Im genuinely confused at this point as to what the mods deem worthy for deletion or 'off-topic' for the site.. For example. Animation of Orisa (overwatch) would get deleted for being offtopic, Only human.. But something with Zelda wouldn't. Considering what is closer to the human form, You would think Zelda would get purged.

Honestly, I've been curious about cases like Zelda as well. There are quite a few characters much less human-looking than her that are banned for being too human.

We can argue hypotheticals 'til the cows come home, but you'd have better luck providing actual examples of posts that you think were deleted in error.

Zelda usually gets a pass in cases where her pointed ears are visible. Similarly, Orisa should be getting approvals when it's visually obvious that it's a taur like Orisa, when she has a nonhuman face, etc.

i'm just gonna toss these searches in here and see whether or not their results change the tune on whether e6 favors Link or Orisa when determining relevancy.

link status:deleted delreason:*irrelevant*
orisa_(overwatch) status:deleted delreason:*irrelevant*

these searches will show you how many posts for both Link or Orisa, have gotten deleted with the word "irrelevant" written in the deletion reason. there could definitely be deletion reasons with "irrelevant" yet aren't due to being human only, and vice versa the words "human only" might be present in a deletion reason without being called irrelevant in that reason, so if you want to do a full count yourself you can check link status:deleted and orisa_(overwatch) status:deleted. if you didn't know that you could search through deleted posts, you can find this out and more in the search help page.

siral_exan said:
i'm just gonna toss these searches in here and see whether or not their results change the tune on whether e6 favors Link or Orisa when determining relevancy.

link status:deleted delreason:*irrelevant*
orisa_(overwatch) status:deleted delreason:*irrelevant*

these searches will show you how many posts for both Link or Orisa, have gotten deleted with the word "irrelevant" written in the deletion reason. there could definitely be deletion reasons with "irrelevant" yet aren't due to being human only, and vice versa the words "human only" might be present in a deletion reason without being called irrelevant in that reason, so if you want to do a full count yourself you can check link status:deleted and orisa_(overwatch) status:deleted. if you didn't know that you could search through deleted posts, you can find this out and more in the search help page.

Oh neat, Didnt know you could search deleted posts. thanks for showing me this. Was just a bit curious.

tinat_sobek said:
Im genuinely confused at this point as to what the mods deem worthy for deletion or 'off-topic' for the site.. For example. Animation of Orisa (overwatch) would get deleted for being offtopic, Only human.. But something with Zelda wouldn't. Considering what is closer to the human form, You would think Zelda would get purged.

First things first, you've got to toss away what you know about a character. We go by TWYS, not TWYK.

If a picture is rejected as "Human only" yet you know that they're really a Pokémon, stop and take a hard look at the picture (at the source, of course). Ignoring what you know, could that be taken as a human? (Yes, at the wrong angles, some Pokemon can indeed look annoyingly human.) Funky skin colors and strange eyes don't count. Cartoon shark teeth don't count. Some art styles can leave out the nose, so lack of nose doesn't count. The somewhat arbitrary cutoff point that makes a character "non-human enough" is visible humanoid pointy ears. Some still think this isn't enough, but we need an easily identifiable marker somewhere.

Take a look at all the Zelda pictures already accepted here. You'll notice that her ears are visible and pointy. It's good enough for government work approve move on to the next one....

Just remember, for all those Zeldas who got approved, there's also a huge honkload of Zeldas with ears obscured who were rejected for being too human. If she's going to be posted for being an elf-like Hylian, then she'd better look the part.

clawstripe said:
First things first, you've got to toss away what you know about a character. We go by TWYS, not TWYK.

If a picture is rejected as "Human only" yet you know that they're really a Pokémon, stop and take a hard look at the picture (at the source, of course). Ignoring what you know, could that be taken as a human? (Yes, at the wrong angles, some Pokemon can indeed look annoyingly human.) Funky skin colors and strange eyes don't count. Cartoon shark teeth don't count. Some art styles can leave out the nose, so lack of nose doesn't count. The somewhat arbitrary cutoff point that makes a character "non-human enough" is visible humanoid pointy ears. Some still think this isn't enough, but we need an easily identifiable marker somewhere.

