Posted under General
All the time, I see posts that are essentially advertisements. Porn censored with Patreon logos or censored in other ways, with a link to the artist's patreon to pay for the uncensored version.
Shouldn't there be a rule against this kind of thing? Since they're effectively advertisements, except the site isn't being paid for them.
For a brief time, there was a paywall_tease tag for this, but it got aliased to censored without any discussion. There is apparently still a patreon_censored tag with 41 posts though, but it lacks a wiki defining how to tag it.
Should these posts be removed? I don't think so. Censored art generally still has merit, and also, it's generally best not to piss off the artists, or else they will likely file a takedown request for all their art here.
crocogator said: . . .
patreon_censored was originally meant specifically for posts that were censored using the Patreon logo.
bitwolfy said:
patreon_censored was originally meant specifically for posts that were censored using the Patreon logo.
I thought that might be the case. It looks like one or more users started mistagging it then.
crocogator said:
I thought that might be the case. It looks like one or more users started mistagging it then.
Went ahead and wrote a wiki and cleaned them out. Far too strongly a "What you know" scenario if you included anything that was censored that happened to have a patreon uncensor.
Maybe we should have an uncesored_version_at_paywall tag?
sieghelm_lockayer said:
Maybe we should have an uncesored_version_at_paywall tag?
There are some similar (but woefully underused) tags: alternate_version_at_paywall, alternate_version_at_patreon, better_version_at_paywall, uncensored_version_at_paywall. I wouldn't be opposed to a tag like this.
sieghelm_lockayer said:
Maybe we should have an uncesored_version_at_paywall tag?
uncensored_version_at_source with the patreon/subscribestar/store/paywall link in the sources?
