I'm usually really supportive of admin decisions and rules. Administering any site on the web is not only thankless, but with many internet-prone personalities, it subjects a person to endless abuse.

I'm really confused about what's relevant to the site. I understand the following:

• Art doesn't have to be furry to belong here.
• Some policies aren't written in stone.
• Many choices are left to the discretion of the individual admin.
• Not everyone agrees on what's relevant to the site.

Taking all of that into account, it's really frustrating to me that one of John Joseco's images was deleted yesterday because it was "Irrelevant to the site." It was art of a human, but users have pointed out hundreds of times that this is not a furry website. The quality was very good, and the image had a sexy, soft porn feel that I think a lot of viewers really liked. How could that not be relevant to e621?

Again, I really support the decisions of most admin and am grateful for what you guys do. I just disagree with the way one person can so arbitrarily get rid of an image that many other people might appreciate. For this image, it seemed a bit capricious, like a step too far.

post #207192

P.S. For clarification, it is not my intent to pick on ippiki_ookami. This is about the image, not any individual person.

Irrelevant or off-topic (on e621) usually means without any trace of animals/non-human mammals in a post. A post being porn or of good quality does not guarantee its' acceptance into e621.

Riversyde said:
Irrelevant or off-topic (on e621) usually means without any trace of animals/non-human mammals in a post. A post being porn or of good quality does not guarantee its' acceptance into e621.

So then art does have to be furry to be here?

DobiesHot said:
So then art does have to be furry to be here?

Not exactly. It kinda depends on which approver gets to it first.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
Not exactly. It kinda depends on which approver gets to it first.

Or whoever can be arsed to delete it.

DobiesHot said:
So then art does have to be furry to be here?

Well, if you post something furry, it's got a higher chance of being approved than if you posted something not furry.

Nutshelled version;

Any picture that is "Irrelevant" has a CHANCE of being deleted, depending solely on the moderator that sees them first. Some moderators are more lax {Skeeter} While some are very delete happy, right river?

the fact that a lot of John Joseco's art is already on this site should increase the chance that this image remains. I hardly see why it was deleted; there's plenty of human art without a trace of animals.

Princess_Celestia said:
Nutshelled version;

Any picture that is "Irrelevant" has a CHANCE of being deleted, depending solely on the moderator that sees them first. Some moderators are more lax {Skeeter} While some are very delete happy, right river?

Just because I delete a few irrelevant things does not make me "delete happy".

Thiefenz said:
the fact that a lot of John Joseco's art is already on this site should increase the chance that this image remains. I hardly see why it was deleted; there's plenty of human art without a trace of animals.

That may be so, but I believe each image should be judged on its own merit, not "oh, this guy drew it" or "we have a lot of it already".

The Rules said:
Make an effort to post quality, finished, non-repost images. Avoid crap-quality things like tiny images, grainy images, motivational poster memes, screenshots, image macros, images with absurdly huge and extremely annoying watermarks, etc. Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators.

Good thing it has a source link.

It is kinda a shame though. That is actually really good, and a lot of crap does get through lol

That picture most definitely should have stayed. :p

Delete ALL THE humanized pics? :(

Vagabond said:
Delete ALL THE humanized pics? :(

Been there, done that.

Thanks to everyone who replied and helped clarify this.

I'm sure those of you who are administrators have gone over this policy again and again. Has anyone considered the possibility of running an image past one or two other admin if it's on the border of relevance like this image? It might cut down on the arbitrariness and make deletions more objective without writing a new policy in stone or even requiring any major effort.

Just a thought!

DobiesHot said:
Thanks to everyone who replied and helped clarify this.

I'm sure those of you who are administrators have gone over this policy again and again. Has anyone considered the possibility of running an image past one or two other admin if it's on the border of relevance like this image? It might cut down on the arbitrariness and make deletions more objective without writing a new policy in stone or even requiring any major effort.

Just a thought!

Borderline images are sometimes discussed in the staff channel or public IRC before being deleted. But not always.

I personally find this kind of...strange. I've noticed 'alot' of recent deletions for reasons of "Irrelevant to Site". Maybe its just a mod thing, I don't know. Nowhere in the rules does it say "No posting of Non-Furry Content." The exact rules stated for posting, are "No Real Pornography, No Fake Watermarked Files, and No Poor Compression Images".