Take a look at all the Zelda pictures already accepted here. You'll notice that her ears are visible and pointy. It's good enough for government work approve move on to the next one....

Just remember, for all those Zeldas who got approved, there's also a huge honkload of Zeldas with ears obscured who were rejected for being too human. If she's going to be posted for being an elf-like Hylian, then she'd better look the part.

Thanks for that clarification. So like in the case of ... dark samus, Sure blue skin an armor, but some have her more so see through like a goo, and other art show her with fleshy skin

tinat_sobek said:
Thanks for that clarification. So like in the case of ... dark samus, Sure blue skin an armor, but some have her more so see through like a goo, and other art show her with fleshy skin

Pretty much. The regular blue skin would still count as too human, but see-through goo body ups the chances for approval since it's more apparently she's being depicted as non-human. (Of course, it still depends on how obvious that goo is rendered for it to count.)

Figured this was the most appropriate recent topic, curious why this one was deleted as "human only" when there's fur and tiger stripes visible https://e621.net/posts/3920573

kevsnowcat said:
Figured this was the most appropriate recent topic, curious why this one was deleted as "human only" when there's fur and tiger stripes visible https://e621.net/posts/3920573

it's a total edge case in all respects: humanoid penis with no other beastars characters (looks bizarre if i saw that on a person irl or even illustrated but artists can be weird sometimes), fur could just be seen as bleached and exceptionally smooth pubes, tiger stripes and orange fur are extremely hard to see (i didn't even notice those "tiger stripes" on 1st-3rd look)

hers's the image for outsiders to view: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpWzW2macAE4PZi?format=jpg&name=large

kevsnowcat said:
Figured this was the most appropriate recent topic, curious why this one was deleted as "human only" when there's fur and tiger stripes visible https://e621.net/posts/3920573

My guess would be because the fur can easily be interpreted as pubes, and alternate skin/hair colors doesn't make it furry for this site's purposes.

kevsnowcat said:
Figured this was the most appropriate recent topic, curious why this one was deleted as "human only" when there's fur and tiger stripes visible https://e621.net/posts/3920573

I've run across this sort of thing before, and yes, they typically get deleted. Just looking at it cold, it just looks like male human genitals. Remember, funky skin colors aren't sufficient to count as non-human.

A common problem with furry characters (even mine) is that furry areas can often be rendered as if they were skin instead of fur. That's why the scrotum's coloring doesn't count as furry. It just looks like skin that's a different color from the penis.

As for that fur, just as Dripen and Watsit point out, it looks just like pubic hairs. Even those stripes, even if they weren't so subtle and hard to see, don't count. People can decorate their hair in odd colors, and that blond hair is well within the possible natural hair colors of a real life human.

If one one wanted to better guarantee this picture were to be accepted, they'd be better off depicting a non-human penis, like, for example, a feline's.

Personally I think the balls definitely don't count but no human has thick, plush pubes like that. It's very obviously fine fur, not coarse human pubes, even if you don't count the stripes. But yes, I see how it's an edge case. I just think it's 'barely enough'. I don't mind one way or the other, I was just surprised it was gone from one of my common searches in under a day, and checked my history to see what happened to it. Actually the first time I've really noticed a deletion that wasn't DNP/superior version.

kevsnowcat said:
Personally I think the balls definitely don't count but no human has thick, plush pubes like that. It's very obviously fine fur, not coarse human pubes, even if you don't count the stripes. But yes, I see how it's an edge case. I just think it's 'barely enough'.

I would have to disagree. Even if we don't make a study of the bushiness of human pubic hairs (which I'd rather not do, thank you very much), artists can certainly depict pure human pubic hair to a sometimes ridiculous degree if they feel like it, and it would still count as too human.