Seems these past few days a lot of shits been going on, and i just wanna say that the mods are doing a really good job at keeping everything at bay, and that i appreciate them :)

I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary, did I miss something?

azero said:
I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary, did I miss something?

Think a couple walked the plank, recently.

I didn't notice anything weird, but...

https://e621.net/bans

Wow! Over 200 bans in the last 2 days! I guess I missed something...

crocogator said:
Wow! Over 200 bans in the last 2 days! I guess I missed something...

Also tons of comments getting hidden and a new site feature to prevent commenting on posts. From what bitWolfy has said, sounds like some heavy trolling got sparked and blew up.

The mods here have big enough egos already, need to make them even bigger.

crocogator said:
I didn't notice anything weird, but...

https://e621.net/bans

Wow! Over 200 bans in the last 2 days! I guess I missed something...

Apparently there was an incident, with a video-calling card posted, which included a phone displaying a particular image. That image and some related content has been blowing up as a result, including a bunch of trolls who think it's funny to make jokes out of it.

watsit said:
Also tons of comments getting hidden and a new site feature to prevent commenting on posts. From what bitWolfy has said, sounds like some heavy trolling got sparked and blew up.

"Trolling" is such a vague reason though.

Not to mention some of them seem...political in nature.

azero said:
"Trolling" is such a vague reason though.

Not to mention some of them seem...political in nature.

When it's an indistinguishable mess of not being able to tell who's making poor-taste jokes versus hiding behind Poe's Law I guess it pays to call everything the same thing.
But I guess if you're into poor-taste jokes you've gotta be real careful about what you upvote now. I imagine the bans for upvoting are going to extend to future instances of objectionable posts (i.e. anything along the lines of the George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse stuff that got pulled)

magnuseffect said:
But I guess if you're into poor-taste jokes you've gotta be real careful about what you upvote now. I imagine the bans for upvoting are going to extend to future instances of objectionable posts (i.e. anything along the lines of the George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse stuff that got pulled)

This isn't going to be retroactively applied is it...?

cutefox123 said:
This isn't going to be retroactively applied is it...?

If something does become necessary to enforce retroactively, I imagine the mods would delete the old content rather than penalize it. Site would lose a lot of users if it suddenly banned people for year old comments that they wouldn't make nowadays.

azero said:
"Trolling" is such a vague reason though.

Not to mention some of them seem...political in nature.

I would love to hear an explanation of how you believe it is political that we cracked down on people putting their seal of approval on an undeniably racist comment that compared the victims to primates and another that spewed QAnon level conspiracy shit and finished it with another racist banger.

notmenotyou said:
I would love to hear an explanation of how you believe it is political that we cracked down on people putting their seal of approval on an undeniably racist comment that compared the victims to primates and another that spewed QAnon level conspiracy shit and finished it with another racist banger.

you will never get it, you know these sort of people

notmenotyou said:
I would love to hear an explanation of how you believe it is political that we cracked down on people putting their seal of approval on an undeniably racist comment that compared the victims to primates and another that spewed QAnon level conspiracy shit and finished it with another racist banger.

That's actually the definition of political. I'm not complaining, of course, fuck those guys and I hope they never have a happy day their whole lives, but it's absolutely political. Politics isn't "I support such and such candidates," but about the conflict of ideas, and it is a political act to stomp out some ideas, even if, especially if, those ideas are repugnant.

totallyradical said:
The mods here have big enough egos already, need to make them even bigger.

ok. I would like to know why you think so. I have seen similar things in the past:

"The admins are too strict",
"They act subjectively",
"they are locking the gender of my character wrong",
"I aM nOt AlLoWeD tO bE cReEpY iN tHe CoMmEnTs",
"Being a little jerk is freedom of speech, so I say what I want"

These kinds of comments come to my mind, if I see statements like yours. And I don't think your statement is true. To apply rules, that are either written down or common human sense, is not a sign of having a big ego. I think they are doing a good job.

notmenotyou said:
I would love to hear an explanation of how you believe it is political that we cracked down on people putting their seal of approval on an undeniably racist comment that compared the victims to primates and another that spewed QAnon level conspiracy shit and finished it with another racist banger.

Ok, I agree with you, but why is nazi art allowed here then? Even if the art doesn't picture anything graphic, why do nazifurs get to have their art here at all. Nothing more racist and conspiracy fuelled than nazism

I believe that the environment is pretty politically and ideologically charged, inside the fandom, and outside the Fandom (at like three or four levels up).

=(.

However, this is a Furry Forum, oriented to Art conservation / display.

