Like, wouldn't you have to actively remove the tag from the blacklist just to downvote posts? I also don't mean improperly tagged stuff, that makes some sense at least.

jej1000 said:
Like, wouldn't you have to actively remove the tag from the blacklist just to downvote posts? I also don't mean improperly tagged stuff, that makes some sense at least.

People don't bother to use the blacklist and just downvote stuff they don't agree with the content of instead of based on art quality. I'm betting they just click the disable all button on their blacklist and can't be bothered to set it up properly instead.

People are constantly removing stuff from the blacklist just to bitch about it in comments, or downvoting it.

There's even been cases where admins have added it back to their blacklist for them and then they remove it again and immediately go back to commenting about how it's disgusting degeneracy.

I see, that's a shame. I feel bad for the artists, that just seems unfair for something that's already perfectly implemented on the site.

garbagehumanbeing said:
People don't bother to use the blacklist and just downvote stuff they don't agree with the content of instead of based on art quality. I'm betting they just click the disable all button on their blacklist and can't be bothered to set it up properly instead.

On rare occasions, I do disable my blacklist to see the context of a post because there are images that get caught that I don't want to get caught or to see what those other images are tagged for context.

Users who disable the blacklist for nothing else, but bitch about the art are annoying, though.

faucet said:
People are constantly removing stuff from the blacklist just to bitch about it in comments, or downvoting it.

There's even been cases where admins have added it back to their blacklist for them and then they remove it again and immediately go back to commenting about how it's disgusting degeneracy.

Then there's the funniest option: topic #30038 (and at least two identical threads that I can remember)

wolfmanfur said:
On rare occasions, I do disable my blacklist to see the context of a post because there are images that get caught that I don't want to get caught or to see what those other images are tagged for context.

Users who disable the blacklist for nothing else, but bitch about the art are annoying, though.

For a long time I used no blacklist, but there were certain trends with certain tags that I didn't care to see. I'll exclude certain artists from certain blacklist tags, but even if what I see isn't something I like, I always either upvote or no vote unless my grievance is specifically the art quality. I'd like to be able to see all the good images from tags I have blacklisted, but they make up a small enough majority that I don't want to waste my time with the rest.

And sometimes the tag is not there so my eyes suffered and i have to add it on my own, in such case, i downvoted

jej1000 said:
Like, wouldn't you have to actively remove the tag from the blacklist just to downvote posts? I also don't mean improperly tagged stuff, that makes some sense at least.

Sometimes people have conditional blacklists and don't like some kinds of gore, but appreciate other kinds. Alternatively, it could just be that people don't like that particular post, not gore as a theme.

faucet said:
There's even been cases where admins have added it back to their blacklist for them and then they remove it again and immediately go back to commenting about how it's disgusting degeneracy.

I've said it on an infamous bluey post, it's like twitter. They want to virtue signal, for nothing.

"How come gore gets downvoted despite it being on the blacklist?" Answered your own question in the title? ;)

Yeah, it's not technically breaking the rules unless you comment on it. Downvotes seem rare to need policing unless we have obvious multiaccounting?

garbagehumanbeing said:
People [..] just downvote stuff they don't agree with the content of instead of based on art quality.

The bottom line is there is no rule about what post voting means. You could argue about whether there should be^{(I'm not here to do that,)} but ultimately the core meaning of a vote is whether a user felt like hitting the up arrow or the down arrow.

magnuseffect said:
The bottom line is there is no rule about what post voting means. You could argue about whether there should be^{(I'm not here to do that,)} but ultimately the core meaning of a vote is whether a user felt like hitting the up arrow or the down arrow.

Or we can go all Youtube after an administrator's advertising post gets voted -1000. ;)

maplebytes said:
Alternatively, it could just be that people don't like that particular post, not gore as a theme.

That's probably true on an individual basis, but I'm quite sure it is because of the theme as most of the posts on the tag are downvoted even if it's of high technical quality, and to add to that, there's examples of accounts that make art specifically for that tag that get heavily downvoted and slighted by the comments despite the very simple and obvious solution.

alphamule said:
"How come gore gets downvoted despite it being on the blacklist?" Answered your own question in the title? ;)

Yeah, it's not technically breaking the rules unless you comment on it. Downvotes seem rare to need policing unless we have obvious multiaccounting?

Yeah it's not against the rules, I just don't think it's very fair to the artists who didn't do anything wrong.

jej1000 said:
That's probably true on an individual basis, but I'm quite sure it is because of the theme as most of the posts on the tag are downvoted even if it's of high technical quality, and to add to that, there's examples of accounts that make art specifically for that tag that get heavily downvoted and slighted by the comments despite the very simple and obvious solution.

Yeah it's not against the rules, I just don't think it's very fair to the artists who didn't do anything wrong.

I know what you mean. An artist going for sexy art that's of unusual orstrange events get downvoted too. It does not affect gore only.
post #3505531

They have a blacklist they could have blacklisted the drawing by adding 'what' to their blacklist and similar such tags.

wolfmanfur said:
I know what you mean. An artist going for sexy art that's of unusual orstrange events get downvoted too. It does not affect gore only.

Oh I'm sure, I only brought up gore because those are the artists I saw this happen to.

They have a blacklist they could have blacklisted the drawing by adding 'what' to their blacklist and similar such tags.

Well in that one's case I could understand because none of the tags are in the blacklist, and all of the tags that are there also apply to non-grotesque imagery. It's very plausible to see this one unwillingly, unlike the blacklisted tags where you have to actively remove them in the first place.

faucet said:
People are constantly removing stuff from the blacklist just to bitch about it in comments, or downvoting it.

There's even been cases where admins have added it back to their blacklist for them and then they remove it again and immediately go back to commenting about how it's disgusting degeneracy.

Appearing virtuous remains important for some people, even on a furry porn site.