comment section is too public to tell people of such personal things, and we should reserve it as a place for more general mannerisms. Proper discussions should be made in the forums, where people can at least get an idea of what the topic is before deciding to participate in it.

I think the kind of person who comes to this site in particular, refuses to put -rating:safe on their blacklist, and chooses to read comments knows full-well that they are choosing to participate in.

Personally, so long as people aren't arguing, being rude, spamming, etc. I don't really mind what people post in comments. A particular thixen lover comes to mind when I think of this topic. They were widely popular on this site, and added character to it, but were banned for some mild comments. I'd like to have some less subjective and authoritarian rules for comments.

If we want to keep the "no (sexual) creepy comments" rule, then here are some alternatives I have in mind.
1) Change the rule so that sexually inappropriate comments are only allowed on NSFW posts.
2) Make it so that comments flagged as sexually creepy don't give a record and are just hidden. Give users the option to enable and disable "creepy comments" when they view the comment section.
2a) Treat creepy comments like regular comments and just let people downvote them into hidden territory if they don't like it.
3) Only give records to "creepy comments" with a low or negative vote count. If a good number of users don't take issue with the comment, it probably isn't doing harm and can stay.
4) Give users records for being creepy and not just for saying something you can't at church.

In the mean time, if some users are upset because what is in practice the go-to furry porn site has some sexually inappropriate comments, I currently suggest that they either:
A) Not look at or completely disable comments in their settings
B) Toughen up
C) Go elsewhere

binagon said:
... an appropriate time and place for everything. The comment section is too public ...

I suppose my point is that talking about a topic brought up by a NSFW image within the comments of said image IS the appropriate time and place. I can hardly go to a church and receive an even-measured, unbiased discussion on rimming for example. And I wouldn't try. (I might spontaneously combust.)

I feel like it's reasonable to expect that looking at pornographic imagery comes coupled with the "creepy" commentary, no matter where you go. This is why I believe that people who are opposed to such comments are being somewhat unrealistic. Art after all inspires people, and in the case of erotica, it should be expected to inspire eroticism.

Also, "participate" is a strong word for some of the replies we've received in this discussion. lol

notuncommon said:
Personally, so long as people aren't arguing, being rude, spamming, etc ... less subjective and authoritarian rules for comments.

If we want to keep the "no (sexual) creepy comments" rule, then here are some alternatives I have in mind.
1) Change the rule so that sexually inappropriate comments are only allowed on NSFW posts.
2) Make it so that comments flagged as sexually creepy don't give a record and are just hidden. Give users the option to enable and disable "creepy comments" when they view the comment section.
3) Only give records to "creepy comments" with a low or negative vote count. If a good number of users don't take issue with the comment, it probably isn't doing harm and can stay.
4) Give users records for being creepy and not just for saying something you can't at church.
...

See I can get behind this sort of structure. A clean cut set of rules that removes the confusion and gives a springboard for how the website operates.
As it is I only make NSFW comments on NSFW images, because SFW images typically don't inspire such topics.

notuncommon said:

👎

notuncommon said:
Personally, so long as people aren't arguing, being rude, spamming, etc. I don't really mind what people post in comments. A particular thixen lover comes to mind when I think of this topic. They were widely popular on this site, and added character to it, but were banned for some mild comments. I'd like to have some less subjective and authoritarian rules for comments.

If we want to keep the "no (sexual) creepy comments" rule, then here are some alternatives I have in mind.
1) Change the rule so that sexually inappropriate comments are only allowed on NSFW posts.
2) Make it so that comments flagged as sexually creepy don't give a record and are just hidden. Give users the option to enable and disable "creepy comments" when they view the comment section.
3) Only give records to "creepy comments" with a low or negative vote count. If a good number of users don't take issue with the comment, it probably isn't doing harm and can stay.
4) Give users records for being creepy and not just for saying something you can't at church.

In the mean time, if some users are upset because what is in practice the go-to furry porn site has some sexually inappropriate comments, I currently suggest that they either:
A) Not look at or completely disable comments in their settings
B) Toughen up
C) Go elsewhere

The only issue is that tolerating creepy comments might create an influx of low quality comments. If I may so use the slippery slope argument, this might lead to a comment section full of tastelessness and/or cringe. If people gotta wade through a pile of RP and other trash just to see if there are a couple of well thought out comments, people are just gonna avoid the comment section all together. While I personally don't have any excessive qualms about that stuff, it still disappoints me to see such uncreative and personal comments.

A general rule is that people don't inherently care about who you are and what you want/like. The best comments come from what you can provide to the people reading them, be it insight, constructive criticism, humor, and the like. Quite frankly, this isn't an easy task, and takes quite a bit of experience to hone: finding out what's acceptable to speak of, and perhaps more importantly, how to phrase it.

That being said, I do agree the the current punishment system is a bit to hard, given that a lot of the learning methodology to get better at communicating is to make mistakes and learn from them. In that regard, I more or less agree with you on the rule alternatives 2, 3, and 4 that you listed. Updating the rules to make it more obvious what is and what isn't considered creepy would also be a step in the right direction, as I consider what is currently written too vague, as I'm certain many people might not even be aware that what they write might be considered inappropriate; more emphasis on avoiding first person speak and expressing personal sexual desires would be a good direction to take, as well as explaining more in depth why comments might make people uncomfortable.

notuncommon said:
3) Only give records to "creepy comments" with a low or negative vote count.

Giving a record depending on the user vote tally is probably the worst idea in the history of ever.

More generally on the topic, a notable problem is the kind of content that's posted here. Like it or not, furry porn is aimed toward more deviant interests, given it is based on being attracted to creatures with non-human animal characteristics. This site in particular is fine with art of full-on feral and cub (even human(oid) kids, as long as there's something non-human somewhere), where creepy comments can create very unsavory implications. What may be "fine" to say on a post of a human-like cartoon anthro can come across differently on a realistic looking young character. It can become very hazy where the line is between harmless fictional banter and something to worry about, and would have to be subject to very subjective rulings on whether it was fine to say something for that particular post. Even discounting the creepiness factor, I don't think introducing that level of subjectivity to what you can get in trouble over is a good thing.

binagon said:
The only issue is that tolerating creepy comments might create an influx of low quality comments ... The best comments come from what you can provide to the people reading them, be it insight, constructive criticism, humor ... Updating the rules to make it more obvious what is and what isn't considered creepy would also be a step in the right direction ...

