Alright, here's hoping this post doesn't turn into a toxic cesspool..
I want to first start off by saying that I am a firm believer in the rights of people. A website is considered private property, and the owner of a server- and subsequently the staff team they hire- have every right to run a website, server, imageboard, whatever it may be- however they so please.
With that out of the way, I want to bring something to the staff team's- and hopefully the higher-up's- attention.
E621 is not a porn site, and as such, doesn't impose the same expectations of a porn site. Comments are intended to be kept clean, as even the most extreme of NSFW artwork is considered as just that- artwork.

However, E621 still hosts NSFW, and has to deal with the issue of creeps regardless. This, obviously, lead to the rule at hand.

The issue? Vagueness.

The rule is far too open ended, fails to take into account potentially important context. And imposes a level of fear in even commenting.

The comments section of any website is for getting your feelings for an artwork out in a way that a simple upvote/favorite system cannot. While I agree that it can be aggravating or even annoying to see people coming into comments with things like "I want to fuck that catgirl!" or "Oh what I would do with that ass", etc, the openness of the rule opens up to some potentially severe abuse.

I've done a little bit of digging into blocked users in the comments, and while I won't say that the staff team is "wrong" for their decisions (They are, after all, the ones put in charge, and know more about what's behind the scenes than I ever will), I do want to express some discontent with a few actions.

The main one I'd like to bring to attention is this: https://e621.net/comments/4801476.
To me, this appears as nothing more than a user trying to generate some humor for an image, literally describing what's in the image, and putting it to song. However, a staff member took it as the user being creepy, and ignored (or didn't notice) the context of the image.

This is where the issue lies. While the rule clearly states about your *own* sexual desires, it doesn't account for context of an image, and results in a little bit of triggerhappy punishments in the event a staff member either doesn't notice the context, or is in a bad mood and doesn't care about the context.

I do want to address, before it becomes apparent in this post, that the comments exist for a reason. Some people will say that it's "better to just upvote and browse", or that the comments "aren't for sharing your opinion", as I had seen in another forum topic on a similar subject that is now closed. Comments, in fact, ARE for sharing your own opinions, and to censor an opinion because it references one's own preferences means such a comment section may be better of not existing in the first place. There's a difference between someone saying "Hello cutie" in reference to a cute image, and someone going on about how deep they want to rail that overly muscular bull. (referring to this thread: https://e621.net/forum_topics/27449)

My suggestion is not to remove, or otherwise modify the rule, but rather to provide a more verbose clarification as to what is considered to be "creepy" or not, even if this is just a link leading to some other discussion where such limits were determined.

In a world where you're forced to be as clean as possible- even on an image of a dog being rimmed by a horse- it just doesn't work. It leads to more wasted time by the staff team, and a far worse outward image to the users of the site. With highly subjective rules like this, transparency is key, and a sort of checklist to keep things as *objective* as possible is often times necessary.

The first person may seem extreme, but he got a lot less leniency because that was his 4th comment punishment. You get a lot less leeway if you have a history of doing it.

As an aside. believe me, as someone who has been here too long, this place was a disgusting shitshow before they got so hard on the creeps

With e621 mods not getting paid to babysit. I doubt there will be much incentive to care or change things. I mean i wouldnt moderate any place if i wernt getting something out of the deal. Having power on a website is not payment enough. Maybe if people donated to the mods they might show much more remarkable effort and feel less burned out.

gamer_shy said:
Alright, here's hoping this post doesn't turn into a toxic cesspool..
I want to first start off by saying that I am a firm believer in the rights of people. A website is considered private property, and the owner of a server- and subsequently the staff team they hire- have every right to run a website, server, imageboard, whatever it may be- however they so please.
With that out of the way, I want to bring something to the staff team's- and hopefully the higher-up's- attention.
E621 is not a porn site, and as such, doesn't impose the same expectations of a porn site. Comments are intended to be kept clean, as even the most extreme of NSFW artwork is considered as just that- artwork.