I have seen that people get kicked out of here, mostly when they INSIST in pushing their political views (right or wrong). Sometimes they cross the threshold (sometimes a moving threshold according to the mood of the moment and the color of their ideas). But generally they get warned a few times in advance.

(which is the correct thing).

I believe that to have a more peaceful, less conflicting site/forum is a shared responsibility of users and staff.

If as a user you dedicate yourself at seeing art, looking for art, ... it is very unlikely that you will be kicked out. It is what it is.

Are they deleting comments? I swear I saw one saying bans without strikes were uncool. No comment on that, but are posts being hidden?

magnuseffect said:
But I guess if you're into poor-taste jokes you've gotta be real careful about what you upvote now. I imagine the bans for upvoting are going to extend to future instances of objectionable posts (i.e. anything along the lines of the George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse stuff that got pulled)

That's my main concern to be honest. Say what you want about people upvoting or downvoting certain things, but the only thing in the rules regarding votes are that we can't vote with multiple accounts on the same posts or comments, or (from what I observed) target a user with downvotes across multiple comments. Unless I'm wrong, nothing on the rules page say anything about upvoting stuff of that nature.

glitchtree said:
Are they deleting comments? I swear I saw one saying bans without strikes were uncool. No comment on that, but are posts being hidden?

Mine, no. I hid it of my own accord.

I'm still skittish as this is my last strike before a perma. When the first one was some frustrated dissent...

werideatdawn said:
That's my main concern to be honest. Say what you want about people upvoting or downvoting certain things, but the only thing in the rules regarding votes are that we can't vote with multiple accounts on the same posts or comments, or (from what I observed) target a user with downvotes across multiple comments. Unless I'm wrong, nothing on the rules page say anything about upvoting stuff of that nature.

That might be something to propose then. Might be worth a new fourm threard?
My thoughts is that it was just an easy way to find who were trolls and who weren't, as it was happening too quickly.

aversioncapacitor' said:
Mine, no. I hid it of my own accord.

I'm still skittish as this is my last strike before a perma. When the first one is simply mod dissent...

You can usually request neutral records to be stricken after a period of time. Since it was in 2021 I think you are able to request that.

notmenotyou said:
I would love to hear an explanation of how you believe it is political that we cracked down on people putting their seal of approval on an undeniably racist comment that compared the victims to primates and another that spewed QAnon level conspiracy shit and finished it with another racist banger.

I wish I could answer without risking a permant ban, but seeing as upvoting the wrong kind of comment is enough to get you banned, I'd rather not test my luck.

Besides, with many of the accounts being a couple of years old (so we know they weren't created yesterday), I noticed that some of them had 0 comments/posts, so one can assume that these were erased/hidden (the comments that is). Then again, without knowing what the comment was and simply leaving the reason as troll, doesn't leave one much to work with. Not to mention that many of these account only had 1 record at the time of their deletion, knowing they didn't even get to appeal the record, but outright deleted without previous notice.

To be frank, walking on eggshells isn't my thing as there too little to gain and so much to lose, and I am well aware that by replying to one of the admins of the site is already a very risky move, so here I am just hoping this isn't my last post on this site.

yetanothertemp said:
You can usually request neutral records to be stricken after a period of time. Since it was in 2021 I think you are able to request that.

They operate on worst records first. Check the wiki page for records; they'll decay from suspenion -> negative -> neutral -> gone. And even still, discretion is used.

aversioncapacitor' said:
They operate on worst records first. Check the wiki page for records; they'll decay from suspenion -> negative -> neutral -> gone.

Ah. Disregard my thing then.

azero said:
I wish I could answer without risking a permant ban, but seeing as upvoting the wrong kind of comment is enough to get you banned, I'd rather not test my luck.

Besides, with many of the accounts being a couple of years old (so we know they weren't created yesterday), I noticed that some of them had 0 comments/posts, so one can assume that these were erased/hidden (the comments that is). Then again, without knowing what the comment was and simply leaving the reason as troll, doesn't leave one much to work with. Not to mention that many of these account only had 1 record at the time of their deletion, knowing they didn't even get to appeal the record, but outright deleted without previous notice.

To be frank, walking on eggshells isn't my thing as there too little to gain and so much to lose, and I am well aware that by replying to one of the admins of the site is already a very risky move, so here I am just hoping this isn't my last post on this site.

I myself will never put an upvote to something like a caricature that make a joke or even cheer what happened, for example, to George Flyod or what just happened in Buffalo.

