Greetings!

We haven't really had a big update to the CoC in a while (the initial version was written back in 2013 and only got incremental updates since then) but we've figured it was long overdue to have some fat trimmed off of it and to try and make it easier to read and follow.

You can find the new update here

It's complete rewrite so there are far too many changes to list here manually, go give it a read and if you have any feedback we'd love to hear it.

Thread's locked, if you wish to discuss the CoC please use the new thread here.

Here's a quick summary of the changes.

General

• Rearranged and simplified some redundant or unclear rules.
• Clarified the proper way to appeal staff decisions and explained record decay.

Disruptive Behavior

• Explicitly forbade spreading false, misleading, or defamatory information.
• Explicitly forbade spreading information harmful to personal or public safety.
• Expanded and clarified rules against harassment, doxxing, and real-life threats.
• Clarified our stance on references to sexual identity and orientation.

Posts and Tags

• Clarified the fact that the Uploading, Rating, and Translation Guidelines must be followed.
• Explicitly forbade uploading content created by minors or featuring characters created or owned by minors.
• Explicitly forbade content that is involved in, depicts, or glorifies recent real-life tragedies.
• Clarified the minimum required number of tags – you are expected to provide at least four general category non-implied tags on upload.
• Explicitly stated that tags in the general category must follow the TWYS principle.
• Explicitly forbade watermark and signature removal edits, as well as third party signatures and watermarks.

Abuse of Site Tools

• Forbade encouraging others to make duplicate reports for the same violation.
• Clarified our stance on alt accounts – they should not be used to manipulate the voting system or public opinion.
• Clarified that using alt accounts to bypass any site limitations is also against the rules – this also includes things like upload or tag edit limits.
• Explicitly forbade deleting and re-creating an account to get rid of previous records.
• Forbade offering incentives to others in exchange for votes or favorites.
• Explicitly forbade mass-downvoting.
• Explicitly forbade asking or coercing others to post on your behalf while your account is suspended.

notmenotyou said:
Greetings!

We haven't really had a big update to the CoC in a while (the initial version was written back in 2013 and only got incremental updates since then) but we've figured it was long overdue to have some fat trimmed off of it and to try and make it easier to read and follow.

You can find the new update here

It's complete rewrite so there are far too many changes to list here manually, go give it a read and if you have any feedback we'd love to hear it.

Trim looks pretty good and the rules are very clear, thanks for all your hard work😺👍🏻

Very clear and awesome, glad to know that care and attention is still brought up. Thanks for keeping this updated and clear. 🐊🐊

Do not purposefully misgender or deadname users or characters.

Why does this apply to fictional characters? With a strict reading of the rules, the tagging system itself (or even explaining how the tagging system works) would cause someone to violate this. It makes sense for the rule to apply for users, but not for characters.

If someone was doing this to just to piss off an artist specifically it would already fall under rule 1.1:

Do not make messages with the apparent purpose of upsetting someone.[...]

With a strict reading of the rules, adding "or characters" to that rule causes everyone who tags a post that already has female_(lore) but appears male as male to violate the rule. It would also make the user explaining why they tagged it as male violate the rule.

With regards to deadnaming a character, it seems like the rule would also apply if mario is referred to as "jumpman" when it shouldn't. Obviously intentionally doing this for the purpose of upsetting an artist shouldn't be allowed, but that's already covered under 1.1 above.

TL;DR - comments are going to become even more of an empty wasteland than previously

Do not mention any actions of suicide, self harm / mutilation, depression-induced pain, or other malicious acts directed towards the self.

Does this include obvious jokes and/or take into account the context of the post? Also, kind of weird to allow image posts of characters committing self-half while cracking down on comments.

Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety.

Oh boy, vague policies that I'm sure will be evenly enforced.

kyiiel said:
Why does this apply to fictional characters? With a strict reading of the rules, the tagging system itself (or even explaining how the tagging system works) would cause someone to violate this.

The tagging system makes no claim about anything other than appearances. If people can't accept that other people might determine that their character's appearance in a particular image includes more visual signifiers defined by e621 as male than female, or vice versa, then that's not 'misgendering', purposeful or otherwise. It's just their failure to accept that e621 tags mean very specific things, not all the other baggage that they may personally attach to these words.

If someone was doing this to just to piss off an artist specifically it would already fall under rule 1.1:

People can disagree with the ideas of 'people get to choose their pronouns' or 'a person can transition from one sex to the other' -- and use the pronouns appropriate to those beliefs -- without making any specific attempt to upset anybody. So it's at least not wholly redundant.

internettrashcan said:
TL;DR - comments are going to become even more of an empty wasteland than previously

Do not mention any actions of suicide, self harm / mutilation, depression-induced pain, or other malicious acts directed towards the self.

Does this include obvious jokes and/or take into account the context of the post? Also, kind of weird to allow image posts of characters committing self-half while cracking down on comments.

There has always been a divide between what is allowable in posts and what is allowable in comments. I believe this is partially because all posts (which stick around after the 30 day approval/disapproval timeout) must be individually approved.

Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety.

Oh boy, vague policies that I'm sure will be evenly enforced.

I think the mods are generally OK, but I agree this is too vague to be really comfortable with.

bitwolfy said:

• Explicitly forbade spreading false, misleading, or defamatory information.

No you didn't

Also, I agree with InternetTrashcan that "harmful to public safety" seems a bit vague. I guess you mean things like promoting fascism or terrorism, but stuff like being anti-lockdown or supporting BLM could also theoretically fall under that depending on who you ask

bitwolfy said:

• Forbade offering incentives to others in exchange for votes or favorites.

I know this is directed towards users in general, as opposed to artists, but does it go the other way?

The wording kinda makes me think that artists who request for more upvotes/favs on their arts in exchange for more arts/alts/etc. would also fall into this category (e.g., "500 favs and I will post the NSFW alt.").

• Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. You should blacklist the offending subject matter instead.

Not that I disagree with this one, but this goes directly against all previous admin statements on the topic. Excited to see how it's going to be enforced.

• Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. You should blacklist the offending subject matter instead.

What if the content is already blacklisted but the inconsiderate uploader failed to tag it properly so I'm forced to add the tag myself for the thousandth time so I don't have to look at it?

kemonophonic said:
What if the content is already blacklisted but the inconsiderate uploader failed to tag it properly so I'm forced to add the tag myself for the thousandth time so I don't have to look at it?

Wouldn't that be 'downvoting the post as a half-assed way to get back at the uploader' more than a direct complaint about the content?

bitwolfy said:

• Explicitly forbade content that is involved in, depicts, or glorifies recent real-life tragedies.
• Explicitly forbade mass-downvoting.

do changes like these apply retroactively? such as with infamous posts like 378180?
I assume not but I would like to ask to be sure.

Was post #378180 even 'recent' when it was posted? (2014, ~3 years after 9/11)

Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety.

This is one of those rules that I'm certain will only be enforced one way and not the other. In other words; liking the Proud Boys, Women for America First or the Boogaloos would cause a record, liking Antifascist Action, Earth Liberation Front or the New Black Panthers will not.

It would be better if the staff had a general crackdown on political content, especially on random posts featuring lgbt characters, unless the post itself is political or could cause harm to lgbt people of course, that is within reason.

Do not mention any actions of suicide, self harm / mutilation, depression-induced pain, or other malicious acts directed towards the self.
Do not encourage other users to engage in harmful behaviors, including suicide, eating disorders, or other forms of self harm.

I agree fully with the second point, but the first seems excessive. If an image depicts depression, should users talk about butterflies and the weather?

Do not upload or share any artwork that had original watermarks or signatures removed from it. Similarly, do not add third party watermarks or signatures to unrelated content.

This is still not clear to me. Are third party watermarks allowed if they were added by a software or a website, both of which the artist had no control over? this is rare, but it happens.

notmenotyou said:
Greetings!

We haven't really had a big update to the CoC in a while (the initial version was written back in 2013 and only got incremental updates since then) but we've figured it was long overdue to have some fat trimmed off of it and to try and make it easier to read and follow.

You can find the new update here

It's complete rewrite so there are far too many changes to list here manually, go give it a read and if you have any feedback we'd love to hear it.

Hey! I read the whole CoC and you all did a great job summarizing the old CoC. Now it’s more easier to read, understand and apply. Keep the good work!

wolfmanfur said:
[...]

I think like post #3810150, if the watermark isn't obstructive, should be fine as long as it was the only available file.

kyiiel said:
Why does this apply to fictional characters?

Because misgendering someone's fursona is rude.
Tags describe what the character looks like, not what they identify as.

internettrashcan said:
Does this include obvious jokes and/or take into account the context of the post? Also, kind of weird to allow image posts of characters committing self-half while cracking down on comments.

Context is important. Just don't make people uncomfortable.
Posts and comments do follow different rules at times, that's nothing new.

wat8548 said:
Not that I disagree with this one, but this goes directly against all previous admin statements on the topic. Excited to see how it's going to be enforced.

Not gonna lie, that thread is a little weird.
Here's the long and short of that rule.

You can downvote a post if you don't like it.
You shouldn't go through a bunch of posts with a specific tag or theme and downvote everything you see.

kemonophonic said:
What if the content is already blacklisted but the inconsiderate uploader failed to tag it properly so I'm forced to add the tag myself for the thousandth time so I don't have to look at it?

If it's the same uploader, or it's extreme content not getting tagged, then you should report them instead.

egg_head said:
do changes like these apply retroactively? such as with infamous posts like 378180?
I assume not but I would like to ask to be sure.

No. "Recent" would be a few weeks / months ago.

wolfmanfur said:
This is one of those rules that I'm certain will only be enforced one way and not the other. In other words; liking the Proud Boys, Women for America First or the Boogaloos would cause a record, liking Antifascist Action, Earth Liberation Front or the New Black Panthers will not.

Oh no.
Would someone please think of the fascists.

bitwolfy said:
Oh no.
Would someone please think of the fascists.

If you're going to cherry-pick that line and act like a dismissive dick to the others for being a little concerned, then you may as well be upfront and say that yes, you are planning on enforcing it one way and not the other.

bitwolfy said:
No. "Recent" would be a few weeks / months ago.

I think it'd be best to clarify in the rules that you mean stuff in the last year. Sounds a bit subjective otherwise. Will save you a bunch of flags down the line

wolfmanfur said:
I agree fully with the second point, but the first seems excessive. If an image depicts depression, should users talk about butterflies and the weather?

I more read it as "if a post contains mentions/depictions of depression or suicide, please dont go off on a rant about your own personal problems and how much you would like to do the same"

werideatdawn said:
If you're going to cherry-pick that line and act like a dismissive dick to the others for being a little concerned, then you may as well be upfront and say that yes, you are planning on enforcing it one way and not the other.

as for this, I do find it mildly annoying that every post that even has the slightest amount of politics gets locked down because one silly person decided to voice their opinion on something. If this new rule cuts down on that kind of thing happening at all I'll be more than happy

sidenote: it probably wasn't the best idea to bring up fascism of all things when discussing how the mods are being one sided with the new rule, I agree with your point to an extent but surely there had to have been another example that didn't pit an ideology with ties to one of the worst people in recorded human history against keeping gay people around.

Shouldn't "no posting AI generated art" be listed somewhere?

mrox said:
Shouldn't "no posting AI generated art" be listed somewhere?

While AI art is not explicitly mentioned on the code of conduct, it does mention the Uploading Guidelines.

Do not knowingly or repeatedly upload content that goes against the Uploading Guidelines.