However, E621 still hosts NSFW, and has to deal with the issue of creeps regardless. This, obviously, lead to the rule at hand.

The issue? Vagueness.

The rule is far too open ended, fails to take into account potentially important context. And imposes a level of fear in even commenting.

The comments section of any website is for getting your feelings for an artwork out in a way that a simple upvote/favorite system cannot. While I agree that it can be aggravating or even annoying to see people coming into comments with things like "I want to fuck that catgirl!" or "Oh what I would do with that ass", etc, the openness of the rule opens up to some potentially severe abuse.

I've done a little bit of digging into blocked users in the comments, and while I won't say that the staff team is "wrong" for their decisions (They are, after all, the ones put in charge, and know more about what's behind the scenes than I ever will), I do want to express some discontent with a few actions.

The main one I'd like to bring to attention is this: https://e621.net/comments/4801476.
To me, this appears as nothing more than a user trying to generate some humor for an image, literally describing what's in the image, and putting it to song. However, a staff member took it as the user being creepy, and ignored (or didn't notice) the context of the image.

This is where the issue lies. While the rule clearly states about your *own* sexual desires, it doesn't account for context of an image, and results in a little bit of triggerhappy punishments in the event a staff member either doesn't notice the context, or is in a bad mood and doesn't care about the context.

I do want to address, before it becomes apparent in this post, that the comments exist for a reason. Some people will say that it's "better to just upvote and browse", or that the comments "aren't for sharing your opinion", as I had seen in another forum topic on a similar subject that is now closed. Comments, in fact, ARE for sharing your own opinions, and to censor an opinion because it references one's own preferences means such a comment section may be better of not existing in the first place. There's a difference between someone saying "Hello cutie" in reference to a cute image, and someone going on about how deep they want to rail that overly muscular bull. (referring to this thread: https://e621.net/forum_topics/27449)

My suggestion is not to remove, or otherwise modify the rule, but rather to provide a more verbose clarification as to what is considered to be "creepy" or not, even if this is just a link leading to some other discussion where such limits were determined.

In a world where you're forced to be as clean as possible- even on an image of a dog being rimmed by a horse- it just doesn't work. It leads to more wasted time by the staff team, and a far worse outward image to the users of the site. With highly subjective rules like this, transparency is key, and a sort of checklist to keep things as *objective* as possible is often times necessary.

Now, I have noticed that alot of permanently "Blocked" accounts seem to be of one of two things: comments or tagging.
I've come across a few where there's an Alraune-type picture and someone stubbornly kept changing its tag from humanoid to anthro. Which I did agree with because the species in the picture didn't have fingers, had seeds for eyes, a leaf for hair, essentially stems for legs and arms, none of those warrant it being a "humanoid" (humanoids are human-looking creatures with some animal elements/features, such as the Orcs, Elves, the Ritos from Wind Waker, etc.). But the moderator was adamant that the creature is not eligible to be tagged anthro because it has no features/characteristics of "an animal". That's a blatant disregard to what an anthro is. A common misconception is that anthro means an anthropomorphic animal, but this is the broad generalization modern society considers it. Anthro is literally any non-human, animate or inanimate, that is given humanlike qualities and/or sentience. For example, the talking objects in Disney's Beauty and the Beast? By the actual definition of anthro....are anthros.
I just don't like when people with power can dictate if something is or is not something by going on their own opinion of what something is without consulting the actual meaning of the term.
That said, I also don't like people being banned for stuff that is misunderstood. I've seen one where a user blatantly attacked someone in the comments section and one person fought back, and got negatives for "harassment", when the other person said worse and even started it, and they didn't get hit with a single negative.

camkitty said:
The first person may seem extreme, but he got a lot less leniency because that was his 4th comment punishment. You get a lot less leeway if you have a history of doing it.

