So I uploaded 4 submissions and they got flagged and deleted for being paysite content because i uploaded some paysite content right before them (I didn't know the 2 year rule was no longer in effect). But the problem is the images in question are edits of non-paysite content so there is absolutely no reason for them to be deleted. I talked to the mod who deleted them and he said it would be "safer" to leave them deleted. The submissions aren't breaking any rules. What do I do to rectify this? Is there someone who keeps the mods in line that I should bring this to?

Which posts are you talking about? And are they, say, nude edits of an image which has a nude variant as paysite content? Unless someone can say your images are actually edits, and not paysite content claimed as edits, it would be better to leave them deleted until the paysite content is released publicly, at which point you can ask for it to be undeleted.

Essentially, "better safe than sorry" is the right way to handle these cases. If you prove that it's not paysite content, then your posts can be undeleted...

Siral Exan said:
Which posts are you talking about? And are they, say, nude edits of an image which has a nude variant as paysite content? Unless someone can say your images are actually edits, and not paysite content claimed as edits, it would be better to leave them deleted until the paysite content is released publicly, at which point you can ask for it to be undeleted.

Essentially, "better safe than sorry" is the right way to handle these cases. If you prove that it's not paysite content, then your posts can be undeleted...

No they are edits of non-paysite content mixed together. I have proved that it isn't paysite content by referencing the non-paysite images that they're from.

sinshadowfox said:
No they are edits of non-paysite content mixed together. I have proved that it isn't paysite content by referencing the non-paysite images that they're from.

If the artist released a censored version and has a nude variant behind a paywall, making a nude edit of the censored version isn't (or at least shouldn't be) acceptable. If it's good enough to be an acceptable edit, it could be considered too close to the paysite version even if it's technically different.

sinshadowfox said:
No they are edits of non-paysite content mixed together. I have proved that it isn't paysite content by referencing the non-paysite images that they're from.

Ok, but could you link the posts that you are talking about? I can only give you a vague answer until then, e6 will delete "edits" that magically look like images hosted on paysite. You'll have to prove that it's just an edit, either by showing that there's no variant of the image only hosted on a paysite or by showing that the variant hosted on a paysite is not the same as the edit. Otherwise, who's to say you weren't duped into uploading paysite content by people lying and claiming it's an edit...

And as for how you could prove it, you can message the staff member who handled the posts or NotMeNotYou, and provide links to the posts as well as the proof that those were edits and not paysite content. You can request that they undelete the posts, which can easily be done; the only hassle is making sure you're correct and that they aren't paysite content.

Watsit said:
If the artist released a censored version and has a nude variant behind a paywall, making a nude edit of the censored version isn't (or at least shouldn't be) acceptable. If it's good enough to be an acceptable edit, it could be considered too close to the paysite version even if it's technically different.

The images in question are comic panels so no there aren't any other versions that the edits look like.

Siral Exan said:
Ok, but could you link the posts that you are talking about? I can only give you a vague answer until then, e6 will delete "edits" that magically look like images hosted on paysite. You'll have to prove that it's just an edit, either by showing that there's no variant of the image only hosted on a paysite or by showing that the variant hosted on a paysite is not the same as the edit. Otherwise, who's to say you weren't duped into uploading paysite content by people lying and claiming it's an edit...

And as for how you could prove it, you can message the staff member who handled the posts or NotMeNotYou, and provide links to the posts as well as the proof that those were edits and not paysite content. You can request that they undelete the posts, which can easily be done; the only hassle is making sure you're correct and that they aren't paysite content.

This is the proof i sent to the mod who handled the posts linking the deleted posts to the posts that are on this site:
"https://e621.net/posts/2885670 and https://e621.net/posts/2885666 are an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1065044 third panel
https://e621.net/posts/2884877 is an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1065044 first panel
https://e621.net/posts/2884876 is an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1066047 first panel"
I did everything you said and they still wouldn't restore them

sinshadowfox said:
The images in question are comic panels so no there aren't any other versions that the edits look like.

I don't see what them being comic panels has to do with anything. There's nothing preventing comic panels from having variations behind paywalls.

sinshadowfox said:
https://e621.net/posts/2885670 and https://e621.net/posts/2885666 are an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1065044 third panel

Source is 1063x1375, the edits are 2858x2249 and 2701x2096. That indicates the edit was made using either a higher resolution (paywalled) source or is an upscale, neither of which is acceptable. The other edits seem bigger than the source, too.

Watsit said:
I don't see what them being comic panels has to do with anything. There's nothing preventing comic panels from having variations behind paywalls.

Source is 1063x1375, the edits are 2858x2249 and 2701x2096. That indicates the edit was made using either a higher resolution (paywalled) source or is an upscale, neither of which is acceptable. The other edits seem bigger than the source, too.

