https://e621.net/posts/3610274?q=tricksta
https://e621.net/posts/3609275?q=tricksta
https://e621.net/posts/3610270?q=tricksta

The animation was done as charity by the artist who animated it, and every comment, view, fave, and upvote on that art was well deserved by the person who took the time and effort to make it possible.

Someone decided to flag both of the most popular versions of the 3 as inferior to the least popular one of the 3, and without question, both of the trending animations got taken down.

There is no reason both the version posted before, and the version posted after would both be considered inferior to the one one posted in between those two.

A simple check of the source link would show there are in fact 3 versions of the animation here, and all 3 have something different going on with it. https://inkbunny.net/s/2826389

Maybe it was a honest mistake, however at this point It's my belief whoever did this had the intention of getting those taken down for the fact they were doing so well, and was knowledgeable of the fact,
no one would actually look into what was being claimed before swift actions was taken.

It to me feels like something that can happen with any post that has multiple versions on here right now, and I only hope it's an issue that could be prevented in the future.

tricksta said:
Maybe it was a honest mistake, however at this point It's my belief whoever did this had the intention of getting those taken down for the fact they were doing so well, and was knowledgeable of the fact,
no one would actually look into what was being claimed before swift actions was taken.

but like... why, though? what motive could there possibly be for doing this maliciously? what could Maro possibly gain by doing this? why would you jump to this conclusion, especially when the reasons to do it with no ill intent are pretty obvious: one of the posts is was a GIF, a really bad format for animation in general because of the massive filesize for the terrible visual fidelity; the other post is just identical to the one that remains up but lacks the music, I can kinda see why that one could be left up, but like, ehh.

EDIT: at least the one on IB is a GIF, the metatags for all 3 on here say webm, so what the hell is the third one then...

Seems pretty clear that the other two should be restored.

darryus said:
EDIT: at least the one on IB is a GIF, the metatags for all 3 on here say webm, so what the hell is the third one then...

Sfan (the artist on Inkbunny) originally published a version with *really* loud music. Then they replaced it with the two that are currently there

cyberpunch051 said:
Seems pretty clear that the other two should be restored.

Yeah its patently obvious that this was a mistake.

darryus said:
but like... why, though? what motive could there possibly be for doing this maliciously? what could Maro possibly gain by doing this? why would you jump to this conclusion, especially when the reasons to do it with no ill intent are pretty obvious: one of the posts is was a GIF, a really bad format for animation in general because of the massive filesize for the terrible visual fidelity; the other post is just identical to the one that remains up but lacks the music, I can kinda see why that one could be left up, but like, ehh.

EDIT: at least the one on IB is a GIF, the metatags for all 3 on here say webm, so what the hell is the third one then...

Not malice. Mairo literally just does this sometimes bc they go too quickly through flags for repeats. They probably saw that they were the same image. Didnt check to see the animation or audio differences and just arbitrarily went through w it.

The flagger on the other hand likely was malicious bc theres no reason TO flag stuff like this outside of being a dick.

demesejha said:
The flagger on the other hand likely was malicious bc theres no reason TO flag stuff like this outside of being a dick.

no one flagged these posts, though.

darryus said:
no one flagged these posts, though.

Then i got no answer. Mairo has done this before so it just, happens.

Love the dramatic take on OP.
All flags are manually handled, so if there is cases where alt versions are removed, that usually means they shouldn't have been approved to begin with.

And there definitely has been cases like this with stuff like unlimited YCH comms where approver didn't see the other ten versions already uploaded.

strikerman said:
Sfan (the artist on Inkbunny) originally published a version with *really* loud music. Then they replaced it with the two that are currently there

Everyone is saying that all three versions need to be restored because they are all alt versions, then you are saying what I was seeing where one of the versions was actually updated rather than an alt.
...meaning that that version shouldn't be restored even if we did accept multiple audio versions?

And yet with this information, you didn't bother flag that version for deletion yourself?

demesejha said:
Not malice. Mairo literally just does this sometimes bc they go too quickly through flags for repeats. They probably saw that they were the same image. Didnt check to see the animation or audio differences and just arbitrarily went through w it.

The flagger on the other hand likely was malicious bc theres no reason TO flag stuff like this outside of being a dick.

Wasn't flagged, I literally went through these manually and I literally spend more than regular amount of time double checking the differences.
Audio is irrelevant factor, so we do not keep multiple versions of posts just for differend audio. Technically we shouldn't accept audio edits to begin with either.

mairo said:
Love the dramatic take on OP.
All flags are manually handled, so if there is cases where alt versions are removed, that usually means they shouldn't have been approved to begin with.

And there definitely has been cases like this with stuff like unlimited YCH comms where approver didn't see the other ten versions already uploaded.

Everyone is saying that all three versions need to be restored because they are all alt versions, then you are saying what I was seeing where one of the versions was actually updated rather than an alt.
...meaning that that version shouldn't be restored even if we did accept multiple audio versions?

And yet with this information, you didn't bother flag that version for deletion yourself?

Wasn't flagged, I literally went through these manually and I literally spend more than regular amount of time double checking the differences.
Audio is irrelevant factor, so we do not keep multiple versions of posts just for differend audio. Technically we shouldn't accept audio edits to begin with either.

demesejha said:
Then i got no answer. Mairo has done this before so it just, happens.