As an aside. believe me, as someone who has been here too long, this place was a disgusting shitshow before they got so hard on the creeps

Honestly, your history of doing it shouldn't warrant a strike that shouldn't have happened in the first place. For example, it kind of breaks the whole point of the system really if say someone did it a couple times before, learned their lesson, used it as a joke and gets perma'd for it. That seems a bit ridiculous. If you get hit with a negative, it should be something you actually did. I'm certain if they got a change to explain the comment they made, they wouldn't be hit with that.

omega_lead said:
With e621 mods not getting paid to babysit. I doubt there will be much incentive to care or change things. I mean i wouldnt moderate any place if i wernt getting something out of the deal. Having power on a website is not payment enough. Maybe if people donated to the mods they might show much more remarkable effort and feel less burned out.

Also having power on a website can lead to abuse of it regardless. I'm not particularly a fan of "F-List"'s unspoken "shoot first ask questions never policy". I've had friends banned there for "account sharing" without any sort of evidence. Did an admin reach out? No. Did they ban without making sure their 'assumptions' are true and causing someone panic and stress over losing an account forever? Pretty much.
Whether or not a mod is being paid doesn't justify striking, let alone banning people for something that they didn't do. And like the person in this post said, as a result of all these inconsistent criteria for "Creepy Comments" I barely comment. When I do, it has nothing to do with the art. I've commented about the art in question like about maybe a few times, that's it.

aelvir said:
Now, I have noticed that alot of permanently "Blocked" accounts seem to be of one of two things: comments or tagging.
I've come across a few where there's an Alraune-type picture and someone stubbornly kept changing its tag from humanoid to anthro. Which I did agree with because the species in the picture didn't have fingers, had seeds for eyes, a leaf for hair, essentially stems for legs and arms, none of those warrant it being a "humanoid" (humanoids are human-looking creatures with some animal elements/features, such as the Orcs, Elves, the Ritos from Wind Waker, etc.). But the moderator was adamant that the creature is not eligible to be tagged anthro because it has no features/characteristics of "an animal". That's a blatant disregard to what an anthro is.

On this site, humanoid is also used for human-like non-animals. Things like gardevoir, or various types of demons (though looking through the humanoid tag, there are a gross number of posts of anthros tagged as both humanoid and anthro). Humanoid and animal humanoid are separate tags for a reason.

aelvir said:
A common misconception is that anthro means an anthropomorphic animal, but this is the broad generalization modern society considers it. Anthro is literally any non-human, animate or inanimate, that is given humanlike qualities and/or sentience. For example, the talking objects in Disney's Beauty and the Beast? By the actual definition of anthro....are anthros.

Technically speaking, so would be Simba and the rest of the Lion King cast. Even animal humanoids/kemomimi would count as anthropomorphic. But that doesn't make for a useful tag, so for the purposes of tagging on this site to help people find what they want and avoid what they don't, anthro is used for human-animal hybrids that are in-between feral and humanoid. It's right in the wiki:

Anthropomorphism means attaching human traits such as human-like intelligence and physical form to non-human things. But as this describes most non-human characters on e621 and intelligence can be difficult to tag, the anthro tag is specifically used only for animal-like "furry" characters.

camkitty said:
The first person may seem extreme, but he got a lot less leniency because that was his 4th comment punishment. You get a lot less leeway if you have a history of doing it.

As an aside. believe me, as someone who has been here too long, this place was a disgusting shitshow before they got so hard on the creeps

I honestly think you missed the point of the post. It's not about removing the rule, it's a request for a more verbose and strict guideline as to what is and isn't creepy, rather than it being left to the staff team to decide, to avoid the abuse that does, in fact, exist.

aelvir said:
That said, I also don't like people being banned for stuff that is misunderstood. I've seen one where a user blatantly attacked someone in the comments section and one person fought back, and got negatives for "harassment", when the other person said worse and even started it, and they didn't get hit with a single negative.