Like i said, none of the edits are paywalled content (i checked). The edits are larger because the editor was working with single panel frames from the comic which are small and as someone who has done editing myself i can say that making the image larger makes it easier to edit some of the finer details to make the edit look nicer instead of a photoshoped janky mess. As for upscaling i know for a fact that isn't true because there are many upscaled images on this site and it's not like upscaling a non-paysite image is going to magically make it paysite content all of a sudden. There are plenty of upscaled and downscaled and minorly edited and majorly edited images on this site. As long is it doesn't contain paysite content it's allowed.

sinshadowfox said:
This is the proof i sent to the mod who handled the posts linking the deleted posts to the posts that are on this site:
"https://e621.net/posts/2885670 and https://e621.net/posts/2885666 are an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1065044 third panel
https://e621.net/posts/2884877 is an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1065044 first panel
https://e621.net/posts/2884876 is an edit of https://e621.net/posts/1066047 first panel"
I did everything you said and they still wouldn't restore them

Aight, if it's the four edits you "sourced" then the 3rd one is an edit of two pages, one is free and the other is paysite. The Shepard undressing part of the image is free, the other guy isn't... I can't seem to find any evidence that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th one has any paysite content.

Also, if you haven't noticed the lawyerspeak in my choice of words, I said can undelete your posts. I said your posts can be undeleted, not will be undeleted, and explained why they can and how to go about asking for their undeletion. You already admitted posting paysite content and I can prove a second image has such edited in, the whole "better safe than sorry" is more than warranted.

Siral Exan said:
Aight, if it's the four edits you "sourced" then the 3rd one is an edit of two pages, one is free and the other is paysite. The Shepard part of the image is free, the other guy isn't... I can't seem to find any evidence that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th one has any paysite content.

Also, if you haven't noticed the lawyerspeak in my choice of words, I said can undelete your posts. I said your posts can be undeleted, not will be undeleted, and explained why they can and how to go about asking for their undeletion. You already admitted posting paysite content and I can prove a second image has such edited in, the whole "better safe than sorry" is more than warranted.

. . . Yes . . can . . therefore should. The whole reason images are deleted is because they break the rules so deleting an image that isn't breaking the rules is itself breaking the rules. If the images aren't breaking the rules and were deleted then according to the rules they need to be restored. Also can i see the proof the second image has paysite content edited in? I'd like to check for myself. If one of the images does infact contain paysite content i don't want to get it restored.

Siral Exan said:
I said your posts can be undeleted, not will be undeleted, and explained why they can and how to go about asking for their undeletion.

Also i asked how to deal with a rule breaking mod not how to go about restoring a deleted post. As i said I've already contacted the mod who handled the posts about restoring the posts and provided proof (which you say is %75 true) and they refused to restore ANY of them.

sinshadowfox said:
Also i asked how to deal with a rule breaking mod not how to go about restoring a deleted post. As i said I've already contacted the mod who handled the posts about restoring the posts and provided proof (which you say is %75 true) and they refused to restore ANY of them.

"What to do about a falsely flagged/deleted submission."

I'm sorry, care to repeat that first sentence out loud, and read me out loud the title of your forum? Because it sounds like you want to undelete your "falsely flagged/deleted" posts, not "deal with a rule breaking mod". If you want that, your only option is to ask Notme for their executive decision. The forums can't do that, other staff members can't make that (though they can still make decisions as staff members), and chances are they've talked about this in the private staff member discord channel and came to this conclusion when it came to your edits.

As for your prior message, could you organize your thoughts before I offer any more help? You're definitely confusing me, and I think you've confused yourself with what you want out of "us" and what we, normal users, can do for you. In the end, contacting staff is your only option, but we can tell you how to do so.

sinshadowfox said:
The edits are larger because the editor was working with single panel frames from the comic which are small and as someone who has done editing myself i can say that making the image larger makes it easier to edit some of the finer details to make the edit look nicer instead of a photoshoped janky mess. As for upscaling i know for a fact that isn't true because there are many upscaled images on this site and it's not like upscaling a non-paysite image is going to magically make it paysite content all of a sudden. There are plenty of upscaled and downscaled and minorly edited and majorly edited images on this site. As long is it doesn't contain paysite content it's allowed.

From the uploading guidelines:

Bad things to upload:

• Low quality submissions: Highly visible artifacts, scribbles, low-quality photographs of traditional media (invest into a scanner, people!), "1000h in MSPaint" images, computer generated mosaics, cropped images, anatomical diagrams, bad edits, screenshots, artificial upscales, AI / neural network edits, etc.
• Artificial upscales include anything like "normal" upscaling, waifu2x, neural network upscales, and similar.
• Sensible integer upscaling with nearest neighbor (a.k.a. without smoothing filters) is permitted for pixel artwork that would otherwise be too small to see well.