And on that page you'll find this

• AI Generated content: No AI generated, or AI assisted artwork.
• Exceptions are currently for backgrounds (treated like using a photo as a background, quality rules apply); for artwork that references, but does not directly use, AI generated content; and for full paintovers.

egg_head said:
it probably wasn't the best idea to bring up fascism of all things when discussing how the mods are being one sided with the new rule

Thing is, that rule was intended to target things like COVID denial and misinformation. That's what the "public safety" bit is about.
We have already been acting on that kind of thing, mind you. A good chunk of these rule changes are just us spelling out the stuff we already enforce.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that the specific line there was rather vague. Perhaps, an additional clarifying sentence got left on the cutting room floor by accident.

If someone is inciting violence, spouting racist rhetoric, or is being homophobic or transphobic, we will put an end to it, regardless of what ideology they allegedly profess.
We do this because it creates a better environment for the site and the community, and is generally the right thing to do, not for ideological reasons.

It's just that every time a discussion about this kind of thing pops up, people show up to defend fascists.
And I think that people who do that deserve to be bullied a little.

bitwolfy said:

Posts and Tags

• Clarified the minimum required number of tags – you are expected to provide at least four general category non-implied tags on upload.

Just 4?

Do not post images or videos depicting real-life children or animals in sexual situations or acts. Do not discuss the details, morality, or attraction to such acts.

So as written it seems this is a distinct change to previous policy in two ways. First, in that now identifying as a zoosexual against the CoC? Previously it was only punishable if someone discussed real-life actions they have done or would do, that sort of thing. And second, the wording of this rule would also prohibit those expressing negative sentiments as well. Making comments condemning zoosexuality would unambiguously fall under discussing the morality.

While we're on the topic of guideline refreshes, should the TWYS guidelines be updated to elaborate on the more recently added Meta and Lore categories of tags? I feel like the addition of being able to use official context to resolve gender disputes via Lore tags has been instrumental in improving people's perception of the guideline, and making that knowledge readily available for the people who care about this would be a fantastic addition.

I guess the questions for me comes to:

How recent is recent, or will that be a case by case thing? (Regarding the too soon content) End of 2.1 posting abuse

Is linking to a Patreon in the description ok even im not the artist? (Only asking because it is an external site) 1.9 advertising

I can’t make an off hand joke quote as though I were Todd Howard? 1.7 roleplay

And my statement is:

Please make the minimum tags be 10-15, it would certainly remove a lot of lay-z posting

Looking through the rules.

Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety.
Do not purposefully spread false or defamatory information.

I get what the intent here is, but this is all a bit too vague for my liking. A lot of stuff will fall into a gray area regarding this rule.

Do not purposefully misgender or deadname users or characters.

I'm kinda surprised by this but it's a very good addition, as long as staff know how to correctly apply it. Would cover a lot of major assholes in the comments.

Do not knowingly or repeatedly upload content made by minors or featuring characters created or owned by minors.

Assuming this applies to content uploaded before the ToS change.. good luck lol

clawdragons said:
So as written it seems this is a distinct change to previous policy in two ways. First, in that now identifying as a zoosexual against the CoC? Previously it was only punishable if someone discussed real-life actions they have done or would do, that sort of thing. And second, the wording of this rule would also prohibit those expressing negative sentiments as well. Making comments condemning zoosexuality would unambiguously fall under discussing the morality.

We would prefer if you didn't discuss it at all.

ghecji said:
While we're on the topic of guideline refreshes, should the TWYS guidelines be updated to elaborate on the more recently added Meta and Lore categories of tags?

The TWYS guidelines do need to be looked at.
We just didn't get to it yet.

vex714 said:
Is linking to a Patreon in the description ok even im not the artist? (Only asking because it is an external site) 1.9 advertising

If you are copying the description over from another site, and it includes links to external site, that's 100% okay.
If you are just adding it of your own accord, that's a little odd. You can just add a patreon link to the artist's wiki page. Still, it's not really something we would punish.
This rule is primarily directed against advertisements elsewhere – comments, forum posts, blips, private messages, and so on.
The line about post descriptions is mainly there to tell people the "right" way to advertise.

vex714 said:
I can’t make an off hand joke quote as though I were Todd Howard? 1.7 roleplay

Sure, as long as it's obvious you are not actually Todd Howard and are just making a joke.
That rule is directed against people pretending to be artists or staff members.

hausemaster said:
I'm kinda surprised by this but it's a very good addition, as long as staff know how to correctly apply it. Would cover a lot of major assholes in the comments.

We've been enforcing this kind of thing already.
It just fell under the "Trolling" rule before.

hausemaster said:
Assuming this applies to content uploaded before the ToS change.. good luck lol

Again, we've been enforcing this thing already.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=delreason:*underage*

Accidentally uploading artwork made by an underage artist is fine.
Doing so deliberately or repeatedly – which has happened before – is not okay.

bitwolfy said:
Thing is, that rule was intended to target things like COVID denial and misinformation. That's what the "public safety" bit is about.

Oh joy!
Did you know that pretty much ALL medical corporate whistle-blowers were called covid denialists? Not to mention that many scientists were harrased into compliance and many were fired for not fitting the narrative?
There has been a waves of lawsuits in MANY countries regarding abuses made by governemnt and medical corpos, the stuff that in the past would make people call you antivaxxer!
I mean, who does decide here what is truth and what is misinformation? Totally legit and impartial "fact checkers"? Or maybe mods gained omniscence and future sight and will totally be impartial to an inhuman deegree?
I think we all know the answer...

bitwolfy said:
If someone is inciting violence, spouting racist rhetoric, or is being homophobic or transphobic, we will put an end to it, regardless of what ideology they allegedly profess.