Something like that is perfectly fine in the context of "Drop it, this argument doesn't get anyone anywhere."
But, looking outside with no information over the situation, my first reaction to someone being nailed for harassment and the other is scot-free taking in exactly as you've stated, makes me think you're really not knowing what you're doing under your role as an admin.
edit: That is, until it becomes evident there are repeated instances of this which is harassment.
(No, critiques of your character are not a form of harassment; insults and exaggerations are. But it can definitely be off-topic trolling.)

aelvir said:
Also having power on a website can lead to abuse of it regardless. I'm not particularly a fan of "F-List"'s unspoken "shoot first ask questions never policy". I've had friends banned there for "account sharing" without any sort of evidence. Did an admin reach out? No. Did they ban without making sure their 'assumptions' are true and causing someone panic and stress over losing an account forever? Pretty much.
Whether or not a mod is being paid doesn't justify striking, let alone banning people for something that they didn't do. And like the person in this post said, as a result of all these inconsistent criteria for "Creepy Comments" I barely comment. When I do, it has nothing to do with the art. I've commented about the art in question like about maybe a few times, that's it.

I have nothing to add to this besides my agreement.

camkitty said:As an aside. believe me, as someone who has been here too long, this place was a disgusting shitshow before they got so hard on the creeps

edit: This too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to clean up e6. The manner in which it is done so is not well received, however, and is noticeably problematic because of the ambiguity and the lack of consensus/context for which it's applied. It's often done far too randomly whether people are left to be creepy on extremely popular submissions or someone gets a record for a totally innocuous comment.
Feedback on which posts were actioned are good, but if there's no adequate basis for it, you're only relying on that one specific member's discretion. And in most cases I've seen, they don't provide any reason for it besides just backreferencing them the rules list.

It's something that's virtually the sole purpose of the comment votes are for, but voting on comments can really mean anything, whether you agree or disagree with a certain political discourse or agree that, yes, this character is pretty hot. Mmnf. As long as the commenter is not involved and the comment is rating-appropriate. Something that needs to be stated despite E621 (and E926) being an 18+ site.

If making noises in the comments counts as being creepy, specify that. I know that's something I'd like not to see. If it's in reference to a silly onomatopea in a doujinshi, animation, etc (post context), this shouldn't classify as creepy.

There's a really broad spectrum between "fluffyy~" and "hmm yes this floor is made of floor" that needs to be covered. Either define that or use context.

edit 2: As a second point, a lot of this comes back to a recent twitter post I've come across.
https://twitter.com/adulture/status/1421962174071676934
In short, don't be rude with strangers you don't know (artists or other patrons). Remember this is a public forum. Anyone accessing E6 will see your comment. This can cover a lot of bases with comment problems. There really is no way to please everyone, so I'm fully in support of stating this as a simple baseline.

watsit said:
On this site, humanoid is also used for human-like non-animals. Things like gardevoir, or various types of demons (though looking through the humanoid tag, there are a gross number of posts of anthros tagged as both humanoid and anthro). Humanoid and animal humanoid are separate tags for a reason.

It's even more painful when you look at the post changes history. Supposing someone would go and try to fix it, they would need to fix more posts than people mistagging posts... I counted aprox. 25 misstags only on 1 day. So you would need to fix 25 + 1 posts to progress on this endeavor.

Also the history I linked have only posts tagged with humanoid anthro solo, but whoever tried to fix that would also need to go through posts tagged with only humanoid anthro to check for misstags.

Of course we could disclosure at the edit reason that humanoid + anthro are mutually exclusive when referring to one character. So maybe people would see that and the amount of misstags would slow down. But as of now fixing this seems a pretty daunting task. :/

Well that got a bit derailed. If anyone has other ideas to push this up higher, go ahead and shoot. That's why I made this a forum post. Any ideas you can come up with that should distinguish creepy from non-creepy, and possibly any ideas for a checklist that mods should follow would be amazing. I've pretty well given everything I can say, as I'd personally run a site like this FAR differently, and my ideas likely wouldn't fit.

