I know this is paysite content. I follow the artist on Patreon. This is one of his monthly Patreon rewards. He did not authorize it to be posted here. I did not get a single notification when my flag was "resolved" and the post remained up.

https://e621.net/posts/2907827

https://e621.net/post_events?search%5Bpost_id%5D=2907827

@Mairo removed the flag about a day ago. Other than that, I don't know.

The link is "Events" under history, for Post Events.

Edit: And now NotMeNotYou deleted it.

lance_armstrong said:
https://e621.net/post_events?search%5Bpost_id%5D=2907827

@Mairo removed the flag about a day ago. Other than that, I don't know.

The link is "Events" under history, for Post Events.

Edit: And now NotMeNotYou deleted it.

I poked him about it. Thank you for responding.

Because it was flagged with paid content, with zero proof nor sources provided anywhere, I had to put it to be the last post to go though (hundreds of flags pending yesterday), then do detective work if it actually is paid content or not.
Edited the post with the proof, then at that point I guess I clicked the wrong button and unflagged instead of deleting. Huge majority of these cases where people flag for paid material without proof it actually isn't paid material and the user simply wants the post deleted for personal reasons, they get unflagged so might've been muscle memory after adding the source.

pheagleadler said:
I did not get a single notification when my flag was "resolved" and the post remained up.

Flags do not send any messages or anything (I don't believe on other platforms either? outside twitter saying "thanks for making platform better place" without saying how the flag was handled), because with those you are notifying staff to double check on post and staff handles it fully after that. Tickets and takedowns send confirmations as you are directly dealing with the whatever the matter is with staff.
Also there are some cases where determining if the content is paid material or not is basically impossible for us, because with many crowdsourcing platforms you cannot see anything outside slight blur and title which requires much more manual searching and figuring out, so if someone who is pledging even provides a link to the direct post would help work immensily.

Artists do always have additional power to takedown whatever post for whatever reason, so in instances where paid material does get posted here, they can additionally do takedown on it to ensure it's deleted ASAP.

mairo said:
Because it was flagged with paid content, with zero proof nor sources provided anywhere, I had to put it to be the last post to go though (hundreds of flags pending yesterday), then do detective work if it actually is paid content or not.
Edited the post with the proof, then at that point I guess I clicked the wrong button and unflagged instead of deleting. Huge majority of these cases where people flag for paid material without proof it actually isn't paid material and the user simply wants the post deleted for personal reasons, they get unflagged so might've been muscle memory after adding the source.

Flags do not send any messages or anything (I don't believe on other platforms either? outside twitter saying "thanks for making platform better place" without saying how the flag was handled), because with those you are notifying staff to double check on post and staff handles it fully after that. Tickets and takedowns send confirmations as you are directly dealing with the whatever the matter is with staff.
Also there are some cases where determining if the content is paid material or not is basically impossible for us, because with many crowdsourcing platforms you cannot see anything outside slight blur and title which requires much more manual searching and figuring out, so if someone who is pledging even provides a link to the direct post would help work immensily.

Artists do always have additional power to takedown whatever post for whatever reason, so in instances where paid material does get posted here, they can additionally do takedown on it to ensure it's deleted ASAP.

This was one huge issue with some country's takedown laws. Some don't require you to provide a URL, hash, sample, etc. Basically letting lawyers troll the staff who have to deal with this nonsense of "remove it, but read my mind". Yeah, providing a URL to the actual post or at least a date and their Patreon account should be required? At the very least, you'll get faster results when reporting it.

alphamule said:
This was one huge issue with some country's takedown laws. Some don't require you to provide a URL, hash, sample, etc. Basically letting lawyers troll the staff who have to deal with this nonsense of "remove it, but read my mind". Yeah, providing a URL to the actual post or at least a date and their Patreon account should be required? At the very least, you'll get faster results when reporting it.

No, proof isn't required when flagging for anything. This is because if you as user genuinely believe that post is indeed paid material or traced, but don't have any proof, it's still better that staff is notified about it so we can then take a look.
Really often it's stuff like absurdly high definition artwork gets posted from artist, who only posts JPG messes on furaffinity, their patreon tier states HD quality being benefit and the artwork cannot be found on public sources. That's relatively 1+1 when also combined with other factors like brand new account posting it, artist not taking commissions, etc. and there's not really any URLs at that point to point towards.

So what I'm saying here is that PheagleAdler did still do correctly and I did still do what I needed to do, but definitely bad on my part, were it missclick on muscle memory or something else.

However if you flag contriversal post as being trace of another artists work, then there's no sources, no description, no parent post, no comment, etc. at that point all I can really do is assume you are maliciously flagging the post rather than trying to be helpful. There has been cases where user has even gotten a record for flagging abuse like this and only after that provided the proof that the post was indeed traced from another artists artwork with external link to that artists piece.

One idea we have been discussing is possibly having some sort of reason field when flagging material. Early site revision did have contesting system where messages for approval and flag could be given by users but it was completely busted apparently, loved that.

Also yeah, reason why I mentioned takedown is that it basically cuts down the whole users guessing and staff doing detective work (because it's literally artist themselves so they know what they have done and if it's behind paywall :V ) and gets stuff usually deleted faster because of that as well.

mairo said:
One idea we have been discussing is possibly having some sort of reason field when flagging material.

That exists, but only for the 24-hour removal reason. Having that reason field work for any of the flag options would be nice, since especially for paysite/commercial materials or traces and stuff, information needs to be provided to prove it, and making a comment can make it obvious who made the flag (which is normally hidden, I presume to avoid people harassing the one who flagged it), or cause people to think someone flagged it when they didn't (because they commented on why the flag was valid). The comment can also get difficult to find among other comments, if a post is getting a lot of comments.

mairo said:
No, proof isn't required when flagging for anything. This is because if you as user genuinely believe that post is indeed paid material or traced, but don't have any proof, it's still better that staff is notified about it so we can then take a look.
Really often it's stuff like absurdly high definition artwork gets posted from artist, who only posts JPG messes on furaffinity, their patreon tier states HD quality being benefit and the artwork cannot be found on public sources. That's relatively 1+1 when also combined with other factors like brand new account posting it, artist not taking commissions, etc. and there's not really any URLs at that point to point towards.

So what I'm saying here is that PheagleAdler did still do correctly and I did still do what I needed to do, but definitely bad on my part, were it missclick on muscle memory or something else.

However if you flag contriversal post as being trace of another artists work, then there's no sources, no description, no parent post, no comment, etc. at that point all I can really do is assume you are maliciously flagging the post rather than trying to be helpful. There has been cases where user has even gotten a record for flagging abuse like this and only after that provided the proof that the post was indeed traced from another artists artwork with external link to that artists piece.

One idea we have been discussing is possibly having some sort of reason field when flagging material. Early site revision did have contesting system where messages for approval and flag could be given by users but it was completely busted apparently, loved that.

Also yeah, reason why I mentioned takedown is that it basically cuts down the whole users guessing and staff doing detective work (because it's literally artist themselves so they know what they have done and if it's behind paywall :V ) and gets stuff usually deleted faster because of that as well.

Hey man no worries. I stuck to my guns and got it removed properly and the links you added probably helped.
I do agree with Watsit that we probably could have a reason field where one could provide proof though.