...so basically you decided to arbitrarily make certain groups into a "supercaste" that cannot be opposed, no matter how well tought your arguments are or how polite you are.
Add to the fact that "homophobia" and "transfobia" are such easly abusable concepts (you can even be called one for citing scientifical stats in non-malevolent way) that it will be abused by mods.
Is this your "vision" of welcoming community? Double standards and priviliges built into the system for groups of people you support?

bitwolfy said:
and is generally the right thing to do, not for ideological reasons.

But what is "the right thing to do" IS governed by the ideology ones follow!
For example for one person "the right thing to do" is protecting freedom of speech 'cuz they believe in freedom, and for another person "the right thing to do" is censoring the acceptable targets 'cuz they believe in utopias.

bitwolfy said:
It's just that every time a discussion about this kind of thing pops up, people show up to defend fascists.

Because "fascism" is perfect ph-paper for showing if discussion place is taking "freedom of speech and discussion" seriously?
Especially on the internet, where most pro-censorship people are lefists?
It doesn't help that western lefists see anything to the right of them as "fascist" or "nazism", the same way how righties see everything to the left of them as "communism" and "socialism".

bitwolfy said:
And I think that people who do that deserve to be bullied a little.

And for THAT COMMENT ALONE I firmly believe you should have no power on this site!
I mean, really?! A site administrator that condones bullying?! What is wrong with you?

All in all, after reading the changes I must say I am dissapointed in increase in censorship and partiality of moderation.
All of this reminds me of "depribooru fiasco" during BLM.
Bronies in e621 will know EXACTLY what I mean.

pawlaczyna said:
[...]
Bronies in e621 will know EXACTLY what I mean.

I'm a brony and I have no idea what you mean. :v

pawlaczyna said:

Did you know that pretty much ALL medical corporate whistle-blowers were called covid denialists? Not to mention that many scientists were harrased into compliance and many were fired for not fitting the narrative?
There has been a waves of lawsuits in MANY countries regarding abuses made by governemnt and medical corpos, the stuff that in the past would make people call you antivaxxer!
I mean, who does decide here what is truth and what is misinformation? Totally legit and impartial "fact checkers"? Or maybe mods gained omniscence and future sight and will totally be impartial to an inhuman deegree?
I think we all know the answer...

source for, like, any of that?

dripen_arn said:
source for, like, any of that?

I don't know exactly what he meant, but I would guess it's probably something in this ballpark: https://youtu.be/nRyNXoMP6e0

Basicaly how the CDC supressed the lab leak theory despite taking it seriously behind closed doors. Or the other ways in wich they supressed information maliciously (that same Youtube Channel has other vídeos on the topic)

Also Pawlaczyna my man, I get where you'r coming from in some of those points but there's no need to be that agressive not to frame things like that

It honestly comes off as if you wanna be anti-gay and are trying to beat around the bush

I wouldn't worry too much about posts like that, they made a bunch of vague feel-good claims that shy away from anything specific because they know that the things they want to say are largely indefensible.
A lot of righty or moderate politic is actually comparatively uncontroversial because it happens to coincide with things that already happen (hierarchical structures in government and business, adjustments of tax policy and shifting of tax burdens, etc.) It's what people are used to. Even so, this site isn't the place for deep political discussion when you consider what the average user is looking to do with their time here.

If you think somebody is calling for the extermination or subjugation of specific protected classes, majority or minority, then you should probably start by filing a report. It's better than giving up instantly because you think the staff are in cahoots with eco-terrorists or something.

stitch_the_snitch said:
Also Pawlaczyna my man, I get where you'r coming from in some of those points but there's no need to be that agressive not to frame things like that

It honestly comes off as if you wanna be anti-gay and are trying to beat around the bush

They are evading a ban for really obnoxious trolling, with a good dose of transphobia.

pawlaczyna said:
And for THAT COMMENT ALONE I firmly believe you should have no power on this site!
I mean, really?! A site administrator that condones bullying?! What is wrong with you?

That wasn't bullying and I do not think anyone would construe that as such. At worse, it's a snide comment, but that's the fullest extent to it.
I've experience real bullying from Sonic fans, assorted religious pricks and right-wing numbnuts on deviantArt because I am a Furry and kinky, and for no other reason whatsoever. However, this is the equivalent to a random YouTube comment.

By the way, good riddance.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I'm a brony and I have no idea what you mean. :v

i use Derpibooru and I have no idea what they're blabbing about either. It's a mystery.
Granted, I don't use the site frequently, but I visit it at least once a month. I would have noticed if something like that happened.

lafcadio said: Even so, this site isn't the place for deep political discussion when you consider what the average user is looking to do with their time here.

To be honest, I don't know why we still have the commenting system. The actual use for it, discussing the post for tagging, notes, and sources, is hardly ever utilized. Instead admins have to spend time banning accounts that comment "that's so hot" on 50,000 posts. A lot of grief could be avoided if comments were just gone.

savageorange said:
Was post #378180 even 'recent' when it was posted? (2014, ~3 years after 9/11)

September 11th, 2001. The falling of the twin towers is older than some users on this site. While it doesn't pass South Park's 22.3 year litmus test, I would argue 9/11 can currently be made fun of.

idem said:
To be honest, I don't know why we still have the commenting system. The actual use for it, discussing the post for tagging, notes, and sources, is hardly ever utilized. Instead admins have to spend time banning accounts that comment "that's so hot" on 50,000 posts. A lot of grief could be avoided if comments were just gone.

There is a fairly good argument to be made toward removing comments on any a number of websites.