Yeah low quality comments seem to be a thing on Reddit as well. I would say the 3rd suggestion, with a -5 vote threshold (default hide post setting) would give a nice balanced measure for creepiness. I had to stop and have a laugh at "constructive criticism". lol Don't do that, very very bad idea in the furry world. Especially on U18Chan.
Yeah, making a clear definition on "creepy" comments would certainly help. Till your explanation of it earlier, I had to leave it up to the whims of fate, because frankly everything about me is offensive to someone.

abetheblackfox said:
I suppose my point is that talking about a topic brought up by a NSFW image within the comments of said image IS the appropriate time and place. I can hardly go to a church and receive an even-measured, unbiased discussion on rimming for example. And I wouldn't try. (I might spontaneously combust.)

I feel like it's reasonable to expect that looking at pornographic imagery comes coupled with the "creepy" commentary, no matter where you go. This is why I believe that people who are opposed to such comments are being somewhat unrealistic. Art after all inspires people, and in the case of erotica, it should be expected to inspire eroticism.

Also, "participate" is a strong word for some of the replies we've received in this discussion. lol

I was typing my reply to NotUncommon when you posted this, but I think what I said there pertains to this: many people consider "creepy" comments to be of low quality. While people might agree with the statement, it doesn't add much in terms of discussion. We understand that you might like a particular image a lot, but that is what the voting and favoriting system is there for; most people didn't ask what your personal opinion on the piece is, and more importantly, what you want to do with the characters involved. If you think what you are commenting is unique, insightful, humorous, etc. then you post it and see if people enjoy it. Again, you are more or less being judged on what you can provide people, and you won't get a good reception when you tell what the artist is providing you.

abetheblackfox said:
I had to stop and have a laugh at "constructive criticism". lol Don't do that, very very bad idea in the furry world. Especially on U18Chan.

Well do keep in mind that there is a difference between "constructive criticism" and just straight up insulting the artist :S

binagon said:
The only issue is...

Fair enough, I don't use the comment section nearly as much as you do, so your opinion is probably more valuable than mine.

After some further reflection, I guess what I really want isn't necessarily a minarchist comment section where people are allowed to post anything that isn't deliberately negative. I just want the rules to be better defined, more consistently enforced, and relaxed a little to allow some sexual stuff like abetheblackfox said.

watsit said:

Perhaps combining an Opt-in function with the voting system would work?
The ability to opt-in/out of creepy comments would keep the general audience happy, and the voting system would be managed by the rest.
The voting system currently in place operates on a "I like/dislike this" sort of deal, so if creepy comment voting was handled by other creepy comment makers, it would have to be a bad comment to receive a negative vote from said person. With enough negative votes (I'm thinking -5, the default hide post setting), it could auto report the comment.

watsit said:
[Something I thought of] is probably the worst idea in the history of ever.

:'( Ouch

Yeah, I guess I agree that it would probably introduce an amount of additional unwanted subjectivity.

binagon said:
Well do keep in mind that there is a difference between "constructive criticism" and just straight up insulting the artist :S

Hahaha. Fans of the artists think there's a very thin line there. And it usually leads to very long ranty threads that need to get cleaned.

notuncommon said:
... I just want the rules to be better defined, more consistently enforced, and relaxed a little to allow some sexual stuff ...

Yeah, I feel like I'm walking in a minefield when I make comments on this site. It makes me feel like turning off comments entirely for the sake of simplicity, but it really shouldn't be like that.

notuncommon said:
:'( Ouch

Yeah, I guess I agree that it would probably introduce an amount of additional unwanted subjectivity.

More that the reason people vote as they do is as varied as the people themselves. People downvote when they don't like something for any reason, may not have anything to do with the quality of the comment itself, they just don't like what they're reading (I've seen people downvoting for being politely told how tagging works, for example). Sometimes people downvote for the heck of it. Sometimes they downvote because they have a hateboner for someone or some topic or some fetish. People can also upvote for similarly any reason, not all of which having to do with the comment itself.

And apologies if you felt attacked with the way I said it wasn't a good idea. I meant it to have a bit of levity with the way I said it, but text doesn't carry intent very well.

watsit said:

You bring up a very good point actually... :/
Votes have been a little haphazard on some of my comments too. Not much, but like "Ok, don't say that again."

watsit said:

Thanks for the apology, that was very nice of you. I didn't feel any hostility from your comment and was joking around a little too, so its all good.

You all are doing a pretty good job at making me rethink my take on this issue, so kudos to you. I am getting kinda tired though, so I'm probably gonna dip out for now. Thanks for the chat.

Oh yeah, and sorry for being rude, CCoyote.

binagon said:
Well do keep in mind that there is a difference between "constructive criticism" and just straight up insulting the artist :S

Different artists also have different definitions what is "constructive" and what isn't.
I distinctly remember a certain artist, whose name may or may not start with Jason and end with afex. The way they flew off the hinges whenever someone did not show them enough appreciation was quite a spectacle.
Not that they didn't receive a fair share of hatred, to be fair. But that came a bit later.

watsit said:
Giving a record depending on the user vote tally is probably the worst idea in the history of ever.

More generally on the topic, a notable problem is the kind of content that's posted here. Like it or not, furry porn is aimed toward more deviant interests, given it is based on being attracted to creatures with non-human animal characteristics. This site in particular is fine with art of full-on feral and cub (even human(oid) kids, as long as there's something non-human somewhere), where creepy comments can create very unsavory implications. What may be "fine" to say on a post of a human-like cartoon anthro can come across differently on a realistic looking young character. It can become very hazy where the line is between harmless fictional banter and something to worry about, and would have to be subject to very subjective rulings on whether it was fine to say something for that particular post. Even discounting the creepiness factor, I don't think introducing that level of subjectivity to what you can get in trouble over is a good thing.