Seems to me, the above stated images have not violated this. Nor have...say, some of the flashes deleted by certain mods the last few days. For example, we 'had' a loli flashes posted. Fairly decent quality, no complaints. Not into that kind of thing myself, but more than a few of us are. Plenty of other loli stuff on the site. Why'd it get singled out as Irrelevant to Site?

Its highly confusing. And if its some kind of posting policy that is not listed on the posting rules page, why is it not listed under such?

I just wish we could stil see the comments from the deleted image.

I find it odd that such a good art piece has been deleted but this gets to stay: http://e621.net/post/show/207906/butt-clothing-dress-gradient_background-green_eyes

I wanted to put some human art up here, something which I can do better than furry or scaley art, but judging on responses it's generally not a good idea until you're more well known I guess?

Like others have said it's up to admins really, and because of how the colours and layout of this site is, it's hard to tell who's an admin without clicking their individual names.

unokitsune said:
I find it odd that such a good art piece has been deleted but this gets to stay: http://e621.net/post/show/207906/butt-clothing-dress-gradient_background-green_eyes

That's a very good question...

ippiki_ookami said:
That's a very good question...

Ippi I have a question for you. How come Child Pornography in the disguise of "Shota" and "Loli" is allowed here when it got the site in trouble once before? http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/E621

unokitsune said:
Ippi I have a question for you. How come Child Pornography in the disguise of "Shota" and "Loli" is allowed here when it got the site in trouble once before? http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/E621

That would be a question for Char or Varka.

unokitsune said:
Ippi I have a question for you. How come Child Pornography in the disguise of "Shota" and "Loli" is allowed here when it got the site in trouble once before? http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/E621

It caused trouble with the old advertisers who didn't want to be associated with it. We have new ones now I think.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
It caused trouble with the old advertisers who didn't want to be associated with it. We have new ones now I think.

Well, the new advertiser *is* Varka, who has also been generous enough to host the site (I believe at his own facility, but I can't be certain).

For a long time, the only ads were for Bad Dragon, which I understand is Varka's business. As time has gone by, more people have advertised with the site.

I got a negative record once for blatant upload abuse. After that, I pointed out other similar postings like the one I uploaded and they got removed. Just my two cents.

unokitsune said:
Ippi I have a question for you. How come Child Pornography in the disguise of "Shota" and "Loli" is allowed here when it got the site in trouble once before? http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/E621

pfft. the site didn't get in trouble for child pornography, David Ross was DIRECTLY threatening the site owner and the site got shut down originally for THAT reason.

Moral of the story, Insane Kangaroo is banned from furry now.

Hey! I know I'm reviving some probably dead thread, but I got a question. I posted my first upload onto e621 earlier today. Which is this:

https://e621.net/post/show/601804/animated-anvil_position-bed-blue_eyes-bouncing_bre

As you can see, Mittsies deleted it for being "irrelevant to the site".

The thing is, the flash I was putting up was a better version of this flash with new music:

https://e621.net/post/show/464598/animated-anvil_position-bed-blue_eyes-bouncing_bre

This is made by minus8, an artist who constantly has human only porn posted on here.

Can someone please explain why my post got deleted?

wtflol3657 said:
Hey! I know I'm reviving some probably dead thread...

Yeah, you are...
You can always make a new thread, or just drop a pm to the mod who deleted the image, asking about it.

wtflol3657 said:
...Can someone please explain why my post got deleted?

I'm no moderator, but I can take a stab at it. The big thing is that up until recently art that had ONLY humans in it was sometimes permitted and approved for upload, but now the standing policy is "only humans = irrelevant" and is not approved. However, old human stuff that was approved before the change isn't getting deleted, no one really wants that.

There's actually a stickied thread about it titled "humans and e621" or something to that effect at the top of the forums. If you and read the official admin stance on the subject go check that out.

Yep, because humans.

Tokaido said:
I'm no moderator, but I can take a stab at it. The big thing is that up until recently art that had ONLY humans in it was sometimes permitted and approved for upload, but now the standing policy is "only humans = irrelevant" and is not approved. However, old human stuff that was approved before the change isn't getting deleted, no one really wants that.

There's actually a stickied thread about it titled "humans and e621" or something to that effect at the top of the forums. If you and read the official admin stance on the subject go check that out.

To add to this, I'd like to point out the following post:

forum #151799

NotMeNotYou said:

Munkelzahn said:
If I find a bigger version of a non-furry post from the time before the rule clarification, am I allowed to upload the bigger version?

yes

So yeah, it was probably just an accident. I'd definitely send a message to Mittsies and ask about it.

parasprite said:
*Armin saying high tees versions of non furry uploads are OK, at least sometimes*

Ah, I missed that one. Yeah, parasprite is right, send mittsies a message. You can even source that same excerpt.