In a lot of spaces that are more monetized (Think facebook or cnn), the comments section is important for heightening, magnifying the (furious) output of what the tech industry calls "High Arousal Emotions". The achievement of which, and the sort of feedback loop it builds up, not only produces more ad revenue, but more data. The more violent, witty, angry, topical, venomous and clever the user is in their shared meltdown with everyone else, the more money it makes. The more political it is, the better, because no matter of how viciously right or wrong or simply insane it is, it is data that is being generated to repackage and sell to someone else. Which is all to say that the ability to comment or interact, engage with others on so many sites and services, it's really just there to ruthlessly exagerate and commodify our raw emotions.

e621 obviously doesn't count as one of these sites, but like 4chan, it's userbase comes from the aftermath of what's happened elsewhere. Those outside forces are still in our heads when we come to places like this, as already weak and vulnerable people (and thank god we're not all nihilists yet!), our fury isn't capitalized on here in a financial way, but so much of our media consumption (News media, social media, tabloid, etc) is based around an incredible violence that is hard to be consciously aware of and stop from perpetuating any further... A lot of us haven't conceptualized things like that.

But the other thing is, without any disrespect, spaces like this and furaffinity, elsewhere, it's on the vulnerable and scared margins of what is called "polite society". We simply have people among us who don't neatly fit elsewhere. And as ugly as it might be to say, sometimes a community's ability to interact with the media it has to offer should be more restricted.

I saw it a million times on furaffinity, here, elsewhere, sometimes the ability to attach messages, sentiments onto a person, their art, (public) thoughts, it's just a temper trap.
A comment box, even on websites that don't commodify vitriol, is simply, sometimes, a tree on some field for a lynch mob to gather around.

It still feeds into the way a lot of folk have been conditioned to engage with the world around them.

bitwolfy said:
You can downvote a post if you don't like it.
You shouldn't go through a bunch of posts with a specific tag or theme and downvote everything you see.

So to clarify, if I use downvotes as a pseudo non tag styled blacklist, that’s still okay? I make lots of downvotes but none targeting topics/artists/tags, just ‘well I don’t want to see this particular post ever again, downvote!’

mr.mahreo said:
So to clarify, if I use downvotes as a pseudo non tag styled blacklist, that’s still okay? I make lots of downvotes but none targeting topics/artists/tags, just ‘well I don’t want to see this particular post ever again, downvote!’

Sure.

Welp this site is going to implode on itself now. I'm not shocked at all. Good thing I have plenty of backup sites when it does. You guys are the Vince Russos of website management. Wrestling fans, especially TNA fans, or Jim Cornette fans will understand that.

All in all I think the added clarification from the previous record is good. I don't really have an eye for balance with things like this, but it sounds like people are saying that some of the rules have a level of ambiguity to them that some people find disconcerting.

I would also like to note for everyone that a certain level of ambiguity is needed in guidelines like this. If it were concrete and measurable, then you know people would be riding the line until the goal post needs to be moved, which could turn into a bad cycle. That said, with too much ambiguity, less people would feel safe to interact with the website in an active way. That's a hard tightrope to balance on, because the only feedback the staff will ever get is self serving.

I have a question to any of the admins here. I always loved the "No alt-accounts" rule to stop people from manipulating votes or circumventing bans (and kinda I wished Twitter was more strict about that rule as you guys are). But I always wondered, how do you guys even find out an account is an alt, and when you do, how do you even pin-point the exact original user? Like, its it IP based or something?

Heck, even Pawlaczyna in here just got banned for that reason and the ban reason includes a long to his previous account.

bunnylicious said:
I have a question to any of the admins here. I always loved the "No alt-accounts" rule to stop people from manipulating votes or circumventing bans (and kinda I wished Twitter was more strict about that rule as you guys are). But I always wondered, how do you guys even find out an account is an alt, and when you do, how do you even pin-point the exact original user? Like, its it IP based or something?

Heck, even Pawlaczyna in here just got banned for that reason and the ban reason includes a long to his previous account.

Oh, I know this one! Yeah it's IP based. I heard somebody got banned as an alt because some other person on the same IP got banned. They got it resolved though because they clarified the situation with staff.

ghecji said:
Oh, I know this one! Yeah it's IP based. I heard somebody got banned as an alt because some other person on the same IP got banned. They got it resolved though because they clarified the situation with staff.

They must have some other way of knowing given the vast majority of IP addresses are dynamic. I've noticed some folks will only get banned for evading a permanent ban several months after creating the account.

wolfmanfur said:
They must have some other way of knowing given the vast majority of IP addresses are dynamic. I've noticed some folks will only get banned for evading a permanent ban several months after creating the account.

I'm under the impression it's always a matter of coincidence/how bad the evader is at keeping their mouth shut.

Someone creates a new account and does nothing besides browsing? Probably not important.
Someone creates a new account, but they got a few reports while interacting on the site? Might as well check if they're an evader while giving the record.

bitwolfy said:
Thing is, that rule was intended to target things like COVID denial and misinformation. That's what the "public safety" bit is about.

The thing is; just because the threat was real this time does not mean it will be in the future. We have seen governments around the world abusing their power during the emergency. What guarantees they won't make something up in the future?

bitwolfy said:
...and is generally the right thing to do, not for ideological reasons.

Good and evil are subjective, objectively, there is not such thing as "the right thing to do"; you do it for ideological reazons.

bitwolfy said:
It's just that every time a discussion about this kind of thing pops up, people show up to defend fascists.
And I think that people who do that deserve to be bullied a little.

electricitywolf said:

Good and evil are subjective, objectively, there is not such thing as "the right thing to do"; you do it for ideological reazons.

1.2 Harassment, Doxxing, and Real-Life Threats

• Do not make any messages that call for or may lead to harassment of any user, staff member, Bad Dragon employee, or anyone else.

A general rule of thumb is, you set out to do the least amount of harm, yet resolve the greatest amount of conflict.

Depending on the severity of said conflict, one's action must consider the severity of the aggressor.

There is no leftist or rightist "validity" for aggression, though if I can really begin to impose some judgement here? There is a staunchly pessimistic conservativism in a lot of those who lean left, but the sort of violent bureaucracy one attaches to antagonism, I see it coming from the right with a sharper contrast.