Understandable, but I don't think he means people are punished based on the amount of votes they get, rather that a "creepy" comment is gonna get flagged regardless, and the upvotes entail the approval of a comment and should perhaps be taken into account before the negative record is given. On top of that, the system already works the other way; to give personal examples, I have a couple of flags for "role play" on comments I had entirely intended to be humor, and considering that they were in the double digits in terms of upvotes, I thought it was a good indication that most people got the joke. Apparently some people disagreed and I got some negative flags, as well as next to no feedback as to what I did wrong. In essence, a small amount of people decided my joke wasn't obvious enough and I got punished for it.
Another point is that there is a certain merit in the upvote system, for even though it is rather subjective, and unless we have proper philosophical discussion as to what is good and bad, then with enough community input the system should more or less normalize to what should be considered acceptable or not. While I agree that mob mentality isn't what defines morals, what alternative do we have? Quite frankly, I think it would be in the community's best interests if we could all come together and debate the rules, specifically to make them less ambiguous and give more accurate feedback on what is fair and desired. As far as I am aware, the current rules are just placeholders admins put in because they were decent guidelines, and I doubt they had a community discussion on it either. So in essence, the only voice to show approval is the commenting system, so perhaps it should be considered before judgement is passed, similarly to how a jury works as community feedback before the judge decides a sentence.

bitwolfy said:
Different artists also have different definitions what is "constructive" and what isn't.
I distinctly remember a certain artist, whose name may or may not start with Jason and end with afex. The way they flew off the hinges whenever someone did not show them enough appreciation was quite a spectacle.
Not that they didn't receive a fair share of hatred, to be fair. But that came a bit later.

Well at that point, the fault is more on the artist and not the commenter. If the idea was trying to be helpful then it still upholds that merit whether the artist wants to acknowledge that or not. But if is obvious that the commenter wasn't trying to help the artist improve and was instead distinctly bashing them, it's generally very obvious that such is their intent.

binagon said:
Understandable, but I don't think he means people are punished based on the amount of votes they get, rather that a "creepy" comment is gonna get flagged regardless, and the upvotes entail the approval of a comment and should perhaps be taken into account before the negative record is given. On top of that, the system already works the other way; to give personal examples, I have a couple of flags for "role play" on comments I had entirely intended to be humor, and considering that they were in the double digits in terms of upvotes, I thought it was a good indication that most people got the joke. Apparently some people disagreed and I got some negative flags, as well as next to no feedback as to what I did wrong. In essence, a small amount of people decided my joke wasn't obvious enough and I got punished for it.

That's the thing though. What you said broke the rules, according to the admins, and users had no bearing on that. A user may have been responsible for filing the tickets that alerted an admin to the comments in question, but that was just the means to the end; if an admin ran across the comments on their own, you would've gotten in trouble regardless.

Allowing people to break the rules, or allowing the rules to bend, because the user got a lot of upvotes would, at the very least, come across as favoritism. There's no way to tell if someone got upvotes because a random sampling of people thought it was a good and acceptable comment, or because the user has a lot of fans that are more likely to upvote what they do, or because it's about a particular fetish more people like. As long as someone has enough followers that'll regularly upvote them, they could get away with things normal users without a following couldn't. Similarly, comments on more mundane or popular kinks, like women with big chests and/or men with big dicks, would be allowed while comments on more fringe fetishes, like cucking or cub, wouldn't be, because the latter would have a higher percentage of users ready to downvote anything.

You in particular have a bit of a following, some people even considering you a legend, and while I don't think that's entirely undeserved (seriously, I generally like what I see you say too; I'd upvote you more if I bothered to use the site's voting systems), it would be unfair if that meant you could get away with things someone else couldn't. Rules should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how popular they may be or what they may like commenting on.

Another way to look at it is, I've seen different instances of the same kind of "I wish that was me" creepy comment, one with some upvotes (+12 at the time I'm writing this), another with less (0). It is completely hit and miss what kind of score a comment would get, so would that really be a good basis for determining if a record should be given or not, if the comment is otherwise close to the line?

binagon said:
Quite frankly, I think it would be in the community's best interests if we could all come together and debate the rules, specifically to make them less ambiguous and give more accurate feedback on what is fair and desired. As far as I am aware, the current rules are just placeholders admins put in because they were decent guidelines, and I doubt they had a community discussion on it either.

I agree with this. e6 has been getting more and more popular lately, and where the guidelines may have worked fine enough for a smaller group of users, an increase in the number of users and artists alike might warrant clarifying the rules. With them written as vague as they are (at least the creepy comments rule), it's hard to discuss and debate the kinds of things that can be allowed or not.

binagon said:
The only issue is that tolerating creepy comments might create an influx of low quality comments. If I may so use the slippery slope argument, this might lead to a comment section full of tastelessness and/or cringe. If people gotta wade through a pile of RP and other trash just to see if there are a couple of well thought out comments, people are just gonna avoid the comment section all together. While I personally don't have any excessive qualms about that stuff, it still disappoints me to see such uncreative and personal comments.

Can confirm the comments were a disgusting cringe fest before Bad Dragon took over and straitened out all the rules. Too the point of losing artists over it.

It's amazing how tough it is for people to not talk about doing sexual stuff to a picture. These threads are common and I wish the authors would just accept it or get banned already =/ It's not vague. Don't talk to pictures. Don't tell us about what sexual stuff you want to do or did in real life. No sexual RP. So "vague"

camkitty said:
It's not vague. Don't alk to pictures. Don't tell us about what sexual stuff you want to do or did in real life.

Creepy Comments rule

• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that cause an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease, or are sexually inappropriate

This is intended to ensure that users do not express their personal fetishes/desires publicly. Users have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse comfortably without unneeded or unnecessary commentary of those who wish to express their desires.

Where does it say "don't talk to pictures" or "don't tell us about what sexual stuff you want to do or did in real life"? It doesn't, it says don't make posts "that cause an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease, or are sexually inappropriate". Something causing an "unpleasant feeling of unease" is entirely dependent on the person reading it (different people will feel uneasy about different things to different degrees), same with being able to "realistically, browse comfortably". Extremely vague. It also doesn't clarify what "sexually inappropriate" means, as every site will define that differently (and given that this site has a lot of very kinky porn, and allows fetishes that are banned on almost all other sites, it's a fair assumption that that this site would be more lax with what's considered appropriate).

When asked, admins will say this essentially means "don't talk to pictures and don't tell us about what sexual stuff you want to do or did in real life", but having random forum posts say this with varying wordage does make it difficult to discuss and debate particulars. And people who read the rules, but don't scour every forum thread, won't be left with a very clear view of what would run afoul of the rule.

binagon said:
Quite frankly, I think it would be in the community's best interests if we could all come together and debate the rules, specifically to make them less ambiguous and give more accurate feedback on what is fair and desired. As far as I am aware, the current rules are just placeholders admins put in because they were decent guidelines, and I doubt they had a community discussion on it either.