Those are things that go to an extreme that it is very difficult to even think how could be defensible and not be punished. Guess is not easy to be a member of staff in these days.

I support @NotMeNotYou, in what he says, because I know that I have said somehow risky things - never with the intention of pulling the beard of the staff, I clarify - an my record remains clean, which surprise me. Guess that they, given their experience, are able to look through some users, if they have really bad intentions, or not.

However, I syphatize with your concern, and I also think that the communication between simple users and staff should remain at least as open as it is now, or more. And to keep having objective and measurable metrics for their actions, whenever possible.

werideatdawn said:
That's my main concern to be honest. Say what you want about people upvoting or downvoting certain things, but the only thing in the rules regarding votes are that we can't vote with multiple accounts on the same posts or comments, or (from what I observed) target a user with downvotes across multiple comments. Unless I'm wrong, nothing on the rules page say anything about upvoting stuff of that nature.

I'm on the same boat as well, there are clear rules in regards to vote manipulation, which totally makes sense of course. But this was the first instance of accounts being suspended for upvoting comments, at least that I know of. On that note, while comments can be controversial, posts tend to be at a much higher degree. How do we know this will not extend to upvoting/favoriting posts that some might find offensive and/or crude, take some of the posts tagged with nazi such as these:
post #1021702
post #1575810
post #730089

And just like you said

Unless I'm wrong, nothing on the rules page say anything about upvoting stuff of that nature

azero said:
How do we know this will not extend to upvoting/favoriting posts that some might find offensive and/or crude, take some of the posts tagged with nazi such as these:

There's a difference between posts that happen to have nazi themes, and posts/comments glorifying the nazi regime. Obviously if a post is allowed here, you're allowed to upvote it. You're allowed to comment on it too, saying they look sexy/beautiful. But you wouldn't be allowed to say "Hitler did nothing wrong" on it, nor should you be upvoting such a comment. Or to think of it another way, if it's the kind of comment that should be reported for blatant trolling or glorifying warcrimes or other illegal acts, don't upvote it.

azero said:
How do we know this will not extend to upvoting/favoriting posts that some might find offensive and/or crude, take some of the posts tagged with nazi such as these:

Why would they?

There's a big difference between banning users based on the likes or favourites they have on art that is allowed on this site depicting "controversial" or "edgy" themes, and banning individuals who have a pattern of upvoting comments which inherently create a more hostile community - comments with conspiratorial, bigoted, violent extremist, and pro-fascist/neo-nazi messaging and/or glorification of those things.

My guess is that a good number of, if not the vast majority of, users who have liked or favourited a pinup of a furry in Nazi uniform don't support Nazism at all, and would have liked the art just as much, if not more, if it were a generic uniform.

watsit said:
-snip-

hungrymaple said:
-snip-

Ok I admit that wasn't the best of examples, I was just trying to not be too specific and all that, my bad. Let me give it another shot.
Lets say UserA submits PostA, PostA is overly offensive or just of very bad taste, but no action has been taken yet because the mods were asleep or something idk, Tten UserB upvotes/favorites for whatever reason, a couple of hours later the mods come and take actions accordindly, and PostA is no more (UserA probably gets banned too which is to be expected).
In the end, will UserB suffer any consequence for upvoting/fav PostA?

Maybe I am just overthinking it and being paranoid. Could also be the Monster Energy drink I had earlier.

sengorn_leopardae said:
-snip-

I know I sound like a broken vynil record at this point, but the thing that concerns me that most is the upvoting part of it. If these are merely account created for the sole purpose of upvoting distasteful content (which would technically fall under vote manipullation anyway) and nothing more, that's understandable, however, some of these (accounts) were created as far as 2013. The idea of upvoting a distasteful comment and then suddenly getting permabanned with no way to appeal doesn't sit right with me. It is the first time I have seen this happen. I say this because not even Youtube would punish you for liking a video that was later removed due to being related to a tragic event.

I have a rule of thumb of avoiding any kind of political discussion, even going as far as not even mention anything about any IRL current event for good measure, besides, one of the reasons I come here is to get away for a couple of minutes from that dreadful thing we know as reality.

watsit said:
There's a difference between posts that happen to have nazi themes, and posts/comments glorifying the nazi regime. Obviously if a post is allowed here, you're allowed to upvote it. You're allowed to comment on it too, saying they look sexy/beautiful. But you wouldn't be allowed to say "Hitler did nothing wrong" on it, nor should you be upvoting such a comment. Or to think of it another way, if it's the kind of comment that should be reported for blatant trolling or glorifying warcrimes or other illegal acts, don't upvote it.

Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous

As far as I know, that's never happened. It's always been as a result of what they've actually said, or promoted via action (upvoting heinous statements to give it more apparent legitimacy).

watsit said:
As far as I know, that's never happened. It's always been as a result of what they've actually said, or promoted via action (upvoting heinous statements to give it more apparent legitimacy).

There are people who do not actually believe in that and just upvote because they find it funny. There are people who really like dark humor.

electricitywolf said:
There are people who do not actually believe in that and just upvote because they find it funny. There are people who really like dark humor.

There's a difference between dark humor, and promoting anti-semetic and conspiratorial statements, or statements making light of a recent hate crime that targeted a group of people like some here.

watsit said:
There's a difference between dark humor, and promoting anti-semetic and conspiratorial statements, or statements making light of a recent hate crime that targeted a group of people like some here.

There are many people who just like to troll and don't actually believe in that.

azero said:
Ok I admit that wasn't the best of examples, I was just trying to not be too specific and all that, my bad. Let me give it another shot.
Lets say UserA submits PostA, PostA is overly offensive or just of very bad taste, but no action has been taken yet because the mods were asleep or something idk, Tten UserB upvotes/favorites for whatever reason, a couple of hours later the mods come and take actions accordindly, and PostA is no more (UserA probably gets banned too which is to be expected).
In the end, will UserB suffer any consequence for upvoting/fav PostA?

Let's take a non-hypothetical example. Every so often, some troll or other unsavoury character uploads actual CP to e621. These are the only posts the staff actually delete - as in, if you try to visit the post IDs, you'll get a 404, not just the usual "deleted post" page. I've never seen them in person, but I like to browse the ticket queue every so often and every time this happens it leaves a noticeable scar on the record, which stands out even among the usual regular effluence of "I dun like cub" reports.

Would you say the staff would be unjustified in taking action against any user who upvotes or favourites such a post, or indeed takes any action short of immediately reporting it? Bear in mind that the responses to such reports include advice on how to securely purge any remaining trace of the image from your browser's cache, which is a few steps above even the scorched-earth approach being demonstrated towards Nazi content right now.

electricitywolf said:
There are many people who just like to troll and don't actually believe in that.

And trolling, which is clearly against the rules, is what they got in trouble for. And the moderators felt that the stuff being espoused was so grossly uncouth, along with the fact that a number of comments were by old accounts that had never said anything previously, that it was ban worthy.

electricitywolf said:
There are many people who just like to troll and don't actually believe in that.

The issue is that it doesnt matter, if someone fooled others into thinking they were a Nazi, all they did was succeed in making people believe they were a nazi for saying things literally only a nazi would say.

Theres a line between rationalities that has to be drawn.

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

This site doesn't have an obligation to host troll comments that promote or glorify things that will create a less welcoming community for users in the interest of "equal ideas", if you believe that extremists need a platform to post in order to be debated and deradicalized, e621 is simply not that platform.

aversioncapacitor' said:
comments are art too :)

no wonder the lol comments tag exists.

as others have mentioned, the first problem is that you're taking a non-neutral stance against a perspective or belief meant to be anonymous to everyone; only the mass userbase is visible. the second problem is that these people were removed without warning.

if you want to dictate e621 as a safe harbour for only the left-leaning side of the fandom, then that's totally up to you. the apparent majority here don't really take this place seriously, even more now because of actions like this one.

dumb jokes, especially so ones you have explicitly forbidden, have every right to get beaned. but man, my best practice is to wait it out and see what develops.

Two things here:
1) If you make a comment we can still see it after hiding (or even editing and hiding it).
2) Do you really want your stance to be that we're creating a left-leaning safe haven by disallowing black people being called primates or that we disallow the use of "glowingn*gg*rf*gg*t" and just complete batshit QAnon insanity?

lonelylupine said:
That's actually the definition of political. I'm not complaining, of course, fuck those guys and I hope they never have a happy day their whole lives, but it's absolutely political. Politics isn't "I support such and such candidates," but about the conflict of ideas, and it is a political act to stomp out some ideas, even if, especially if, those ideas are repugnant.

We're not stomping out any ideas, we're removing their spokespeople from a privately owned space. If the government would put those people into prison and disallow them any contact to the outside world it would absolutely be political, but we're doing the equivalent of throwing unruly costumers out of a bar where they are a nuisance towards other visitors and staff. They have every permission to spout their "opinions" in exactly every other place without any restrictions whatsoever, just not here.

werideatdawn said:
That's my main concern to be honest. Say what you want about people upvoting or downvoting certain things, but the only thing in the rules regarding votes are that we can't vote with multiple accounts on the same posts or comments, or (from what I observed) target a user with downvotes across multiple comments. Unless I'm wrong, nothing on the rules page say anything about upvoting stuff of that nature.