Note: I plan to eventually use this post, as well as a compilation of other blocked users who were blocked for seemingly innocent posts, and shoot if off as a reason for action in in an email to send to the site, just to have some extra leverage. I want to see sites like this flourish, not be held under constant scrutiny for mismanagement.

aelvir said:
Honestly, your history of doing it shouldn't warrant a strike that shouldn't have happened in the first place. For example, it kind of breaks the whole point of the system really if say someone did it a couple times before, learned their lesson, used it as a joke and gets perma'd for it. That seems a bit ridiculous. If you get hit with a negative, it should be something you actually did. I'm certain if they got a change to explain the comment they made, they wouldn't be hit with that.

Why give a second and third shot to someone not trying to improve. Expedite them leaving, since they don't seem to want to correct it

Not being creepy is pretty clear. No sexual RP, don't talk to the picture, don't place yourself in the picture, and don't tell us what sexual things this makes you want to do or have done in the past

camkitty said:
Why give a second and third shot to someone not trying to improve. Expedite them leaving, since they don't seem to want to correct it

Not being creepy is pretty clear. No sexual RP, don't talk to the picture, don't place yourself in the picture, and don't tell us what sexual things this makes you want to do or have done in the past

IT may seem that straightforward, but as I stated, abuse has clearly happened in the past, and doesn't always fall under what you described. Hence the call for a more verbose description.

This wouldn't be an issue if people just accepted this site for what it was. People are pushing the line of what's acceptable all the time to the point that it's actually attracting more edgy risque comments that are actually fueling someone's increasingly obscene fetish, like discussing how someone's "dead" because of some level of obscene penetration or bringing up Mr. Hands every large horsecock post with excruciating detail. I guarantee people are getting off on it but because they frame it as some back handed edgy comment most people don't blink an eye and ""technically"" isn't being creepy (yeah right). It also leads to people acting super touchy about other tangential comments not regarding "creepiness."

Which again wouldn't be an issue if the site dropped the guise of not being a furry porn site, aggregate of SFW pieces included or not.

I find the whole concept of "creepy comments" stupid.

Imagine someone looking at a picture of a feral dog cub from a kids show being penetrated from three sides by meter long horse cocks and all of them covered in piss and shit from ears to tail, fapping to it, then looking at the comment section, reading a "creepy" comment like "She's hot, I'd fuck her!" and screaming, "NOOOOOO!!! Fucking creeps!!! They ruined my experience on e621!!! BAN THEM ALL!!!" Like, seriously?

I get when people get angry about overly sexy comments on SFW pictures, or about rape/snuff/scat comments on non-extreme NSFW pictures, or about literally anything with personal OCs. Artists drawing these pictures and people looking at them didn't intend to have anything like this associated with the image. Okay, sounds reasonable.

But what's wrong with sexy comments of any sort on a picture of Simba being fucked by a zebra? This stupid sexy stuff is, like, the only reason to read the comments in the first place.

Currently, thanks to this rule, comments are either missing completely, boring as hell or discuss blacklisting for 100500th time. Where's fun in that? Is it really an improvement over ancient times or are we lying to ourselves?

Don't like, don't look. Don't like, don't read. It's simple. The rule should be limited to expanding the fetish list of an image and commenting about personal OCs. Maybe about RP too, since comments are poorly suited for this. But not anything else.

kinkyglutamate said:
(...)

Well... Don't like our rules? Go away. Don't want to follow them? Receive a record. It's that simple. I sincerely don't understand why people can't keep to themselves what they want to do/ is doing with a post... You may don't like this rule, but it's there, get over it. And if you ask me, the problem is that people come here misinformed with lots of expectations simply because they see there's porn here (I was one) and get annoyed when warned.

Ngl, there were some warnings that seemed pretty harsh for me. This would be one of the reasons why I was less active here. But then... I have made an effort to understand what were the reasons for the staff to hand those warnings in the first place. I've read comments, checked old forum posts, checked and rechecked the rules and the changes there. Now I can count in one hand the records that seems, from my point of view, "odd" (I'm not counting the really old records).