The rules have been discussed with the community in their current form when we wrote them back in 2013 [here]. While we're looking into making them a bit more precise and straightforward to understand we will not be making it more acceptable to be creepy.
Comments like what AbeTheBlackFox made will still very much be over the line, because we really don't need to know about someone's desire to get facials or their ass eaten.

In fact, we're currently looking at having the following as replacement for the creepy comments rule:

Creepy and TMI Comments
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 days
This category includes:

• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that share unnecessary details about sexual fantasies or actions
• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that cause an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease, or are sexually inappropriate

This is intended to ensure that users do not express their personal fetishes/desires publicly. Users have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse comfortably without unneeded or unnecessary commentary of those who wish to express their desires.

The goal being that people can express that they think something is hot, but don't go into detail about how they'd like that exact thing to happen to them. The difference of "I'd like to find a guy like that" and "I'd like to find a guy like that to give me a facial", with the former being okay and the latter earning a record.

notmenotyou said:
...
In fact, we're currently looking at having the following as replacement for the creepy comments rule:

The goal being that people can express that they think something is hot, but don't go into detail about how they'd like that exact thing to happen to them. The difference of "I'd like to find a guy like that" and "I'd like to find a guy like that to give me a facial", with the former being okay and the latter earning a record.

The addition to the rule makes perfect sense. You've still got that subjective "sexually inappropriate" in there, but I think if you include that example it might save some confusion.
Can't imagine I'm going to bother leaving comments anymore though. Too much trouble.

abetheblackfox said:
Can't imagine I'm going to bother leaving comments anymore though. Too much trouble.

I've managed to post a good chunk of comments without getting a record.

Am I the only one who sees the change as worse than before?
You leave the old way and add another vague and pretty broad rule to it.
So for example if there is a discussion including a not so well respected kink somebody, who doesn't like said kink, can come and report everyone talking about the "unnecessary" details of sexual fantasies or am I wrong?

Shouldn't it rather just have some explanation on what is sexually inappropriate like for example
Examples of sexually inappropriate content is stating a subjective desire to be in someones place, having done something to etc.

Maybe my solution is naive or not well thought or something (what should I expect. I just thought and wrote it) but anyways the feeling that just adding that to it will make it worse stays.

I just yesterday read the case about stated artist and his reactions to some critic was. If that was the fault of the user but it's in general the fault of the commenters "insulting" where is the line? If you look at the community high likely the line is at you like it or you insult it. Even comments which openly show that you like what you see but for example also state that some proportions are not quiet appropriate will garner you more likely negative votes than positive and sometimes even some hateful comments.
Not to undermine the fact though that there are many "constructive critics" which are actually insults is true, too.
In a nutshell constructive critic is generally not accepted.

By the way, it looks like I have some creepy comments, too, unknowingly. I will not delete those (maybe edit those with due time) but will take into consideration formulation of my comments from now on. I like the third person solution.

strikerman said:
I've managed to post a good chunk of comments without getting a record.

I've been leaving comments for nearly 11 years without a single record. There's no big secret to not upsetting the admin or getting yourself in trouble with supposedly subjective rules. It isn't difficult at all if you don't think wagging your urges in everyone's faces is normal. Just act like an adult for heaven's sake.

It is entirely possible to talk about sex and kink and paraphilias without getting into the grimy details of what you'd like to do to someone.

agiant said:
Am I the only one who sees the change as worse than before?

No, the new proposal doesn't look any better to me either. It retains the exact same vague wording before ("unpleasant feeling", "sexually inappropriate", "do not express their personal fetishes/desires publicly", "browse comfortably without unneeded or unnecessary commentary"), and adds more vague wording that doesn't clarify anything ("unnecessary details"). By a strict reading of the rules, saying "This is hot" is an expression of one's personal fetish, saying "that horsecock looks nice" can make someone feel uneasy, saying "I'd like to find a guy like that" can be unnecessary details. It's telling that it still needed an extra line of clarification after the quote to state what it's purpose is.

Perhaps something like

• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that share explicit personal details about sexual fantasies or actions (i.e. what you or another person want to do or have done sexually)
• Creating forum posts, threads, or comments that give sexual details as if you can interact with characters in the picture

This is intended to ensure that users can, within realistic expectations, browse without unnecessary sexual commentary. This means without comments that talk to pictures in a sexual manner, or that tell us about what sexual stuff you want to do or did in real life.

I just threw this together so maybe it doesn't really catch the intent, or maybe you find the wording too exacting or off-base. But I tried.

ccoyote said:
There's no big secret to not upsetting the admin or getting yourself in trouble with supposedly subjective rules. It isn't difficult at all if you don't think wagging your urges in everyone's faces is normal. Just act like an adult for heaven's sake.

It is entirely possible to talk about sex and kink and paraphilias without getting into the grimy details of what you'd like to do to someone.

Ding ding ding. The winner here about it. Been here forever myself and my only greys were me being young and stupid about tags

watsit said:
"This is hot" is an expression of one's personal fetish

No, just a statement

watsit said:
"that horsecock looks nice" can make someone feel uneasy

Nope, just a statement again, no record would happen

watsit said:
saying "I'd like to find a guy like that" can be unnecessary details

That would be wrong because it;s telling people your sexual details

The rules may need to be more explicit so people complain less when caught being creeps, but it really is not hard not to be a wierdo in the comments. Just don't comment like this is pornhub

watsit said:
That's the thing though. What you said broke the rules, according to the admins, and users had no bearing on that. A user may have been responsible for filing the tickets that alerted an admin to the comments in question, but that was just the means to the end; if an admin ran across the comments on their own, you would've gotten in trouble regardless.

Allowing people to break the rules, or allowing the rules to bend, because the user got a lot of upvotes would, at the very least, come across as favoritism. There's no way to tell if someone got upvotes because a random sampling of people thought it was a good and acceptable comment, or because the user has a lot of fans that are more likely to upvote what they do, or because it's about a particular fetish more people like. As long as someone has enough followers that'll regularly upvote them, they could get away with things normal users without a following couldn't. Similarly, comments on more mundane or popular kinks, like women with big chests and/or men with big dicks, would be allowed while comments on more fringe fetishes, like cucking or cub, wouldn't be, because the latter would have a higher percentage of users ready to downvote anything.

