I've been seeing art of people making fun of the site's functions like people blacklisting women and dumb shit like demonising the mascot Esix. Can anyone explain why artists like to bite the hand that feeds?

I imagine it all depends on the context.

Offending and being offended is a two way street. A sign of a mature person is someone who can laugh at thier own faults without getting thier panties in a twist. And everyone has faults. No one is perfect.
To think you are perfect is a serious mental disease.

Now on the other side of that coin is bigotry, blind hate, and stupidity. Also a two way street. Don't hate thy verbal assailant. Do judge, and mistrust. But don't hate lest you become what they are.
As you stare into the abyss and all that.

So in the end.... Context, and maturity.
I like to imagine the mods around here aren't narcissistic children and can take a joke.
But at the same time will shut down true bigotry.

Keep in mind the vast majority of art uploaded to this site is uploaded by third parties, not by the original artist, and often without any form of permission given. I would assume people doing the "demonisation" part of that probably had somebody scrape their gallery elsewhere and weren't pleased by it.
The "blacklisting women" thing I think you're looking into too hard, as nobody with half a brain would take the ability to say "I don't want to see this type of art", especially after using sites like Furaffinity, as some sort of actual slight. The idea of "blacklist women" is funny when taken out of the context of what blacklists are for this site. Much like you might find amusement in the context of, say, Civilisation in tossing nukes back and forth with India.
Now, for your title question (why that isn't in the topic itself is baffling), most of the mods very well can take a joke, however, a continued pattern of antagonistic towards a specific staff member by a user is little different than them doing so to any other user and will eventually be treated as such. The staff are still human beings, at the end of the day.

There is no "hand that feeds" here, hell, IIRC the staff actually recommend against artists using this site as a gallery for their own works because of the quality standard and how... unpleasant some of the users can be at times towards artwork they dislike the content of or find lacking in some way.

darvincy said:
I've been seeing art of people making fun of the site's functions like people blacklisting women and dumb shit like demonising the mascot Esix. Can anyone explain why artists like to bite the hand that feeds?

lol what? link please

But seriously, or unserously? Life's a joke, might taking yourself to seriously is bad for your health and I'm pretty sure most of the site moderation knows that. Now, there is a difference between slander and jokes so as long as something isn't trying to mask lies as truth I don't think it matters.

this one?

post #2698601

it's a joke

knotty_curls said:
this one?

post #2698601

it's a joke

That's blacklisting women but it's not demonizing Esix.

furrin_gok said:
but it's not demonizing Esix.

Does this count?

post #2661021

furrin_gok said:
That's blacklisting women but it's not demonizing Esix.

This, on the other hand, is a hate crime:

post #2426264

furrin_gok said:
That's blacklisting women but it's not demonizing Esix.

So the joke is about blacklisting an invalid_tag That makes sense!

post #2698601

For me in personal, would be interesting to know where is the limit between "personal taste" and "provocation".

I am an "heterofur" (so to speak) and the only thing that I find attractive - sexually speaking - is middle aged women.

However, in some Documental of some furs, made by furs, women in Conventions said that Furry is an overwhelmingly male-dominated environment. And there is no few furs that refuse to buy them art, fursuits or merchandise, after they know that they are really women.

By the way... women in Furry Fandom trend to "be something"... administrators of conventions, artists, fursuit makers... althoght they could be also just plain vanilla furs.

I guess that the difference between "taste" and "provocation", would be to brag about your preferences?

mexicanfurry said:
For me in personal, would be interesting to know where is the limit between "personal taste" and "provocation".

I am an "heterofur" (so to speak) and the only thing that I find attractive - sexually speaking - is middle aged women.

However, in some Documental of some furs, made by furs, women in Conventions said that Furry is an overwhelmingly male-dominated environment. And there is no few furs that refuse to buy them art, fursuits or merchandise, after they know that they are really women.

By the way... women in Furry Fandom trend to "be something"... administrators of conventions, artists, fursuit makers... althoght they could be also just plain vanilla furs.

I guess that the difference between "taste" and "provocation", would be to brag about your preferences?

Based on a survey I had read a while back (I believe it was run at a What the Fur? convention,) it appears that a supermajority of furry fans identify as male, but a supermajority of furry artists identify as female.

We know, that the Furry "Community" - we could include this site as part of it - and "inclusiveness" is a great support for people that may need it badly in some moment in their lives (for what we see... specially young people not very sure about their sexuality).

For personal experience, I know that for most people, specially nowadays, "the Furry" infatuation is something that won't last long, before they move on to other interests. A lot will be even a little ashamed to be reminded that they were "furries" once, and will move to more "mature" interests and subjects: politics, their personal careers, etc. For them, effectively furry will be just an stepping stone to continue developing in life.

I think that that is ok, but uninteresting to me.