And I've come to the conclusion that it's not as black and white as people think... as I've thought it was. Nobody is being paid, everything is voluntary. We are an Adult Imageboard, specialized in archiving Furry Art, not a "pornsite". There was a PRETTY turbulent period of this website and the effects still lingers today.

After all that, the staff doesn't seem as intimidating as I thought them to be. They are humans and when I made an effort to try and understand their reasons. Everything made a lot more sense. I even thank them for doing what they do. It seems a pretty unthankful job, when people can't even do the minimum and follow the rules.

However... That being said a more descriptive creepy comments wouldn't be that bad. In away, we already have this, just check the neutrals and negatives being given.

Hopefully I've contributed with something in this topic and I'd ask apologies if I seem rude, my english isn't that good. But I really wanted to let it out.

Thanks for reading! my Englishcide...

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Well... Don't like our rules? Go away. Don't want to follow them? Receive a record. It's that simple. I sincerely don't understand why people can't keep to themselves what they want to do/ is doing with a post... You may don't like this rule, but it's there, get over it. And if you ask me, the problem is that people come here misinformed with lots of expectations simply because they see there's porn here (I was one) and get annoyed when warned.

Ngl, there were some warnings that seemed pretty harsh for me. This would be one of the reasons why I was less active here. But then... I have made an effort to understand what were the reasons for the staff to hand those warnings in the first place. I've read comments, checked old forum posts, checked and rechecked the rules and the changes there. Now I can count in one hand the records that seems, from my point of view, "odd" (I'm not counting the really old records).

And I've come to the conclusion that it's not as black and white as people think... as I've thought it was. Nobody is being paid, everything is voluntary. We are an Adult Imageboard, specialized in archiving Furry Art, not a "pornsite". There was a PRETTY turbulent period of this website and the effects still lingers today.

After all that, the staff doesn't seem as intimidating as I thought them to be. They are humans and when I made an effort to try and understand their reasons. Everything made a lot more sense. I even thank them for doing what they do. It seems a pretty unthankful job, when people can't even do the minimum and follow the rules.

However... That being said a more descriptive creepy comments wouldn't be that bad. In away, we already have this, just check the neutrals and negatives being given.

Hopefully I've contributed with something in this topic and I'd ask apologies if I seem rude, my english isn't that good. But I really wanted to let it out.

Thanks for reading! my Englishcide...

This. While I personally don't fully agree with the rule existing in the first place, it's not gonna go anywhere, it's a form of the site admins attempting to have the site run as they want it to. However, the issues lies in how vague and open-ended it is. People like me, call us idiots, don't immediately understand what is creepy, and what's not.

However, while you can definitely get a feel for what is and isn't creepy though looking at other people's punishments, you shouldn't be expected to dig through hundreds- possibly thousands- of posts and find people who already were punished for a rule they likely never understood themselves. No rule should require you to dig around for punishments to learn how it works, it hurts the people already smacked by the rule, and makes it tedious and annoying for people trying to learn the rule.

camkitty said:
The first person may seem extreme, but he got a lot less leniency because that was his 4th comment punishment. You get a lot less leeway if you have a history of doing it.

As an aside. believe me, as someone who has been here too long, this place was a disgusting shitshow before they got so hard on the creeps

Apologies for not replying to this sooner, but the number of punishments you've received in the past shouldn't cloud contextual judgement, ever. If that's how things worked, kids who got in trouble for shoplifting would automatically have jail time the moment they do something even remotely shady. That's not how the real world works. While multiple infractions definitely should result in worsening punishments, they shouldn't stop you from being able to make a harmless joke comment. Hell, if you read the mod's comment, he clearly states that "no one wants to know that". Totally ignoring the image, and the context. That's not grounds for punishment, that's just misuse of power.

camkitty said:
Why give a second and third shot to someone not trying to improve. Expedite them leaving, since they don't seem to want to correct it