You in particular have a bit of a following, some people even considering you a legend, and while I don't think that's entirely undeserved (seriously, I generally like what I see you say too; I'd upvote you more if I bothered to use the site's voting systems), it would be unfair if that meant you could get away with things someone else couldn't. Rules should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how popular they may be or what they may like commenting on.

Another way to look at it is, I've seen different instances of the same kind of "I wish that was me" creepy comment, one with some upvotes (+12 at the time I'm writing this), another with less (0). It is completely hit and miss what kind of score a comment would get, so would that really be a good basis for determining if a record should be given or not, if the comment is otherwise close to the line?

Well that's another point I'm trying to argue, that the current system is too inconsistent, whereas two similarly "creepy" comments may hold the same content, but you pretty much already need user input through reporting to get it to admin's attentions anyways, so similarly I think that user input should decide the severity of the punishment. In fact, the role-play rule already has that in it's stipulation:

This is intended to prevent a culture that is inherently self-destructive and takes away from the website. There are acceptable forms of role-play, typically that which reinforces a point, creates humor, or otherwise does not cause a disruption. Even in this setting, however, role-play must be just a single one or two line comment, and cannot be made in response to another role-player.

If this is the case, up to who is it that decides if something is role-play, if it's humor, and if it causes a disruption? Again, this is more of a particular situation, where the lines begin to blur. The upvote count might be a reasonable thing to consider if the comment is not to obvious whether it is being legitimate or a joke.

That being said, there are more obvious cases, as you listed, where the user has obviously made a reference to themselves in the comment, which is the big no-no. I'm not saying that you should abolish the rules or allow highly voted comments to stay, I'm saying that the vote count should be considered before the punishment in the case where it might not be so obvious what the commenter's intentions are.

notmenotyou said:
The rules have been discussed with the community in their current form when we wrote them back in 2013 [here]. While we're looking into making them a bit more precise and straightforward to understand we will not be making it more acceptable to be creepy.

That's a bit better to know, but it also means that we've been stuck with the current rules for 7 years. While they are decent enough, I've still seen the odd person getting flagged for something that didn't sound so obviously creepy. That being said, if the rules are updated in a fashion where it makes it easier to tell what is legitimately creepy and what is just an observation or humor, I'm all for it. Pretty much my main argument against the current rules

Comments like what AbeTheBlackFox made will still very much be over the line, because we really don't need to know about someone's desire to get facials or their ass eaten.

This is true, and I similarly mentioned why unabashedly writing one's personal fantasies is an instant creepy comment in my first reply to them (as well as the other replies for more elaboration).

In fact, we're currently looking at having the following as replacement for the creepy comments rule:

The goal being that people can express that they think something is hot, but don't go into detail about how they'd like that exact thing to happen to them. The difference of "I'd like to find a guy like that" and "I'd like to find a guy like that to give me a facial", with the former being okay and the latter earning a record.

I suppose that is technical an update, but personally this still seems a bit bare-bones. Maybe you should add that example you just said for more elaboration. Maybe add the fact that first-person speech and/or mention of the user is to be avoided, because people are not asking a user about their personal desires. Personally, I would also like to see some type of system where if you make a comment that is making a reference that might sound creepy out of context, to have some way to link the context you the joke so people understand it, to make it more obvious that the commenter isn't trying to purposely sound creepy or role-playing. But that's more of a personal want so I can keep posting humor without the threat of it being regarded as creepy or role play, or without having to kill the joke by explaining it afterwards :S

camkitty said:
No, just a statement

Nope, just a statement again, no record would happen

No record would happen because the admins have clarified that no record would be given for comments like that. But you're wrong that it's "just a statement". How is saying "this is hot" on a picture displaying fetish X, not expressing a like for fetish X? Who is anyone to say that a person shouldn't feel uneasy about reading something that could be taken as zoophilic (normal people aren't generally into horse genitals, after all)?

camkitty said:
That would be wrong because it;s telling people your sexual details

The head admin just explicitly said that exact statement is okay. See? It's not easy to grasp what's actually meant with phrases like that.

camkitty said:
The rules may need to be more explicit so people complain less when caught being creeps, but it really is not hard not to be a wierdo in the comments.

For me, you, and some other people it may not be difficult. But there's a whole lot of people out there that come from all different types of cultures, see the world differently than we do, and view the site with different expectations. We may have no trouble understanding where the line is and staying on the proper side of it, but other people may not. And being clear on where the line is and why it is where it is can help smooth off rough edges people may have; without having to scour the forum for random admin posts to get an understanding of what the rules mean.

binagon said:
Well that's another point I'm trying to argue, that the current system is too inconsistent, whereas two similarly "creepy" comments may hold the same content, but you pretty much already need user input through reporting to get it to admin's attentions anyways, so similarly I think that user input should decide the severity of the punishment.

I'd agree that it can currently come across as the rules being inconsistently enforced because of the lack of reporting. It's not really the site's fault for that since the moderators are all unpaid volunteers. Either way, that inconsistency won't go away without more people reporting potential violations and more admins to handle the reports; adding more inconsistency by the admins taking the comment score into consideration after being alerted to a comment won't balance it out, but will instead cause more unrest by having a system that plays favorites. Not so well-known? Like commenting on a less mainstream fetish? On top of having more people ready to report more minor things on you, you're more likely to get in trouble because you're not popular enough and not into more popular things to have a high comment score. That doesn't sound very good.

binagon said:
The upvote count might be a reasonable thing to consider if the comment is not to obvious whether it is being legitimate or a joke.

If the admin themself doesn't know if it crosses the line or not, and even the head admin isn't sure how to rule on it, I'd prefer them to err on the side of not, regardless of the score. They could still comment saying it's on the line, but hold off on actually giving a record if it's not clear. IMO, a record should only be given if it's clear the rules were broken (by whatever internal metric they use to determine that, clarification to the written rules being helpful to us), and as such, the post score shouldn't play into it once decided a record should be given.

strikerman said:
I've managed to post a good chunk of comments without getting a record.