That in and of itself is a certain subjectivity that may not do my argument here service, but the more one leans toward absolute, incontrivertible, beyond contradiction sort of codes, the more things become strange and absurd... There is a scenario that probably still plays out a lot, a woman lives with a significant other, or family member, and they're slinging dope, but she isn't involved in it. Most often due to poverty, circumstance, she has no real recourse. But then she receives a mandatory 10 year sentence for conspiracy. Regardless of how much she facilitated in or was ignorant of the sale of illegal substances. As if she were intimately involved in what was happening under the roof she was living under. That decade of incarceration is mandatory and absolute and all a judge has to do (and can do) is declare what some higher authority already decided. Even if she had long already suffered for having stayed in that apartment, that house, that trailer.

That is what absolute looks like in practice.

What happened (and continues in some parts of the world to happen) during the worst of the pandemic is another example of what absolute looks like, funny enough.

So I feel at once that a degree of leniency and trust needs to be acknowledged and respected by both the staff and userbase of a website and as much as anyone can,
I don't believe this site's staff acts out of line in any particularly awful way.

But I may also be jaded by the memory of how other people, on other sites, exercised their position of Power in ways I'm not going to name here (And don't PM me about it).

electricitywolf said:
The thing is; just because the threat was real this time does not mean it will be in the future. We have seen governments around the world abusing their power during the emergency. What guarantees they won't make something up in the future?

If you think governments around the world can fake something like a global pandemic convincingly enough to fool actual scientists; I repeat, real scientists not those arm chair scientists trying to sell horse dewormer for a virus; you're genuinely delusional.

electricitywolf said:
Good and evil are subjective, objectively, there is not such thing as "the right thing to do"; you do it for ideological reazons.

Spoken like a true centrist. I'm confident you have a great speech in your repertoire why the holocaust wasn't objectively evil on every level, or why the holodomor wasn't evil, or why calling an entire group of people groomers on national television isn't evil.

electricitywolf said:

1.2 Harassment, Doxxing, and Real-Life Threats

• Do not make any messages that call for or may lead to harassment of any user, staff member, Bad Dragon employee, or anyone else.

That's not even close to harassment.

electricitywolf said:
Good and evil are subjective, objectively, there is not such thing as "the right thing to do"; you do it for ideological reazons.

Just because good and evil are subjective doesn't mean that some kind of broad agreement can't be reached. In fact, social-constructionist thought suggests that agreement can create aspects of our reality.
Sweets can be described as sweet because large swathes of the population agree on the subjective experience of sweetness, not because laypeople can objectively detect the presence/absence of sugars and sugar substitutes.

Discussions of good and evil in terms of social contracts are foolish. Simply put, if you do not follow the social contract, you are not covered by it. It is important to be tolerant, except towards the intolerant, who would not give you the same grace.

I don't think it was answered last time one of *these* threads happened (or I never picked up on the answer) but are image-posts not scrutinized as heavily as comments, threads, and blips? Obviously I don't want people to argue, name-call, harass, and generally be awful people atop furry artwork (though it might be humorous the first few times) but I do want e621 to archive as much furry media as it can. There is a threshold where the content of the post is no longer worth the negative attitudes it brings but, for images, is that threshold higher than it is for comments?

bitwolfy said:
Posts and Tags

• Explicitly forbade content that is involved in, depicts, or glorifies recent real-life tragedies.

Is there a good guideline we can use? I'm not planning to time tragedies and make posts accordingly but some clarification would be appreciated. My gut tells me one or two years is definitely long enough in today's landscape. Please let me know if my intuition is wrong and we should be waiting longer.

bitwolfy said:
Disruptive Behavior.

• Explicitly forbade spreading information harmful to personal or public safety.

(I don't see where this is in the CoC)
I'm going to be pedantic here but this seems like a can of worms the way it's worded even if I agree with the good intentions. In the USA you have to refrigerate eggs you buy from a grocery store because some law or agency mandated all eggs must be washed and their protective layer removed. Meanwhile, in Europe, it is illegal to sell washed eggs which means they have their protective layer and do not need to be refrigerated. This is all to say there could be a lot of unintended edge cases that if the staff take too seriously will lead to strange rulings (though this rule is really here to stop people from suggesting to mix bleach and ammonia (it creates chlorine gas))

notmenotyou said:
If you think governments around the world can fake something like a global pandemic convincingly enough to fool actual scientists; I repeat, real scientists not those arm chair scientists trying to sell horse dewormer for a virus; you're genuinely delusional.

Sorry if i sounded harsh or irrational. It's just that there have been plenty of conspiracy theories in the past that turned out to be true and many fact checkers who turned out to be wrong. Also, i did not specify what the threat was, it does not have to be global, it could be anything, even things we cannot imagine right now. And no, i would not buy horse dewormer to treat a virus if it has not been proved to be safe and effective.

notmenotyou said:
Spoken like a true centrist. I'm confident you have a great speech in your repertoire why the holocaust wasn't objectively evil on every level, or why the holodomor wasn't evil, or why calling an entire group of people groomers on national television isn't evil.

I wish i could write a clear and convincing speech, but i would not start with that. Of course i have my own views and i think the holocaust and other similar incidents are evil. But at the same time i recognize my views are not an objective truth. It's kind of ironic that i push my belief that sites like this should remain somewhat neutral while i say that there is no such thing as objectively good.

notmenotyou said:
That's not even close to harassment.

Sorry if i misinterpreted the rules.

Please understand that i was tense after finding out what the new rules were. I did not mean to be mean to anyone.

Does the one month to report rule still apply?

electricitywolf said:
Does the one month to report rule still apply?

I think it is a 6 month, but I could be wrong. If I am, please let me know.

gaian-commander said:
I think it is a 6 month, but I could be wrong. If I am, please let me know.