For me, the real interesting cases, would be the ones for which Furry was something decissive in their lives. And therefore they probably will remain furries for the rest of their lives. How is that deeply positive for them, or maybe not, what I wish I could investigate one day.

Regards.

darvincy said:
I've been seeing art of people making fun of the site's functions like people blacklisting women and dumb shit like demonising the mascot Esix. Can anyone explain why artists like to bite the hand that feeds?

Considering that they just banned hundreds of users just for leaving a funi little updoot on a comment, yes absolutely. Theyre fucking retarded.

turnipseedsoup said:
Considering that they just banned hundreds of users just for leaving a funi little updoot on a comment, yes absolutely. Theyre fucking retarded.

People were getting banned for upvoting comments that either make fun of a mass shooting, or were otherwise utterly despicable.
As in, racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and so on. Plus, some were proclaiming that the shooting was a false flag op.

If you support any of these things, I've got nothing more to say to you.

It all depends on how far you go. It's fine to say the mods are fat, but saying they're fat and they like mayonnaise on their friench fries might get you into trouble.

Mods are stinky and probably poop which is gross. Why would anyone poop? that's nasty.

dogenzaka said:
saying they're fat and they like mayonnaise on their friench fries might get you into trouble.

First of all, how dare you.
... I legit like mayo with french fries, though.

bitwolfy said:
First of all, how dare you.
... I legit like mayo with french fries, though.

Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

notmenotyou said:
Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

This

notmenotyou said:
Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

THE MODS ARE FIGHTING!!!!!

notmenotyou said:
Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

I honestly started putting tartar sauce on fries since having fish and chips, and have never gone back.

notmenotyou said:
Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

Marinara sauce is goated. Good for fries, and if you like ketchup on your hot dogs, you'll like marinara more.

notmenotyou said:
Remoulade / tartar sauce is superior.

Never heard of Remoulade, but Tartar is gross. I'd prefer some ranch or ketchup with my fries.

furrin_gok said:
I'd prefer some ranch or ketchup with my fries.

Ranch is okay, but ketchup?
You are a monster.

I put water on my fries. I want them moist.

bitwolfy said:
Ranch is okay, but ketchup?
You are a monster.

I was trying to think of a response but

kiranoot said:
I put water on my fries. I want them moist.

This is the real monster.

I like my fries with béarnaise sauce.

I dip my fries in soda when I don't have any sauce. It is actually kinda ok.

bitwolfy said:
Ranch is okay, but ketchup?
You are a monster.

Ketchup on fries is not acceptable to you? What are you from Chicago or something?

chaser said:
I dip my fries in soda when I don't have any sauce. It is actually kinda ok.

I like to dip fries in icecream, (this is not a shitpost)

I'm going to report y'all to the french fry mafia. Anything other than ketchup is blasphemous

Clearly tartar sauce is the best choice!
With BBQ sauce being the second

chaser said:
I dip my fries in soda when I don't have any sauce. It is actually kinda ok.

That... sounds like it would be good, actually.

furrin_gok said:
That... sounds like it would be good, actually.

Should this thread be renamed into "french fry dippers anonymous?"

... Am I the only one that just douses them in vinegar?

WTF, what kind of monster are you?! why nobody is dousing fries on dr.pepper

Pro hotdog engulfers lubricate their weaners with water so they can eat them faster

The combination of mayo mustard and guacamole goes surprisingly well with french fries.

TL:DR it is not only okay, but always morally correct to make fun of moderators and their food tastes

turnipseedsoup said:
Considering that they just banned hundreds of users just for leaving a funi little updoot on a comment, yes absolutely. Theyre fucking retarded.

Those users where clearly breaking the rules, just take a look at the rules.
You should read the rules to avoid getting in trouble. You just broke one with your forum post.
The rules say it is okay to disagree with the administrators, but not insult them.

bitwolfy said:
People were getting banned for upvoting comments that either make fun of a mass shooting, or were otherwise utterly despicable.
As in, racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and so on. Plus, some were proclaiming that the shooting was a false flag op.

If you support any of these things, I've got nothing more to say to you.

Banning someone just for upvoting a comment seems excessive to me, since it is not against the rules. Proclaiming that a terrorist attack was a false flag operation is not against the rules either.

I eat french fries without anything else.

mindflowe said:
The combination of mayo mustard and guacamole goes surprisingly well with french fries.

what

votp said:
... Am I the only one that just douses them in vinegar?

Malt vinegar is pretty tasty on them.

My go to for fries are ketchup and sometimes mustard (regular/spicy/honey/etc) but my favorite is ranch dressing.

electricitywolf said:
Banning someone just for upvoting a comment seems excessive to me, since it is not against the rules. Proclaiming that a terrorist attack was a false flag operation is not against the rules either.