Well the first neutral record I received was about a year ago for this guy. I had been well over 1000 comments in, likely closer to 2000 before that one. That being said, at the time I wasn't aware what the specific implications to consider a comment creepy enough to warrant, because most of the one's I had seen were either obvious, or were made in a similar format without being flagged. That was pretty much the point where I understood not to add one's self to the comment, cuz it implicates that you are the one involved in a sexual setting, hence breaking the rule. Turns out making references to memes is also unacceptable, as well as parodying the dialogue in pictures. As I mentioned before, I always thought that this stipulation in the rules would make it so humor was allowed on the website:

This is intended to prevent a culture that is inherently self-destructive and takes away from the website. There are acceptable forms of role-play, typically that which reinforces a point, creates humor, or otherwise does not cause a disruption. Even in this setting, however, role-play must be just a single one or two line comment, and cannot be made in response to another role-player.

And I wholly considered all my comments to fall under the banner of creating humor and not causing a disruption. Ok, maybe the Undertale one doesn't follow the one or two line comment rule, but why does the amount of lines dictate the intensity of role play? I just want to make a proper back-and-forth joke dammit reeee >:c So I think with that kind of ambiguity with the rules, I find it understandable that people might not want to comment if thy don't know if something they intended as lighthearted might be taken as uncomfortable, and avoid risking a flag that would take an entire 6 months to decay. I personally have over 5000 comments, but every time I get flagged for one of my jokes, I begin to have less and less certainty as to what is acceptable or not. This is coming from a rather experienced commenter who tries their best to understand what went wrong, so imagine how a new user might feel, particularly if they have trouble learning what their exact mistake might be? Do you risk taking another record when you might not be able to understand what you had done wrong in the first place? AbeTheBlackFox made a good move bringing this up to discussion and getting feedback as to what they did wrong specifically, but many users might not even know that it's an option, so they are either stuck with potentially making more unknowing mistakes and up getting banned, or they take the safe option and stop commenting altogether. If you treasure your account as much as some people do, it's better to be safe then sorry.

watsit said:
I'd agree that it can currently come across as the rules being inconsistently enforced because of the lack of reporting. It's not really the site's fault for that since the moderators are all unpaid volunteers. Either way, that inconsistency won't go away without more people reporting potential violations and more admins to handle the reports; adding more inconsistency by the admins taking the comment score into consideration after being alerted to a comment won't balance it out, but will instead cause more unrest by having a system that plays favorites.

Well again, the issue being that one of the rules states that certain comments shouldn't be considered role-play as long as they they don't cause a disruption. To my knowledge, the strongest indicator that a comment has or has not done that is through the voting system. What the votes are trying to do is make an admin more conscious of the fact that there may be more to a comment than what it appears at face value. Again, obviously rule-breaking comments should still be flagged, regardless of vote count, but I am more concerned about the not-so-obvious ones that seem to reference something an admin might not be aware of. One thing that might solve this is to have some type of system that allows someone to show a reference in the comment, or even just linking it straight onto the comment.

Not so well-known? Like commenting on a less mainstream fetish? On top of having more people ready to report more minor things on you, you're more likely to get in trouble because you're not popular enough and not into more popular things to have a high comment score. That doesn't sound very good.

Why would that be the case? If you are commenting on a less mainstream fetish, you are most likely to be commenting on a picture with said fetish. Unless people aren't using their blacklists, most other viewers would likely be in agreement of what a commenter says involving the fetish (again, as long as they haven't phrased it to sound creepy). And popularity isn't equivalent to less people reporting you, that's mostly due to the content of the comment. I can assure you that even if someone popular writes something along the lines of "wow, nice cock, mind if I have some?" they would still most likely be reported, and in this case, even if the comment had hundereds of upvotes, it is obviously stating one's personal desires, and thus deserves a negative record.

If the admin themself doesn't know if it crosses the line or not, and even the head admin isn't sure how to rule on it, I'd prefer them to err on the side of not, regardless of the score. They could still comment saying it's on the line, but hold off on actually giving a record if it's not clear. IMO, a record should only be given if it's clear the rules were broken (by whatever internal metric they use to determine that, clarification to the written rules being helpful to us), and as such, the post score shouldn't play into it once decided a record should be given.

I would be completely fines if moderators were to contact someone and explain what they did was wrong, and even give them a chance to edit it to not sound bad or give the the opportunity to hide the comment. The issue is that it rarely happens. In my personal account this has happened to me once, and it regarded a comment that wasn't breaking either the "creepy" or "role-play" rules. So to my knowledge, you are more likely to get a flag rather than an explanation why you got it or a chance to redeem yourself.

binagon said:
Well again, the issue being that one of the rules states that certain comments shouldn't be considered role-play as long as they they don't cause a disruption. To my knowledge, the strongest indicator that a comment has or has not done that is through the voting system.

I think the best tell is if you got a lot of responses that derail from the post or preexisting conversation (which I'm not saying you did, that's just how I'd take the meaning). As I've said before, I've seen people get downvoted for helping clarify the tagging rules when people were discussing why certain tags were (not) there. I myself have been upvoted (+3) and downvoted (-3) at different times for the same action, explaining why I had difficulty tagging a couple posts.

binagon said:
If you are commenting on a less mainstream fetish, you are most likely to be commenting on a picture with said fetish. Unless people aren't using their blacklists

Which is unfortunately too common. When it comes to certain fetishes, there are people that will purposely not blacklist it so they can vent their disdain for it. Sometimes this amounts to disruptive, trolling, and harassing comments (which get reported and handled), but occasionally also be more general trouble making like reporting the post itself as being "unacceptable" or "illegal" (that an admin then has to look over) and reporting comments that are positive toward the post. I don't normally look at the more contentious fetishes like cuck, cub, and snuff, but still end up seeing the complaints from people who don't like it.

binagon said:
I would be completely fines if moderators were to contact someone and explain what they did was wrong, and even give them a chance to edit it to not sound bad or give the the opportunity to hide the comment.

I can understand that and don't necessarily disagree. But the way it's been explained to me, a neutral record is essentially the moderator contacting you to say you did something wrong, and it will go away after 6 months as long as you don't repeat the same mistake. I can see why a neutral record can feel harsh for a first offense, but I've also seen people take umbrage at just being contacted off-the-record by an admin for potentially having done something wrong.

Perhaps allowing for an admin to dmail you instead of a record over a first-time innocent offense can help smooth things out. Though I can also see why that would be more work on the admins who already have a lot on their plate. Similarly, being told more exactly what you said that was wrong would also be nice, but more work for them. Maybe a bit of extra work there could be worth it overall, maybe not. I can't say I know the best course of action here.