I don't know, I have reported creepy comments made 3 months prior and I always get a response saying that is too late lmao

electricitywolf said:
It's just that there have been plenty of conspiracy theories in the past that turned out to be true and many fact checkers who turned out to be wrong.

[citation needed]

lafcadio said:
Sweets can be described as sweet because large swathes of the population agree on the subjective experience of sweetness, not because laypeople can objectively detect the presence/absence of sugars and sugar substitutes.

Funnily enough, I learned from this comic that there would be no such consensus if catboys were real.

wat8548 said:
[citation needed]

Planned obsolescence
Operation 'Snow White'
N.S.A spying on citizen
The conspiracy of Covid 19 being from a lab was at least considered seriously enough that people have gone to China to verify the claim, they were blocked from doing so by Xi Jinping. So, it has not been confirmed, but neither has it been deconfirmed.
J.f.k's death and Epstein's death are still wildly contested. One's death seemed too convenient not to be a ploy and the other was not only very convenient, but there are elements leading to that death that don't make sense. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have mentioned them, you asked for conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

Other than these, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are bonkers.

wolfmanfur said:
Planned obsolescence

"Corporations engage in anti-consumer behaviour to maximise their revenue margins" is less of a conspiracy theory than a known and repeatedly proven fact for at least the last 200 years. Off the top of my head, I can name multiple shadier shenanigans than the iPhone battery thing in the record industry alone.

wolfmanfur said:
Operation 'Snow White'

This is... literally the opposite of a conspiracy theory, LMAO. The victim was literally the government.

wolfmanfur said:
N.S.A spying on citizen

My personal favourite example of why conspiracy theorists are never to be taken seriously. Turns out the government actually was intercepting private communications on a massive scale and had negotiated backdoors into "secure" platforms, and the whole thing barely lasted a few years before they hired one contractor (out of thousands) who had enough of a conscience to blow the whistle.

wolfmanfur said:
The conspiracy of Covid 19 being from a lab was at least considered seriously enough that people have gone to China to verify the claim, they were blocked from doing so by Xi Jinping. So, it has not been confirmed, but neither has it been deconfirmed.

I can't think why the Chinese government might not be keen on allowing foreign agents with overtly hostile intentions unfettered access to their state infrastructure. Especially since they're widely known to be paranoid megalomaniacs who go after people for far less.

wat8548 said:
"Corporations engage in anti-consumer behaviour to maximise their revenue margins" is less of a conspiracy theory than a known and repeatedly proven fact for at least the last 200 years. Off the top of my head, I can name multiple shadier shenanigans than the iPhone battery thing in the record industry alone.

This was a conspiracy theory. This was only considered true since 2006, but people believed this conspiracy since 1920.
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/origin-and-myths-of-planned-obsolescence/
I don't like Capitalism either, but people are oblivious to obvious wrongdoings. So, it is indeed a real conspiracy theory that turned to be true.

This is... literally the opposite of a conspiracy theory, LMAO. The victim was literally the government.

This is a conspiracy nevertheless. A conspiracy can be either large scale or small scale. Similarly to this, there is a conspiracy theory that the Illuminati is trying to infiltrate the government, I don't believe it, but it's starkingly similar to the operation "snow white" which is very real. Another example was the Jan 6th insurrection, it was never a 'conspiracy theory'. However, it was a conspiracy since the general population learnt of it far too late.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

My personal favourite example of why conspiracy theorists are never to be taken seriously. Turns out the government actually was intercepting private communications on a massive scale and had negotiated backdoors into "secure" platforms, and the whole thing barely lasted a few years before they hired one contractor (out of thousands) who had enough of a conscience to blow the whistle.

I will take the L for that one. I still don't trust the alphabet companies, the C.I.A alone has a disgusting past.

wolfmanfur said: . . .

wat8548 said: . . .

While this discussion is fascinating, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Take it some place else.

"Some conspiracy theories were correct in the past, so we should respect these ones too" is clown logic anyways.

bitwolfy said:
While this discussion is fascinating, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Take it some place else.

"Some conspiracy theories were correct in the past, so we should respect these ones too" is clown logic anyways.

I agree. He asked for citations, so I gave them to him. This is pointless bickering anyway.

idem said:
Is there a good guideline we can use? I'm not planning to time tragedies and make posts accordingly but some clarification would be appreciated. My gut tells me one or two years is definitely long enough in today's landscape. Please let me know if my intuition is wrong and we should be waiting longer.

I feel like it's going to be a case-by-case basis sort of thing or it's not going to get outlined publicly for exactly that reason. If they were concrete with the dates, people are immediately going to take advantage of it and start uploading posts that depict the tragedies after said date.

Does that mean we are not allowed to recommend web sites like in this threads? https://e621.net/forum_topics/36501 https://e621.net/forum_topics/37704
What about recommending other things to people who ask about it?

electricitywolf said:

1.9 Advertising

Do not promote any external sites, resources, products, or services.
If you are an artist or content owner, you are permitted to advertise products and services you may offer. You may do so in the "description" field of your posts, on the artist page, and in your profile description.

If you wish to promote your products or services through a banner ad, please contact [email protected] with any questions. See the advertisement help page for more information.

Does that mean we are not allowed to recommend web sites like in this threads? https://e621.net/forum_topics/36501 https://e621.net/forum_topics/37704
What about recommending other things to people who ask about it?

More like those C**h app spams, or affiliate links (i.e. pay-per-click), and other obnoxiousness. Advertising your Gum Road account in descriptions is specifically allowed as mentioned. Same with *art site name* in artist Wiki entry or sources. Those 2 are in fact specifically encouraged, not just allowed, it seems. They used a catch all phrase for "irritating spam", not related to the topics or posts.