The rules already grant us leeway so we can react to things we haven't anticipated. But the rules will be updated to reflect it as soon as we figure out how to word it more gooder.

azero said:
I wish I could answer without risking a permant ban, but seeing as upvoting the wrong kind of comment is enough to get you banned, I'd rather not test my luck.

Besides, with many of the accounts being a couple of years old (so we know they weren't created yesterday), I noticed that some of them had 0 comments/posts, so one can assume that these were erased/hidden (the comments that is). Then again, without knowing what the comment was and simply leaving the reason as troll, doesn't leave one much to work with. Not to mention that many of these account only had 1 record at the time of their deletion, knowing they didn't even get to appeal the record, but outright deleted without previous notice.

To be frank, walking on eggshells isn't my thing as there too little to gain and so much to lose, and I am well aware that by replying to one of the admins of the site is already a very risky move, so here I am just hoping this isn't my last post on this site.

I can offer you a single use, one time guarantee you will not be banned for an honest answer, as long as you don't try and wave your dick over the line of acceptable discourse. If it doesn't contain any insults, slurs, or blatant dog whistles you're perfectly safe in voicing your opinion. And if you need to use one of those things as examples to help illustrate a point polish the turd up a little so it's presentable as an exhibit.

glitchtree said:
Ok, I agree with you, but why is nazi art allowed here then? Even if the art doesn't picture anything graphic, why do nazifurs get to have their art here at all. Nothing more racist and conspiracy fuelled than nazism

Art has more nuance to it than a comment calling the black victims primates. If art has that same statement as the only message of it the art will be deleted anyway.

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

So, the alternative is to let every site become a cesspit like all those other sites that allow that kind of people to flourish? If we have to pick between getting rid of racists and the racists getting rid of regular people we're going to side with the regular people. Not only are there more of those it just feels a lot better when the climate on the side isn't all just dog whistles or derogatory """humor""".

electricitywolf said:
There are many people who just like to troll and don't actually believe in that.

And that's why I banned them for being trolls instead of racists or QAnon followers. If your only idea of a successful troll is being racist don't be surprised you'll get treated as one. Plenty of ways to troll without making or supporting blatantly racist statements or QAnon conspiracies.

electricitywolf said:
There are people who do not actually believe in that and just upvote because they find it funny. There are people who really like dark humor.

I havent responded to any of this because im confused as hell as to whats going on, but my stance on dark humour is this: are you the one on the gallows or are you just a part of the execution? Because i feel like theres a difference between the two when it comes to dark humour

zer0rebel4 said:
I havent responded to any of this because im confused as hell as to whats going on, [...]

If you want the very short cliff notes the buffalo city shooter from the weekend had an image that's featured on the site here shown briefly in the livestream shortly before he went on to commit his atrocity. This was seen by a bunch of people on /pol/ who then turned it into meme material and came here to troll the situation. We cracked down on the racist and conspiracy garbage, banned a few hundred people as a result, and that made a lot of those same people very angry.

notmenotyou said:
-snip-

I actually wasn't aware of the connection between that event and this site, I am not currently in America atm so that might have something to do with it, so I did a bit of digging and managed to see the whole picture (literally and figuratively), honestly would've been better to simply not allow new comments temporarily (leaving the old ones unrelated to the event intact), maybe it wasn't a site function at the time, so that's an idea that could be implemented down the line, just saying.

wat8548 said:
-snip-

I believe that's going a bit too far, in your example getting banned would be the least of your worries, as it would not longer be a matter of it being offensive/crude but downright illegal. I don't think most people, myself included, would say the staff was unjustified in their actions in this specific case. Because I know that they would get in trouble if they didn't act fast enough, even the site itself could get shutdown.
I will too use a real example, just a couple of decades off, picture this:
The year is 2001, just a day after 9/11, when browsing the site you suddenly come across this...
post #378180
It had just being posted, no more than 10 seconds ago, It would not be unexpected for this image to be deleted sooner or later due to the current circumstances
After clicking on the image, for whatever reason (I'm not judging),_{JK I am judging}when you notice that a couple of...peculiar people had already favorited it
Would you say that those who gave their "seal of approval" to this post deserve to get permabanned. And I quote:

Would you say the staff would be unjustified in taking action against any user who upvotes or favourites such a post

Sure, the image is of very poor taste, not illegal however.

azero said:
I actually wasn't aware of the connection between that event and this site, I am not currently in America atm so that might have something to do with it, so I did a bit of digging and managed to see the whole picture (literally and figuratively), honestly would've been better to simply not allow new comments temporarily (leaving the old ones unrelated to the event intact), maybe it wasn't a site function at the time, so that's an idea that could be implemented down the line, just saying.