It’s really not that hard to post a comment saying you like a post without sharing explicit details of what you’re doing to yourself or what you’re fantasizing to do with the character. You don’t go to the statue of David and tell other random tourists “Man, David looks delicious. I’d totally let him destroy my tailhole, and I whipped creamed my pants 2 mins ago”. Like dude, keep it to yourself

And unfortunately Watsit's hit the issue on the head. For all the ideas and comments and discussion, not one of us (even the staff that have joined our conversation) have a definitive position on what goes too far and what's acceptable. The only rule suggestions we seem to be able to think of are more or equally flawed as what we have already, and make about as much sense.

All I've gained from this discussion is a headache and an understanding that for all my hope that maybe society is growing up a little, my very definition of an "Adult" conversation is wildly different to others. I feel even less secure about being reprimanded for commenting than I was when I created this thread, and have decided the wisest course of action is to turn them off entirely. This feels like a defeat, not only that I am cutting myself off from another part of a community I should feel included in, but that I wasn't able to help make it better for others.

Some may see my actions as melodramatic, and for people who do not bring unintended controversy and discord to their daily life it probably would be, but I seem to get in trouble just for being me. And the only solid conclusion that I've wrung from this thread is that it won't be changing.

I vainly hope that I am the only one that feels this way, but as Binagon has made a case of repeatedly throughout this thread, there is a lot of inconsistent trial and error in using this site. I can't imagine I'm the only person to be chased off, nor will I be the last.

I don't even want to think about how people act in real life situation if they can't dicern whether their own comments are creepy or not.

pyke said:
I don't even want to think about how people act in real life situation if they can't dicern whether their own comments are creepy or not.

The "creepiness" of a comment is on a spectrum. Some comments are definitely creepy, others definitely not, and some are in-between. I think the issue here though is that mods, somewhat regularly it seems, flag comments that most definitely are not creepy [See Binagon's comments] and when they flag the "in-between" comments, there's little communication as to what made it cross the line.

It'd be a difficult semantic task, but I think what we want is for the mods to better match their definition of creepy to what users actually think is creepy, and better outline it in the rules.

thehuskyk9 said:
It’s really not that hard to post a comment saying you like a post without sharing explicit details of what you’re doing to yourself or what you’re fantasizing to do with the character. You don’t go to the statue of David and tell other random tourists “Man, David looks delicious. I’d totally let him destroy my tailhole, and I whipped creamed my pants 2 mins ago”. Like dude, keep it to yourself

You're right that I wouldn't do that, but it does sound funny as hell.

notuncommon said:
The "creepiness" of a comment is on a spectrum. Some comments are definitely creepy, others definitely not, and some are in-between. I think the issue here though is that mods, somewhat regularly it seems, flag comments that most definitely are not creepy [See Binagon's comments] and when they flag the "in-between" comments, there's little communication as to what made it cross the line.

It'd be a difficult semantic task, but I think what we want is for the mods to better match their definition of creepy to what users actually think is creepy, and better outline it in the rules.

It REALLY is not hard to tell if you are being creepy. This is amazing in a horrifying way . . .

Man! I read every new post and some posts just show me that some people just can't understand and/or don't know that humanity is made out of individuals with not a single individual sharing the same kind of world view with another.

It's not hard this. It's not hard that.

It is hard is the problem though and it doesn't matter how many creepy examples you give. What's in the grey zone stays in the grey zone and the discussion is about where on the grey zone to set the fence at. From the white zone looking at the black zone in the horizon, you can point with your finger at some place in between and say "look there it's to black. You should keep out of there" or you could hire trump and make a wall where nobody can say "the boarder was there? I didn't know". For people who are at home in the white zone everything is easy peasy lemon squizy but not for those in the grey zone.

Let's look as the community of e621 at our own site. Are we an art gallery where the members talk about how the artist demonstrated his proficiency and talk about what they wanted to say, what is depicted or something. No. Are we a porn site. No. But saying we are a fetish site would hit the nail pretty good or am I wrong? You also should consider that there is the SFW site where people can go which leans more into the category of art gallery.
So we should not be totally free in what we say here but we should have in comparison a bigger leeway.

I don't really want to pick someone explicitly so sorry in advance but: CamKitty it looks like you are one of those white dwellers. In my opinion your posts are at least offending connoted or are offending. I personally would report you but I also know that I'm in that regard a bit more sensitive and my subjective believe what the objective opinion would be regarding that is that it's no offense.
By the way CamKitty's posts are not the only ones here I have that opinion here. Just an example. Another could be this very post itself at the beginning. Sorry if that offended some people.

Finding new rules is clearly no easy feat and no matter how much time you spend will never be very good but I have no doubt that the rules regarding this topic at the moment are not really bad but definitely not good.
I would start with taking some weight out of the records visually and consequence wise too. For example grade them in yellow, orange and red records.
After this is done you can take your time changing the rules while the current attempt should be cut and started anew. The most important point is being not vague or clearing those with borderline examples (NOT like "Look at that elephants cock. I can't stop my heart imagining how that would fill me up" for a bad example and something like "This looks really good" as a good example. GREY ZONE EXAMPLES) whats good and whats not good.

#1 Sorry for the rambling, even though I tried to keep it short. I left maaaany things out I noticed in other comments.
#2 Thank you for reading my rambling.
#3 I like discussions with people who want to share and talk about different opinions. So if you want to read more of my rambling and want to ramble back feel free to dmail me or open another post to explicitly ramble
#4 Have a nice day

camkitty said:
It REALLY is not hard to tell if you are being creepy. This is amazing in a horrifying way . . .

When does a heap become a pile? When does red become orange? When does a comment become creepy enough to warrant a record?

There is a term for going out of your way to overthink something in order to rationalize it: mental gymnastics.

notuncommon said:
When does red become orange?

As long as a strong yellow light hits a red surface, it becomes orange.

-----

Anyway, can we ever get a clearer set of rules regarding on what's creepy or not, so that we don't alienate people, like the guy who initiated this thread? If this goes on long enough without clarifying the rules, then this site would be percieved as some bland and flavorless porn site (which would sound ironic for a site named after a flavor enhancer.)

I don't know how to say and perceive this, but I've seen Millcore being the one who's one handling tickets regarding creepy comments the most. I salute her dedication for stamping out creepy comments, yet I don't want myself and other users to perceive her as a prude in a porn art gallery.