This one post that I uploaded a couple of weeks ago...

http://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1666078

...was deleted because it "Does not meet minimum quality standards".

I'm not nor do I feel the need to be reprimanding about the moderator's choice of action (NotMeNotYou), but I do wonder slightly how this image doesn't meet those standards.

...Unless of course, it just looks plain crappy.

3d stuff is always tricky, they have a different method of evaluating that type of content, since its a model on SFM, i don't know the specific criteria perhaps you should ask him.

Almost everything is irrelevant to the site any more.

Ah, I remember a time when I posteeposted human Ren from DRAMAtical Murder with dog ears and a mask with a dog mouth on it and it got removed. I thought that'd be ok since I see a lot of art that has humans with animal ears that got approved. Also posted some DMMD art that has some humans AND animals as some main focuses and yet got removed for veing "irrelevant to the site"....This site confuses me a lot.

Also, these were the images I mentioned here that were deleted for irrelevancy:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3 with dog earred human Ren I cant find. Sorry.

GameManiac said:
This one post that I uploaded a couple of weeks ago...

http://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1666078

...was deleted because it "Does not meet minimum quality standards".

I'm not nor do I feel the need to be reprimanding about the moderator's choice of action (NotMeNotYou), but I do wonder slightly how this image doesn't meet those standards.

...Unless of course, it just looks plain crappy.

Overall the rendering is pretty bad. The whole thing looks like clay, it's generally blurry, low res, flat texturing, and the shadows are just weird and inconsistent (how that happens with 3D-rendered art I'm not sure). The background isn't consistent in style either as there is far more detail put into that, so it looks like it was just shoved into a different world.

Anatomically it looks like the torso isn't connected to the lower back, the right side of the thigh looks like they tried to make it kinked (to define the hip) but the lack of shading just makes it look jagged, the tail being a sphere looks really odd in 3D, the hands don't look like they are touching the cheeks at all (despite it implying that she is spreading them), the anus is a cut out hole and has no detail or shading whatsoever, and the naughty bits look like...a grey sausage?...I don't know it's really blurry.

The artist actually has a higher res version on their tumblr if you're interested, but it isn't much better (actually the lower res smooths the flaws out somewhat).

Oh, and as Dragon pointed out 3D art is pretty hit or miss here. The problem is it's relatively easy to render one crappy model in 30 different poses and spam the front page with screencaps.

GalladeXD said:

Image 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wROntRCHMA

GalladeXD said:
Ah, I remember a time when I posteeposted human Ren from DRAMAtical Murder with dog ears and a mask with a dog mouth on it and it got removed. I thought that'd be ok since I see a lot of art that has humans with animal ears that got approved. Also posted some DMMD art that has some humans AND animals as some main focuses and yet got removed for veing "irrelevant to the site"....This site confuses me a lot.

Also, these were the images I mentioned here that were deleted for irrelevancy:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3 with dog earred human Ren I cant find. Sorry.

Animal costumes aren't relevant to us, and it is just a costume, that snake is very much not the focus of the image and little more than a detail.
And I guess you mean http://tinykitties123.deviantart.com/art/ren-489171908, in which case it's the same as the second, a human with an animal costume isn't relevant.
For some magical reason if the ears are grown on the human the get relevant to us, though I personally don't agree with that I do approve them if that is the case.

GameManiac said:
This one post that I uploaded a couple of weeks ago...

http://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1666078

...was deleted because it "Does not meet minimum quality standards".

I'm not nor do I feel the need to be reprimanding about the moderator's choice of action (NotMeNotYou), but I do wonder slightly how this image doesn't meet those standards.

...Unless of course, it just looks plain crappy.

That thing is a really shitty model.

NotMeNotYou said:
Animal costumes aren't relevant to us, and it is just a costume, that snake is very much not the focus of the image and little more than a detail.
And I guess you mean http://tinykitties123.deviantart.com/art/ren-489171908, in which case it's the same as the second, a human with an animal costume isn't relevant.
For some magical reason if the ears are grown on the human the get relevant to us, though I personally don't agree with that I do approve them if that is the case.

That thing is a really shitty model.

Ah ok, thank you for clearing things up. Now Im a lot less confused.

(Also you're right about that model being shitty.)

NotMeNotYou said:

That thing is a really shitty model.

...I knew it.