Not being creepy is pretty clear. No sexual RP, don't talk to the picture, don't place yourself in the picture, and don't tell us what sexual things this makes you want to do or have done in the past

To an extent, yes, you're right. Someone who racks up a lot of infractions in a row definitely isn't trying to improve, but not all of us pay attention to that banner above the site, especially when the same announcement is there for 2 years. This site, from my experience, doesn't warn you of much. I didn't even know of my own neutral warning until I actively looked at my profile out of curiosity. I'm not sure if negative warnings are more clear, but someone who, again, doesn't understand the rule, and also doesn't understand that they've already been punished... that's just a yikes if a mod doesn't reach out in some more obvious way. I know I already replied to you, but I'm just hitting everyone up at this point.

kinkyglutamate said:
I find the whole concept of "creepy comments" stupid.

Imagine someone looking at a picture of a feral dog cub from a kids show being penetrated from three sides by meter long horse cocks and all of them covered in piss and shit from ears to tail, fapping to it, then looking at the comment section, reading a "creepy" comment like "She's hot, I'd fuck her!" and screaming, "NOOOOOO!!! Fucking creeps!!! They ruined my experience on e621!!! BAN THEM ALL!!!" Like, seriously?

I get when people get angry about overly sexy comments on SFW pictures, or about rape/snuff/scat comments on non-extreme NSFW pictures, or about literally anything with personal OCs. Artists drawing these pictures and people looking at them didn't intend to have anything like this associated with the image. Okay, sounds reasonable.

But what's wrong with sexy comments of any sort on a picture of Simba being fucked by a zebra? This stupid sexy stuff is, like, the only reason to read the comments in the first place.

Currently, thanks to this rule, comments are either missing completely, boring as hell or discuss blacklisting for 100500th time. Where's fun in that? Is it really an improvement over ancient times or are we lying to ourselves?

Don't like, don't look. Don't like, don't read. It's simple. The rule should be limited to expanding the fetish list of an image and commenting about personal OCs. Maybe about RP too, since comments are poorly suited for this. But not anything else.

I can definitely agree with this, but at the same time I can somewhat understand it when it comes to personal OCs. It can be offputting, especially if you're like me and your OC is an extension of yourself, kinda like a random person in public saying they wanna rail your ass when you don't even know them. But again, the vagueness is my issue, not the rule itself.

nightfire said:
Which again wouldn't be an issue if the site dropped the guise of not being a furry porn site, aggregate of SFW pieces included or not.

Sounds like an entirely "you" problem. Sire has never made a difference in the type of furry pictures coming in.

And again, for all you new people thinking it is weird to care on your "porn site", when the rule was not in place this place was disgusting, and, more importantly, losing artists posting here because of how disgusting it was.

Before Bad Dragon took over this place was becoming a disgusting shitshow. Deal with it being semi professional nowadays

kinkyglutamate said:
I find the whole concept of "creepy comments" stupid.

Imagine someone looking at a picture of a feral dog cub from a kids show being penetrated from three sides by meter long horse cocks and all of them covered in piss and shit from ears to tail, fapping to it, then looking at the comment section, reading a "creepy" comment like "She's hot, I'd fuck her!" and screaming, "NOOOOOO!!! Fucking creeps!!! They ruined my experience on e621!!! BAN THEM ALL!!!" Like, seriously?

But what's wrong with sexy comments of any sort on a picture of Simba being fucked by a zebra? This stupid sexy stuff is, like, the only reason to read the comments in the first place.

Watsit summed it up in the last thread about creepy comments:

watsit said:
Something that can help understanding is proper framing. It's not like they're going up to the Mona Lisa in a high class museum and saying how much they want to fuck her, or walking up to a stranger who's just walking their dog and saying how much they want cock. There's a group of people all looking at the same picture of hyper-sexualized characters rubbing their junk together with gallons of splooge everywhere, something designed at least in part to make you horny and help you get off, and talking about the picture in an accepting and positive way. It shouldn't be a surprise that some people want to express something sexual on an image designed to be sexual, particularly when there are artists that like to know the porn they make is having the desired effect. Sometimes people do actually care.