I was told from that admin the audio is irrelevant, if the animation appears identical in 2 or more versions only one will be kept here.
I replied with the following

I was unaware of this policy. So basically if there was multiple versions of an animation with different audio like in this case, only one would be kept here? Like if the animation had characters speak in English in a dub, and characters spoke in Spanish in another you would just choose one of the two because the art looked identical. It's truly unfortunate. The artist themselves removed the music from the video and posted a version without any music after people complained in the comments for the first version posted regarding the music was too distracting. The viewers agreed with the change and the post with out music was becoming the most popular of the 3 versions. "Without question" you, or whoever was involved with making the decision to choose the version with the music still in place (the least popular version) and kept that as the most ideal version despite the comments the community left and the action the artist took to remove the music which he community agreed with.

I as the as the artist who created the original image agree with the changes that were made in the version that followed the one you or whoever is involved decided to keep. I disapprove of the decision to keep the one that remains as superior to any of the other two.

I have no intent to challenge that policy, or the actions of the staff further. It's simple...when in Rome...

mairo said:
Audio is irrelevant factor, so we do not keep multiple versions of posts just for differend audio. Technically we shouldn't accept audio edits to begin with either.

at some point you have to at least recognize that audio has become more and more of a significant portion of videos and animations on this site

strikerman said:
at some point you have to at least recognize that audio has become more and more of a significant portion of videos and animations on this site

This. Ignoring it wont make it go away

tricksta said:
I was told from that admin the audio is irrelevant, if the animation appears identical in 2 or more versions only one will be kept here.
I replied with the following

Do keep in mind I'm not an admin, I follow guidelines and examples set.
So if you want to ask for more proper ruling or contest further, ask an admin, but in this instance I'm fairly certain that this is how we have dealt with these situations in past as well.

strikerman said:
at some point you have to at least recognize that audio has become more and more of a significant portion of videos and animations on this site

If the audio was drastically different, then perhaps you would have an argument here.
But this is just the exact same animation, where one version has no music at all, the other does have some music, and the third has the same music, but it's barely audible.
The users have volume controls. This is not really necessary.

strikerman said:
at some point you have to at least recognize that audio has become more and more of a significant portion of videos and animations on this site

No one's saying stuff with audio isn't welcome. Videos made with audio by its creators are fine. This is just talking about alts and edits. Edits already have a quality bar to pass. If someone takes an image, and adds a tree to the background, it most likely wouldn't be an acceptable edit. Or if someone takes a Tom Fischbach piece and draws a single line to make a pussy on an already nude character, or some circles on their breasts to make nipples, it likely wouldn't be acceptable. So if someone just takes an existing animation and leaves the video portion completely untouched, and throws on some stock sound effects, some generic background music, or some quiet breathing-into-microphone noises, should that be enough to surpass the quality bar for edits?

bitwolfy said:
If the audio was drastically different, then perhaps you would have an argument here.
But this is just the exact same animation, where one version has no music at all, the other does have some music, and the third has the same music, but it's barely audible.
The users have volume controls. This is not really necessary.

Bear in mind the videos also have sound effects irrespective of the music, and volume controls don't exactly have the finesse to control the music separately from sfx. I'd at least make an argument for keeping the version w/o the music and one of the versions with music.

watsit said:
No one's saying stuff with audio isn't welcome. Videos made with audio by its creators are fine. This is just talking about alts and edits. Edits already have a quality bar to pass. If someone takes an image, and adds a tree to the background, it most likely wouldn't be an acceptable edit. Or if someone takes a Tom Fischbach piece and draws a single line to make a pussy on an already nude character, or some circles on their breasts to make nipples, it likely wouldn't be acceptable. So if someone just takes an existing animation and leaves the video portion completely untouched, and throws on some stock sound effects, some generic background music, or some quiet breathing-into-microphone noises, should that be enough to surpass the quality bar for edits?

strikerman said:
at some point you have to at least recognize that audio has become more and more of a significant portion of videos and animations on this site

strikerman said:
Bear in mind the videos also have sound effects irrespective of the music, and volume controls don't exactly have the finesse to control the music separately from sfx. I'd at least make an argument for keeping the version w/o the music and one of the versions with music.

Honestly nothing I could say can change anything. I just draw, and my art gets posted. if it gets taken down it gets taken down I can only hope it's justified.

mairo said:
Do keep in mind I'm not an admin, I follow guidelines and examples set.
So if you want to ask for more proper ruling or contest further, ask an admin, but in this instance I'm fairly certain that this is how we have dealt with these situations in past as well.

My mistake, you appeared to have taken administrative actions here. After the conversation, it was made clear it's your decision, and that's nonnegotiable. as it was said:

whatever the author says is irrelevant

mrgh

strikerman said:
mrgh

I can see that getting out of hand quickly.
"If only there was a version with just SFX and no music"
"If only there was a version with just music and no SFX"
"If only there was a version with slightly quieter SFX and slightly louder music"
"If only there was a version with much louder SFX and quieter music"
"If only there was a version with slightly louder SFX and no music"
...
All with no relevant change to the visuals.

watsit said:
I can see that getting out of hand quickly.
"If only there was a version with just SFX and no music"
"If only there was a version with just music and no SFX"
"If only there was a version with slightly quieter SFX and slightly louder music"
"If only there was a version with much louder SFX and quieter music"
"If only there was a version with slightly louder SFX and no music"
...
All with no relevant change to the visuals.

There's a very obvious point to terminate the slippery slope: volume differences are ignored, just whether or not the sound is present at all.