e621 is a preservation site as far as I'm aware, so it seems counterintuitive to delete something just because the artist got banned.
It just feels like a weird separating art from the artist type deal, you shouldn't burn a history book just because it mentioned some horrible person, It's still a part of history.
I could understand if the artist themselves requested removal, and maybe that is what happens most of the time, but I feel like that should be made a bit more clear if that is the case rather than "artist/character got shown the door".

I assume you're talking about takedown #16787?

kemonophonic said:
I assume you're talking about takedown #16787?

that and any other takedowns with similar reasoning, pretty sure I've seen a few but I can't exactly remember where

Supposedly Jasonafex (since he keeps getting dragged up these days for some reason) changed his mind about going DNP and asked for his work to be reinstated, but the staff refused because they were sick of his drama.

kemonophonic said:
I assume you're talking about takedown #16787?

I know there's a story behind this that I'm only seeing
the ending of and I wanna find it out the rest, Dood.

Though for the topic at hand, Dood~

egg_head said:
e621 is a preservation site as far as I'm aware, so it seems counterintuitive to delete something just because the artist got banned.
It just feels like a weird separating art from the artist type deal, you shouldn't burn a history book just because it mentioned some horrible person, It's still a part of history.
I could understand if the artist themselves requested removal, and maybe that is what happens most of the time, but I feel like that should be made a bit more clear if that is the case rather than "artist/character got shown the door".

While this place is an archive, It's an archive with rules.
Break those rules and you gotta get going, Dood. ╹‿╹)

egg_head said:
that and any other takedowns with similar reasoning, pretty sure I've seen a few but I can't exactly remember where

I mean, for that one it's pretty obvious, in most cases I'd just assume something similar went down where a user behaved in such a way as to be forcefully ejected from the site. In this case, it's by by admitting to being a diddler, though any artists who have gotten banned for likewise repulsive behaviour I could see E6 wanting to distance themselves from.

egg_head said:
that and any other takedowns with similar reasoning, pretty sure I've seen a few but I can't exactly remember where

If by "similar reasoning", you mean reasons like "Created by NMNY on request of the artist via note on FA.", it should be pretty obvious.

watsit said:
If by "similar reasoning", you mean reasons like "Created by NMNY on request of the artist via note on FA.", it should be pretty obvious.

I didn't know there was a request from the artist, since the deletion doesn't mention a request and there isn't any way for a user like me to scour through PMs to see what really happened.
I think the takedown notice should be more clear to say things like this.

egg_head said:
I didn't know there was a request from the artist, since the deletion doesn't mention a request and there isn't any way for a user like me to scour through PMs to see what really happened.
I think the takedown notice should be more clear to say things like this.

You're not providing examples of what you mean, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Posts being removed at the discretion of management (instead of the artist or character owner) is rare, and done in extenuating circumstances, such as being an admitted groomer or causing too many headaches for the staff.

What made the staff think draco is grooming minors?

electricitywolf said:
What made the staff think draco is grooming minors?

Pull up their username in a Twitter search, they've gone protected on their end but the mentions and replies are still visible. Long story short; they outright admitted it.

Dracooo admitted to grooming minors, and there was evidence he has drawn porn of characters of said minors. Considering that's a yikes and a potential legal minefield we played it safe and nuked everything.

If you want to know more, contact the people involved yourself.

As for other cases, they're usually on the same level, another recent example being tayferret got removed for similar reasons. Though in the case of jasonafex it was persisting harassment and wasting our resources, and also openly grooming kabier and using her as voice actor in a porn game when she wasn't an adult yet.

so if an artist on e6 got themself perma-banned (e.g. not using their blacklist, trolling, being horny on main, ect.) that's not grounds to delete their entire catalog in isolation? (unless of course if they request going dnp themself)

notmenotyou said:
Dracooo admitted to grooming minors, and there was evidence he has drawn porn of characters of said minors. Considering that's a yikes and a potential legal minefield we played it safe and nuked everything.

If you want to know more, contact the people involved yourself.

As for other cases, they're usually on the same level, another recent example being tayferret got removed for similar reasons. Though in the case of jasonafex it was persisting harassment and wasting our resources, and also openly grooming kabier and using her as voice actor in a porn game when she wasn't an adult yet.

Big yikes on both fronts. Honestly, not sure why people are confused about removal of an artists work when they get fully banned. It makes sense to get rid of them if they were abusing users, making constant changes to pieces of art and demanding replacement of said posts, ect. I remember seeing a couple of artists cool their emotional heat when they were told they'd be banned over the years, and it's a good strat from the staff imho. Better to have a good way to prevent issues from cropping up later, then to simply sit back and see them make alt accounts "because my art is still posted here, so clearly you want me" or some such reasoning. Seen that lately from a few people posting screenshots of artist hub discords with like a couple dozen artists releasing comms and such on them, they basically demand that if their art is allowed up, then they "aren't really banned" somehow.