It is now. Probably something they had in the works and pulled asap at the request of Nym.

2) Do you really want your stance to be that we're creating a left-leaning safe haven by disallowing black people being called primates or that we disallow the use of "glowingn*gg*rf*gg*t" and just complete batshit QAnon insanity?

Eh. Yeah, I'll run with that.

Again, I don't believe in that junk. It shouldn't exist on the site. As an art gallery those people are free to remain quiet and to not disturb others. I also don't believe in revoking user's access to the gallery simply because they quietly agree with them.

But it's pretty clear with what's written I have no more sway in the matter.

If the government would put those people into prison and disallow them any contact to the outside world it would absolutely be political, but we're doing the equivalent of throwing unruly costumers out of a bar where they are a nuisance towards other visitors and staff. They have every permission to spout their "opinions" in exactly every other place without any restrictions whatsoever, just not here.

prolly closer to a city park instead of a bar I think.

If we have to pick between getting rid of racists and the racists getting rid of regular people we're going to side with the regular people. Not only are there more of those it just feels a lot better when the climate on the side isn't all just dog whistles or derogatory """humor""".

🤷‍♂️ aight

edited out comment by myself:

How do you know those people originate from /pol/? If anything, the crackdown is what drew a bunch of people in, less so the image.

yeah, i just looked over the report queue. peeps gonna be doing this for the next month

aversioncapacitor' said:
It is now. Probably something they had in the works and pulled asap at the request of Nym.

How do you know those people originate from /pol/? There's maybe, 5-10% of that subset that's even aware of e6's existence. If anything, the crackdown is what drew a bunch of people in, less so the image.

Eh. Yeah, I'll run with that.

Again, I don't believe in that junk. It shouldn't exist on the site. As an art gallery those people are free to remain quiet and to not disturb others. I also don't believe in revoking user's access rights to the gallery simply because they quietly agree with them.

Looking at the git commit history it seems to have been done right on the spot

https://github.com/zwagoth/e621ng/pull/409

aversioncapacitor' said:
Eh. Yeah, I'll run with that.

Again, I don't believe in that junk. It shouldn't exist on the site. As an art gallery those people are free to remain quiet and to not disturb others. I also don't believe in revoking user's access to the gallery simply because they quietly agree with them.

But it's pretty clear with what's written I have no more sway in the matter.

It's not quietly if people can see the agreement, and it's very much a thorn in other people's eyes when there are groups of people openly proclaiming that others should be killed or are not worth to be considered human. Respect about the other person's worth as human has to be absolute in order for a society to exist. Any person that does not abide by that and instead considers some to be less than human is a threat to those people, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

aversioncapacitor' said:
prolly closer to a city park instead of a bar I think.

How so? We created it from the ground up, we pay all bills, we maintain it. Public parks are funded and maintained by at least a local group, usually a government body. The fact that we allow the public entry does not make it a public place. And since we own and maintain it we get to set the rules, and part of those is that we require people to behave civil towards all other visitors.

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

People aren't getting banned for what they think.

They're getting banned because they're saying those thoughts out loud on this site, and being told to either keep it to themselves or take it somewhere else.

This is the other side of freedom-of-speech; you can say whatever you like, but that doesn't mean people have to keep you around if you do.

notmenotyou said:

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

So, the alternative is to let every site become a cesspit like all those other sites that allow that kind of people to flourish? If we have to pick between getting rid of racists and the racists getting rid of regular people we're going to side with the regular people. Not only are there more of those it just feels a lot better when the climate on the side isn't all just dog whistles or derogatory """humor""".

That is not what i meant. I just don't like the idea of getting banned for a comment i did not made.

About dog whistles, it is very easy to get a false positive or a false negative (the OK sign, for example). Also there are people who don't know what that means and they just say it because "cool" people say it. There are also a lot of people who use the same language as racists on purpose, without the intention to troll or being racist, for example libertarians and some right to repair activists.

What if we are doing exactly what the trolls wanted? What if they wanted to cause drama on the site?