Wait, what? I agree that banning for simply upvoting something is excessive. Those votes aren't public, only mods/admins can see who left them. If someone is a terrible person and upvotes something like that, that's on them. But banning them for an up/downvote that's anonymous to everyone else? That's like punishing thought crimes.

drakkenfyre said:
But banning them for an up/downvote that's anonymous to everyone else? That's like punishing thought crimes.

You do know this is a privately own site, right? They're within their rights action anyone whom they see fit, with or without reason. But to to get to the point at hand, NotMeNotYou had posted about the topic at hand in another tread, so it'd be best to give it a read. https://e621.net/forum_topics/33735?page=1#forum_post_335038

the_shinx said:
You do know this is a privately own site, right? They're within their rights action anyone whom they see fit, with or without reason. But to to get to the point at hand, NotMeNotYou had posted about the topic at hand in another tread, so it'd be best to give it a read. https://e621.net/forum_topics/33735?page=1#forum_post_335038

Yes, I do. And while they have every right to do whatever they want to users because it is a privately-owned site, that doesn't change the fact that banning based solely on an up/downvote is distasteful and sets a bad precedent. That being said, however, since I last replied here, I did read more. If those upvotes were made by people trolling in an attempt to solely promote hateful comments, e.g. single-use sock puppet accounts, then yes, they deserved to be banned. My point is banning based on up/downvoting shouldn't be done just because the comment might be unpopular. E.g. "Artist (X) is a hack and they should stop drawing", and the people upvoting getting banned.

You stop using the site when the mods act like this. That is the answer because to them they don't need you. You don't like it then the website wasn't made for you then and you can leave. Products/services are not made to cater to the customer, according to some schools of thought, and actively court you into quitting if you disagree. This is the result.

See the writing on the wall when the mods won't leave something alone whether they are simple comments or downvoting their cringe takes.

larscanars said:
See the writing on the wall when the mods won't leave something alone whether they are simple comments or downvoting their cringe takes.

If you think that "don't be racist", "don't be homophobic", or "don't make fun of a mass shooting" are cringe takes, we don't want you here.

drakkenfyre said:
Yes, I do. And while they have every right to do whatever they want to users because it is a privately-owned site, that doesn't change the fact that banning based solely on an up/downvote is distasteful and sets a bad precedent. That being said, however, since I last replied here, I did read more. If those upvotes were made by people trolling in an attempt to solely promote hateful comments, e.g. single-use sock puppet accounts, then yes, they deserved to be banned. My point is banning based on up/downvoting shouldn't be done just because the comment might be unpopular. E.g. "Artist (X) is a hack and they should stop drawing", and the people upvoting getting banned.

We're absolutely not banning people over votes on unpopular comments. We have banned people over votes on comments that are nothing but rotten to the core. If anyone agrees with blatantly racist sentiments they have no place being here.

electricitywolf said:
Those users where clearly breaking the rules, just take a look at the rules.
You should read the rules to avoid getting in trouble. You just broke one with your forum post.
The rules say it is okay to disagree with the administrators, but not insult them.

Why are you replying to a user about how it's a broken rule when they've gotten a record for that comment over 2 days ago.

electricitywolf said:
Banning someone just for upvoting a comment seems excessive to me, since it is not against the rules. Proclaiming that a terrorist attack was a false flag operation is not against the rules either.

You should consider taking your own advice because you can find the following safely stashed away inside it:

Code of Conduct Introduction

The forums and website are here to provide you with a friendly environment where you can discuss ideas, give advice, and converse about other aspects of e621 with fellow members. The community forums and primary website are at their best when participants treat their fellow posters with respect and courtesy. Therefore, we ask that you conduct yourself in a civilized manner while participating in these forums.

The guidelines and rules listed below explain what behavior is expected of you and what behavior you can expect from other community members. Note that the following guidelines are not exhaustive, and may not address all manner of offensive behavior. As such, the forum moderators shall have full discretion to address any behavior that they feel is inappropriate. Also, suspension or banishment from the posting section of the website will always result in the same regard to forum access. Your access to the forums and website is a ‘privilege’, and not a ‘right’. We reserve the right to suspend your access to the forums and website at any time for reasons that include, but are not necessarily limited to, your failure to abide by these guidelines. In addition, these guidelines are not enforced on the e621 IRC channel, or similar off-site social channels. Likewise, any guidelines in use for the e621 IRC channels, or similar off-site social channels will not affect your access on the forums or website. Please note that the application of these rules varies based on the section of the website it is posted. Some things are OK to be as part of a 'Post' submission to the website, whereas it would not be OK as part of a 'Forum Thread'.

We reserve the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. The action we take may be more lenient or more severe than those listed under each category:

Emphasis added by myself.

bitwolfy said:
If you think that "don't be racist", "don't be homophobic", or "don't make fun of a mass shooting" are cringe takes, we don't want you here.

mods are gamer-phobic confirmed smh my head 😤😤😤