That and years ago, when some artists tried to use this site as an ad dump, posting things that weren't teasers but rather full blown ads with big logos over 90% of it, comm prices, ect. Was quickly handled, though if I recall a couple of artists basically tried to bully staff into banning the people that reported their "art teasers" as nothing but ads. Didn't go well, because I remember one of them insulting me for simply saying insults won't get them anywhere, and seeing that comment get them a red mark.

TL;DR - Staff know what they're doing, been here long enough to see them do good work, and these kinds of things are for good reasons that keep the site from having artists with awful personalities try and abuse them and the user base.

dripen_arn said:
so if an artist on e6 got themself perma-banned (e.g. not using their blacklist, trolling, being horny on main, ect.) that's not grounds to delete their entire catalog in isolation? (unless of course if they request going dnp themself)

Famously, a lot of things are allowed in posts while being banned in comments.

dripen_arn said:
so if an artist on e6 got themself perma-banned (e.g. not using their blacklist, trolling, being horny on main, ect.) that's not grounds to delete their entire catalog in isolation? (unless of course if they request going dnp themself)

Right. Senz was perma-banned years ago for constant tagging/rating abuse, but their art is perfectly fine to post here, for instance.

wat8548 said:
Famously, a lot of things are allowed in posts while being banned in comments.

Glorifying drug substance abuse was a funny one. I mean, it seems obvious not to suggest illegal activities, but that it actually had to exist as a rule... Hmm, I wonder if we need a don't suggest robbing a convenience store or bank rule. j/k

alphamule said:
Glorifying drug substance abuse was a funny one. I mean, it seems obvious not to suggest illegal activities, but that it actually had to exist as a rule... Hmm, I wonder if we need a don't suggest robbing a convenience store or bank rule. j/k

Bankrobbers don't generally tend to brag online about robbing banks, potheads don't shut up about how much they smoke.

votp said:
I mean, for that one it's pretty obvious, in most cases I'd just assume something similar went down where a user behaved in such a way as to be forcefully ejected from the site. In this case, it's by by admitting to being a diddler, though any artists who have gotten banned for likewise repulsive behaviour I could see E6 wanting to distance themselves from.

Worse is definitely already on the site lol.

Then again I have always believed in the whole "death of the artist" thing

*shrug*

I'm glad the admin team dislikes Jasonafex as much as they do. One of the only artists I ever blacklisted. Good riddance lmao

notmenotyou said:
Dracooo admitted to grooming minors, and there was evidence he has drawn porn of characters of said minors. Considering that's a yikes and a potential legal minefield we played it safe and nuked everything.

If you want to know more, contact the people involved yourself.

As for other cases, they're usually on the same level, another recent example being tayferret got removed for similar reasons. Though in the case of jasonafex it was persisting harassment and wasting our resources, and also openly grooming kabier and using her as voice actor in a porn game when she wasn't an adult yet.

its a shame since I quite enjoyed Draco's art, but if it would cause legal issues it's understandable. unfortunate that it had to happen though.

waskom_frost said:
Big yikes on both fronts. Honestly, not sure why people are confused about removal of an artists work when they get fully banned. It makes sense to get rid of them if they were abusing users, making constant changes to pieces of art and demanding replacement of said posts, ect. I remember seeing a couple of artists cool their emotional heat when they were told they'd be banned over the years, and it's a good strat from the staff imho. Better to have a good way to prevent issues from cropping up later, then to simply sit back and see them make alt accounts "because my art is still posted here, so clearly you want me" or some such reasoning. Seen that lately from a few people posting screenshots of artist hub discords with like a couple dozen artists releasing comms and such on them, they basically demand that if their art is allowed up, then they "aren't really banned" somehow.

That and years ago, when some artists tried to use this site as an ad dump, posting things that weren't teasers but rather full blown ads with big logos over 90% of it, comm prices, ect. Was quickly handled, though if I recall a couple of artists basically tried to bully staff into banning the people that reported their "art teasers" as nothing but ads. Didn't go well, because I remember one of them insulting me for simply saying insults won't get them anywhere, and seeing that comment get them a red mark.

TL;DR - Staff know what they're doing, been here long enough to see them do good work, and these kinds of things are for good reasons that keep the site from having artists with awful personalities try and abuse them and the user base.

yup, if staff here do something its probably for a good reason. I was just curious as to what that reason was on this one :p