...every site on the internet has drama. Why'd they care if such is here? Kind of a moot point to do such.

electricitywolf said:
What if we are doing exactly what the trolls wanted? What if they wanted to cause drama on the site?

The trolls came from the pol board of 4chan once the pic was discovered they linked the image from e621 to the site and were pretty obviously trying to do what pol does best and that's flamewar. I know this cause I was on the site when it happened. The trolls upon the main thread here being censored have gone on to make many Martha related posts on 4chan boards like /co/ and /v/ these threads are also deleted. I if anything was surprised how many of them already had accounts here. It was a raid nothing more nothing less.

zer0rebel4 said:
Seems these past few days a lot of shits been going on, and i just wanna say that the mods are doing a really good job at keeping everything at bay, and that i appreciate them :)

The amount of perms bans is a bit frightening though. I feel bad for those socially inept that just want to show their appreciation for art, but can’t do it without coming across as creepy.

soursylveon said:
The amount of perms bans is a bit frightening though. I feel bad for those socially inept that just want to show their appreciation for art, but can’t do it without coming across as creepy.

It's not that many.
By my count, about 150 people were banned in the original event on 5/16, plus about 10 more for later posts and comments.
I have later banned 107 accounts for ban evasion, although since a few people made multiple accounts, the actual number of ban evaders is somewhat lower, somewhere around 80.
Quite a few of those posted about it on 4chan, back where the raid began. It was both hilarious and helpful, since they posted screenshots of their ban messages, making it clear who to watch out for.

Keep in mind that e621 gets about over 700 new users every day.
And since those who were banned barely ever interacted with the site anyways, it's no great loss.

electricitywolf said:
That is not what i meant. I just don't like the idea of getting banned for a comment i did not made.

If you put your seal of approval on a racist slur it does not matter that you didn't make the comment yourself, you're making it clear you approve of the message and signal you support it.

electricitywolf said:
About dog whistles, it is very easy to get a false positive or a false negative (the OK sign, for example). Also there are people who don't know what that means and they just say it because "cool" people say it. There are also a lot of people who use the same language as racists on purpose, without the intention to troll or being racist, for example libertarians and some right to repair activists.

Dog whistles are always used in context, otherwise they aren't dog whistles. Nobody blows a dog whistle without expecting a dog to hear and react to it. If you truly believe there is no way to determine whether a certain gesture or statement was used as a dog whistle you haven't looked into how they're used enough. More words hold different meanings depending on the context they're used in than words exist that only have one singular meaning, this isn't any different.

electricitywolf said:
Banning users for what they think would be disastrous, not just for the site, but also for the furry fandom and maybe for the society. Deplatforming only makes extremists more so. Having those people around gives them a chance to change.

i don't believe that it does. allowing nazis to post nazism on your forum about things that are not nazism will only drive away non-nazis because the point of nazism is to terrorise and do violence to non-nazis. nazism is infamous for it. queer people, racial minorities and people with disabilities don't want to come to a forum about hobbies and have to argue that they deserve to live or feel that it's just not safe to post because there's a lurking nazi presence that very well might hunt them down.

these people aren't simply banned "for what they think", in the abstract. they are excised from the community because they poison and destroy it.

soursylveon said:
The amount of perms bans is a bit frightening though. I feel bad for those socially inept that just want to show their appreciation for art, but can’t do it without coming across as creepy.

I feel bad about hypotheticals that don't ever happen too.

You people are borderline disturbing about you don't seem to get how social rules don't just disappear when you're online. Do you act like this in public? Do you attend a display of the Venus de Milo, hoot about how her breasts are hanging out, and whine that you were only just "appreciating art" as you are dragged away?

"I like how her boobs were drawn, they really portrayed it well" might be lewd, but it's acceptable.
"I want boobs like that" puts yourself into the place of the art and is not acceptable.
"I want to shove my face into those boobs" puts yourself interacting with the art and is not acceptable.

watsit said:
As far as I know, that's never happened. It's always been as a result of what they've actually said, or promoted via action (upvoting heinous statements to give it more apparent legitimacy).

Banning based on vote history is getting at least close to policing how people can think, even if they are crazy.

Especially when people also upvote based on rape, murder, and many crazy things on the same site lol. Unless it was like, damage control, or whatever from what seemed like a planned attack thing

camkitty said:
Banning based on vote history is getting at least close to policing how people can think, even if they are crazy.

Is there much difference between upvoting an apparently non-ironic hateful statement or conspiracy theory, compared to quoting said statement with a "+1"? In both cases, they aren't technically the one saying it, but they're giving it their approval/endorsement as if it is something they'd say and boosting its visibility.

camkitty said:
Especially when people also upvote based on rape, murder, and many crazy things on the same site lol.