"Other images are breaking the rules too" isn't a good defense.

sinshadowfox said:
Also i asked how to deal with a rule breaking mod not how to go about restoring a deleted post.

Talk to NotMeNotYou, the head admin, if you have an issue with another admin/moderator. If they side with keeping them down, then you're out of luck.

siral_exan said:
As for your prior message, could you organize your thoughts before I offer any more help? You're definitely confusing me, and I think you've confused yourself with what you want out of "us" and what we, normal users, can do for you. In the end, contacting staff is your only option, but we can tell you how to do so.

watsit said:
Talk to NotMeNotYou, the head admin, if you have an issue with another admin/moderator. If they side with keeping them down, then you're out of luck.

will be tricky now that they've been banned for a week...

strikerman said:
will be tricky now that they've been banned for a week...

One thing I learned today is to never ever as a normal user publicly criticize the actions of the elder gods (forum mods, or admins).

polishonion said:
One thing I learned today is to never ever as a normal user publicly criticize the actions of the elder gods (forum mods, or admins).

It's a bad idea because the regular forum users, us "veterans" of e621, can't help you with any beef you have with a staff member, or any problem involving the rules. All we can do is offer explanations, point out who are the proper people to talk to, and give opinions on the matter.

If anyone wants my "miracle advice", just accept the L whenever you get a record. 99 times out of 10, the record is applicable and arguing about it won't remove it. Ask for an explanation on how to avoid breaking the rule in the future, and listen to that explanation, and you'll find that you will have a better time on e6 as a result. Don't offer "rides on the Drama Llama" in the forums, don't pester or antagonize anyone, just... accept the loss and move on.

polishonion said:
One thing I learned today is to never ever as a normal user publicly criticize the actions of the elder gods (forum mods, or admins).

Or you could simply not repeatedly upload pirated content, message people with the link to said pirated content after it's deleted, then after receiving a record for doing that add the link in the description of the pirated content pool, then re-add it after an admin removes it the first time.

Like, I know unfair bans happen, but this was a case of a user loudly and proudly disobeying the rules. Hopefully it also goes some way towards explaining why everyone in this thread was so sceptical of his claim that he didn't just want to upload pirated content by the back door, no sirree.

wat8548 said:
he didn't just want to upload pirated content by the back door, no sirree.

This... this attempt of his pleases me in a weird way. I and him may have a lot of common in the future. Or maybe it's just my sadistic and destructive instincts showing for a while, to see well managed image archive almost got disrupted. Anyway, this was pleasurable to witness; as if the banned guy was an anime antagonist who devised a mastermind plan to stealthily overthrow the current system... except that he underestimated the vigilance and cleverness of law enforcement mastermind side character.

polishonion said:
This... this attempt of his pleases me in a weird way. I and him may have a lot of common in the future. Or maybe it's just my sadistic and destructive instincts showing for a while, to see well managed image archive almost got disrupted. Anyway, this was pleasurable to witness; as if the banned guy was an anime antagonist who devised a mastermind plan to stealthily overthrow the current system... except that he underestimated the vigilance and cleverness of law enforcement mastermind side character.

i can't tell who you're rooting for here

polishonion said:
This... this attempt of his pleases me in a weird way. I and him may have a lot of common in the future. Or maybe it's just my sadistic and destructive instincts showing for a while, to see well managed image archive almost got disrupted. Anyway, this was pleasurable to witness; as if the banned guy was an anime antagonist who devised a mastermind plan to stealthily overthrow the current system... except that he underestimated the vigilance and cleverness of law enforcement mastermind side character.

strikerman said:
i can't tell who you're rooting for here

[Insert the appropriate The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises quotes here]

polishonion said:
as if the banned guy was an anime antagonist who devised a mastermind plan to stealthily overthrow the current system...

If this guy was an anime antagonist, he's an early-arc one intended to highlight basic rules of the setting.

strikerman said:
i can't tell who you're rooting for here

I hope you're being ironic.

polishonion said:
I hope you're being ironic.

polishonion said:
This... this attempt of his pleases me in a weird way. I and him may have a lot of common in the future.

Really does seem as though you're rooting for him, or rather his ideas, rather than the rules of the site.

polishonion said:
This... this attempt of his pleases me in a weird way. I and him may have a lot of common in the future. Or maybe it's just my sadistic and destructive instincts showing for a while, to see well managed image archive almost got disrupted. Anyway, this was pleasurable to witness; as if the banned guy was an anime antagonist who devised a mastermind plan to stealthily overthrow the current system... except that he underestimated the vigilance and cleverness of law enforcement mastermind side character.

He didn't disrupt anything, this is equivalent to a small water puddle on a tile floor, cleaned up in less time than it took the person to cause.

I would also suggest not making it public that you plan on making your own puddle in the future.