It's not easy to say "keep it to yourself" without explaining the whys and the whats, yet at the same time, it's not hard to "look and not touch".

Update: correcting stuff.

alexyorim said:
Anyway, can we ever get a clearer set of rules regarding on what's creepy or not, so that we don't alienate people, like the guy who initiated this thread? If this goes on long enough without clarifying the rules, then this site would be percieved as some bland and flavorless porn site (which would sound ironic for a site named after a flavor enhancer.)

I still think a big part of the problem is that how much you can get away with is related to how high-traffic the post is. As far as I can tell a user can be consistently creepy in safety so long as there's always a couple of weeks before anybody spots it. I wouldn't be surprised if that has some users assuming the bar for what's considered creepy is higher than it actually is.

alexyorim said:
I don't know how to say and perceive this, but I've seen Millcore being the one who's one reporting creepy comments the most. I salute her dedication for stamping out creepy comments, yet I don't want myself and other users to perceive her as a prude in a porn art gallery.

Millcore isn't the one reporting creepy comments. She just handles the tickets.

Even if it just takes a bit of common sense to not be creepy. It doesn't hurt to ask a bit more of detail when getting a record for a creepy comment, im pretty sure Milly will respond in a more detailed way with examples if you ask, so you dont repeat the same mistake.

My 👏 　　　　　 👏 Is 👏 Going 👏 To 👏 　　　　 　　　 👏 All 👏 Over 👏 　　　　 　　　 🍆💦💦💦

lance_armstrong said:
My 👏 　　　cat　　 👏 Is 👏 Going 👏 To 👏 　　spill his sand　　 　　　 👏 All 👏 Over 👏 　　　my room >:(　 　　　 🍆💦💦💦

Filled

ccoyote said:
I've been leaving comments for nearly 11 years without a single record. There's no big secret to not upsetting the admin or getting yourself in trouble with supposedly subjective rules. It isn't difficult at all if you don't think wagging your urges in everyone's faces is normal. Just act like an adult for heaven's sake.

It is entirely possible to talk about sex and kink and paraphilias without getting into the grimy details of what you'd like to do to someone.

You are without a doubt acting like an E6 veteran! Cantankerous, hard-assed and opinionated.

I mean c'mon youre on a porn site that has some seriously excplicit content ranging from blood and vomit to anal vore and egg-laying. Those comments about fantasizing may be off putting and wierd, but as long as someone is being sexually harassed it should be left alone. Like imagine going to pornhub and getting chewed out for saying you find the video your watching is hot.

pepperkun said:
You are without a doubt acting like an E6 veteran! Cantankerous, hard-assed and opinionated.

I mean c'mon youre on a porn site that has some seriously excplicit content ranging from blood and vomit to anal vore and egg-laying. Those comments about fantasizing may be off putting and wierd, but as long as someone is being sexually harassed it should be left alone. Like imagine going to pornhub and getting chewed out for saying you find the video your watching is hot.

Ironic that you call him “opinionated” and “cantankerous” yet you immediately do the same thing right after. Also, this isn’t pornhub and e6 isn’t a porn site. It’s a curated furry art archive. Twitter, Newgrounds, and Instagram has tons of porn on their sites, yet are they considered porn sites? I know I haven’t heard anyone say that.

pepperkun said:
I mean c'mon youre on a porn site

People still say this?

strikerman said:
People still say this?

Good luck getting them to stop.

Go on pornhub or reddit if you wanna leave creepy sexual comments on posts.
I've been on this site for almost a decade without being forced to leave comments regarding how much "I wish that were me". Work on some self control maybe.

waba said:
Also, this isn’t pornhub and e6 isn’t a porn site. It’s a curated furry art archive. Twitter, Newgrounds, and Instagram has tons of porn on their sites, yet are they considered porn sites? I know I haven’t heard anyone say that.

Though ironically you can give "creepy" comments on those sites (for some level of creepy, as defined by the person posting the art) that wouldn't be allowed here. It does seem a bit weird that I can go to FA or Newgrounds, where it's acceptable to post a comment like "That's so hot, I came." as long as the person who posted the image is okay with it, but you'll get in trouble for posting adult art of cubs and "harmful paraphilias". Meanwhile, here it's acceptable to post adult art of nazi torture pedo zoo porn, but posting a comment like "I wish they'd punish me." will get you in trouble.

Some people here seem to think there's an absolute and/or objective measure of what "creepy" is that everyone should inherently know and be able to follow, or that because they can do it, no one else should have a problem. Which is complete nonsense as has been pointed out (different people have different perspectives on what constitutes creepy, especially given the kind of content that's allowed here and almost nowhere else, and different people and places have different standards for what is or should be acceptable). Yes, there's a subjective standard of creepiness defined by this site that all users should follow, but like people are saying, the written rule is quite vague and seemingly contradictory or arbitrary with its enforcement. Most people are left to make their own judgment based on what they think makes sense, taking into account the kind of content they're comment on and how they see others comment on various posts, and that won't be challenged until after they get a record, which has a habit of putting people on the defensive (that someone is trying to get them in trouble) rather than create a desire to ask/search for clarity with what they may have gotten wrong.

Some people would like the rule relaxed, which you're free to not want and voice disapproval of, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the rule at least be clarified.

moon_moon said:
Go on pornhub or reddit if you wanna leave creepy sexual comments on posts.
I've been on this site for almost a decade without being forced to leave comments regarding how much "I wish that were me". Work on some self control maybe.

Check my profile before hurling accusations. But thanks for the hypocritcal lesson in self control!

watsit said:
Some people would like the rule relaxed, which you're free to not want and voice disapproval of, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the rule at least be clarified.

Like I get that furry stuff attracts some creepy ass people so im sure mods and admins are just frustrated with removing really extreme comments. So even the slightly creepy ones must get on there nerves. But youre right there is very little stated about what is considered unsettling or wierd.

Its basically the safest to just browse and favorite stuff. I've been using this since 2012 and never went into the forums til today(accidently clicked then saw this thread) because I heard that its like the comment section on the images but 20x more unfriendly and butthurt. I dont get it people know this site has a wicked reputation for saltiest furries, but yet the innocent sexual comment on a pornographic image is the target to harass and the person who goes around brown-nosing and stirring up a shitstorm is totally okay.