I remember some people getting 'issues' on this and other sites because of ads in their posts/galleries that broke rules.

*Does not comment on the Code JFK talk*

Clarified that using alt accounts to bypass any site limitations is also against the rules – this also includes things like upload or tag edit limits.

I feel like it was (more-than) sort of borderline when offering to help an artist post their comic pages. I took a break from tagging for a few days, but need to go through it after I start again. Divine Acid comic, BTW. The right way to do this is to do 10 pages, tag them, then repeat after reviewed/approved.

wat8548 said:
Not that I disagree with this one, but this goes directly against all previous admin statements on the topic. Excited to see how it's going to be enforced.

Way I've seen it enforced, is that if you make a ton of comments on it, you get blocked, anyways, and if you just do a bunch of downvotes on every single post with that tag, then you're the type to eventually get banned for the former situation. XD Very rarely, I've seen brigading/socket puppetry get dealt with. It seems rarely people try it, because it's just so blindingly obvious and easy way to get banned for abusing alts.

idem said:
To be honest, I don't know why we still have the commenting system.

With all due respect, please stop.

I also can't think of a single reason for comments to be on the site tbh.

idem said:

I think I've answered the first one for myself. Forgot that discussing drug use is against the rules, but is okay in images. I guess I could change my question to ask, how would the moderation team react if people took debates into images? It might be trying to cross a bridge before we get there, but I am curious if this behavior is sanctioned or even given a bit of leeway (e.g. someone makes a comic about how legal drugs have improved their life and suggest to the reader they should participate).

I don't know where these rules should be though. The code of conduct doesn't apply one to one with image-posts, but the uploading guidelines make no mention that you can not upload posts as a form of harassment. I don't think the moderation would stand for "revenge porn" on this site. I would encourage the staff to clarify where and how the two rule-sets intersect.

An answer/rule of thumb for the second question would be nice though.

werideatdawn said:
I feel like it's going to be a case-by-case basis sort of thing or it's not going to get outlined publicly for exactly that reason. If they were concrete with the dates, people are immediately going to take advantage of it and start uploading posts that depict the tragedies after said date.

I'm just looking for a broad stroke, even if its long. If someone is going to report content because it is involved in a real-life tragedy I don't think the staff want their time wasted with something like 9/11 which is out of the scope (just like how old posts and old comments are exempt from most disciplinary actions).

I forget that many people don't value discussions, anymore, I guess... Sigh.

So... why is it always CoC? Is this being sexist against women? Only half joking as that acronym is horrible. Code of non-trangression? Allowed/suggested social interactions? How about Only Rarely Allowed?

:Edit: Forgot: Pictures of really nice things/Production of really nice pictures.

Appreciation to the staff for working hard to make e621 a safe space. There is such a thing as objective reality and bigotry is bad so it's very good that you're taking a stance. Gotta draw a line somewhere, and that's something many communities have utterly failed to do.

If you don't like comments, there's a setting to turn them off.

pawlaczyna said:
Oh joy!
Did you know that pretty much ALL medical corporate whistle-blowers were called covid denialists? Not to mention that many scientists were harrased into compliance and many were fired for not fitting the narrative?
There has been a waves of lawsuits in MANY countries regarding abuses made by governemnt and medical corpos, the stuff that in the past would make people call you antivaxxer!
I mean, who does decide here what is truth and what is misinformation? Totally legit and impartial "fact checkers"? Or maybe mods gained omniscence and future sight and will totally be impartial to an inhuman deegree?
I think we all know the answer...

...so basically you decided to arbitrarily make certain groups into a "supercaste" that cannot be opposed, no matter how well tought your arguments are or how polite you are.
Add to the fact that "homophobia" and "transfobia" are such easly abusable concepts (you can even be called one for citing scientifical stats in non-malevolent way) that it will be abused by mods.
Is this your "vision" of welcoming community? Double standards and priviliges built into the system for groups of people you support?

But what is "the right thing to do" IS governed by the ideology ones follow!
For example for one person "the right thing to do" is protecting freedom of speech 'cuz they believe in freedom, and for another person "the right thing to do" is censoring the acceptable targets 'cuz they believe in utopias.

Because "fascism" is perfect ph-paper for showing if discussion place is taking "freedom of speech and discussion" seriously?
Especially on the internet, where most pro-censorship people are lefists?
It doesn't help that western lefists see anything to the right of them as "fascist" or "nazism", the same way how righties see everything to the left of them as "communism" and "socialism".

And for THAT COMMENT ALONE I firmly believe you should have no power on this site!
I mean, really?! A site administrator that condones bullying?! What is wrong with you?

All in all, after reading the changes I must say I am dissapointed in increase in censorship and partiality of moderation.
All of this reminds me of "depribooru fiasco" during BLM.
Bronies in e621 will know EXACTLY what I mean.

You sound insane

I am glad to see the Code of Conduct changes. It is also quite funny - and sad at the same time - to see certain people crawl out into the light to complain about the "Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety" rule as if it's somehow vague. Fascism, covid denialism, general bigotry, none of that shit belongs anywhere, and I am glad e621 takes a stance against it. It is also not surprising that people who are against that rule turn out to be generally bigoted or insane like pawlaczyna who deliberately misrepresent the situation in order to paint themselves as the righteous.

nikblack said:
I am glad to see the Code of Conduct changes. It is also quite funny - and sad at the same time - to see certain people crawl out into the light to complain about the "Do not promote ideologies harmful to public safety" rule as if it's somehow vague. Fascism, covid denialism, general bigotry, none of that shit belongs anywhere, and I am glad e621 takes a stance against it. It is also not surprising that people who are against that rule turn out to be generally bigoted or insane like pawlaczyna who deliberately misrepresent the situation in order to paint themselves as the righteous.

I have no idea. The massive wall of text starting with code phrases and anger was kind of hard to finish reading.