On art. Fiction. Which is different from reality, unlike what those comments appeared to be. There have been repercussions for people supporting images that have no artistic merit and only used art to spread a hateful message.

camkitty said:
Banning based on vote history is getting at least close to policing how people can think, even if they are crazy.

Especially when people also upvote based on rape, murder, and many crazy things on the same site lol. Unless it was like, damage control, or whatever from what seemed like a planned attack thing

Upvoting things that encourage specific and violent real life politics/ideologies is different from upvoting broad fictional violence.

asriel13 said:
Upvoting things that encourage specific and violent real life politics/ideologies is different from upvoting broad fictional violence.

While yes, there was plenty of dark humour and upvotes on, say, that famous 9/11 picture. I don't disagree, but it has happened before lol

Again, I care not, but it does just make one just want to not vote, even on benign pictures lol.

Meh whatever I guess

camkitty said:
While yes, there was plenty of dark humour and upvotes on, say, that famous 9/11 picture. I don't disagree, but it has happened before lol

Whatever's going on, real racial motivation or a socially inept dumb teenager, mods don't want to touch the shooting with a 50-foot pole. Artwork referring to it but not depicting violence is getting knocked on sight. Guess we'll just have to let the dust settle for some time.

I'm glad we got some art out of this regardless.

There is also people who accidentally upvote a comment or upvote the wrong comment. It happens a lot on mobile devices.

manyura said:
The trolls came from the pol board of 4chan once the pic was discovered they linked the image from e621 to the site and were pretty obviously trying to do what pol does best and that's flamewar. I know this cause I was on the site when it happened. The trolls upon the main thread here being censored have gone on to make many Martha related posts on 4chan boards like /co/ and /v/ these threads are also deleted. I if anything was surprised how many of them already had accounts here. It was a raid nothing more nothing less.

It seems like they won. Comments can now be locked and sticky comments can not be voted.

electricitywolf said:
There is also people who accidentally upvote a comment or upvote the wrong comment. It happens a lot on mobile devices.

It seems like they won. Comments can now be locked and sticky comments can not be voted.

How sad.

Alexa, play Despacito.

electricitywolf said:
There is also people who accidentally upvote a comment or upvote the wrong comment. It happens a lot on mobile devices.

It seems like they won. Comments can now be locked and sticky comments can not be voted.

How is that a win for the trolls? It sounds like their trolling led to an oversight in how comments work being fixed.

electricitywolf said:
There is also people who accidentally upvote a comment or upvote the wrong comment. It happens a lot on mobile devices.

It seems like they won. Comments can now be locked and sticky comments can not be voted.

They didn't win anything. Them winning would be more like the picture getting taken down. I actually asked for that comment thread to be locked myself. So I feel like I won if anybody did lmao. Mods on 4chan can delete a thread on site if it's it's troll post or becoming a flamewar and ban accordingly. I thought simply it should be that way here as well. So I see it as a good thing. However the post did have some good comments on it before this all started and I kinda wish to see them return. The comments that were up for months you know what I mean?

manyura said:
They didn't win anything. Them winning would be more like the picture getting taken down. I actually asked for that comment thread to be locked myself. So I feel like I won if anybody did lmao. Mods on 4chan can delete a thread on site if it's it's troll post or becoming a flamewar and ban accordingly. I thought simply it should be that way here as well. So I see it as a good thing. However the post did have some good comments on it before this all started and I kinda wish to see them return. The comments that were up for months you know what I mean?

At this point, I think it's fairly obvious that he's concern-trolling, as are most people who respond to common sense moderation with "b-b-but free speech..."

Voting on comments and posts should always be free. Ne exceptions.

Putting any kind of restrictions on voting is taking us farther and farther towards full-blown authoritarianism.

supina said:
Putting any kind of restrictions on voting is taking us farther and farther towards full-blown authoritarianism.

Watch the words you use... e621 is private, and not a government...

supina said:
Voting on comments and posts should always be free. Ne exceptions.

Putting any kind of restrictions on voting is taking us farther and farther towards full-blown authoritarianism.

Well, no one is making you to use the site. Let alone the fact they can just yeet folks off the site for whatever reason they see fit.

supina said:
Voting on comments and posts should always be free. Ne exceptions.

Putting any kind of restrictions on voting is taking us farther and farther towards full-blown authoritarianism.

Well we can only upvote so much in time already. Are we already there?