But that said, a small measure of restraint can go a long way, and that's where the contention mainly lies. Different people have different comfort zones, and the main dividing line here is when it gets personal. It's perfectly fine to say a character's cock looks great, or that dragon pussy looks way better than human pussy. It's good to know I'm not alone in having similar thoughts. However, when you say you want that character's cock in your ass, that crosses into the territory of making others think about you, as a real person, and your ass. Or that if some image made you cum so hard, it makes others think about you, as a real person, ejaculating. It's no longer about the images and the fantasies we indulge in here, but about the real you, and I don't want mental images of some random internet person's ass or ejaculate.

I can see why the distinction may be vague to some people, particularly for furries who have a tendency to portray themselves as a character and may not realize others can be looking at them as a real person instead of their fursona. But it's an important factor in ensuring a more comfortable experience for many people.

I think that's exactly why it bothers people so much. This is a really bad problem when it comes to certain types of real life porn too.

Bit more on topic:
I don't think there's anything wrong with elaborating on the rules more. You'll never be able to fully account for everything, but maybe some common real examples would help as well as common exceptions like someone doing a movie/game/whatever reference.
Of course, the worst offenders probably aren't the ones who'll read the CoC/rules anyways, but at least it'll be there. That said, I don't agree with every decision I've seen regarding action on creepy comments, but generally I'd say they do a good job of it.

Both a bump and a reply here.

popoto said:
Watsit summed it up in the last thread about creepy comments:

I think that's exactly why it bothers people so much. This is a really bad problem when it comes to certain types of real life porn too.

Bit more on topic:
I don't think there's anything wrong with elaborating on the rules more. You'll never be able to fully account for everything, but maybe some common real examples would help as well as common exceptions like someone doing a movie/game/whatever reference.
Of course, the worst offenders probably aren't the ones who'll read the CoC/rules anyways, but at least it'll be there. That said, I don't agree with every decision I've seen regarding action on creepy comments, but generally I'd say they do a good job of it.

Personally, it's the user's own fault if they start thinking of a person when they describe things. I'm a regular on Derpibooru, and comments that are deemed creepy here are few and far between, but when they do pop up, I've never had the issue of "visualizing" a real person, always just visualizing their OC, if I visualized them at all. And judging by other people's reactions in the comments, no one else sees it as creepy either. It's just there. No one *makes* you visualize, you're the one in control of that. That argument on creepy comments is very, VERY subjective.
Regardless, it is a rule here, and I respect that. I only call for it to be better elaborated, and pinned down in an objective manner so that moderators aren't left to their own devices, and the rule isn't abused any longer.

gamer_shy said:
the main thing

I've written quite a few creepy comments. I just rewrote the comments so that they don't meet the criteria for creepy but the creepiness might as well still be there. If you avoid first-person terms like "I want to (do X to Y)" or open it up to interpretation in general, you avoid the creepy comment rule entirely. It's the dumbest loophole I've ever found, and it has worked every time. I've noticed a (now banned, for another reason) user circumventing the creepy comment rule by doing exactly that. Without a mark on his profile for the comment (and believe me, there should have absolutely been a mark), I learned that it doesn't really matter what you say; it matters how you say it.

sputty said:
I've written quite a few creepy comments. I just rewrote the comments so that they don't meet the criteria for creepy but the creepiness might as well still be there. If you avoid first-person terms like "I want to (do X to Y)" or open it up to interpretation in general, you avoid the creepy comment rule entirely. It's the dumbest loophole I've ever found, and it has worked every time. I've noticed a (now banned, for another reason) user circumventing the creepy comment rule by doing exactly that. Without a mark on his profile for the comment (and believe me, there should have absolutely been a mark), I learned that it doesn't really matter what you say; it matters how you say it.

There's a point where third person comments can hit creepy as well, but yes, that makes sense otherwise.