This is the image in question. (WARNING: blood)

The character featured is typically depicted as an anthropomorphic owl, but is shown as a human vampire in this picture. Besides the fangs and discolored hands, she exhibits no visible non-human features. As I understand it, Vampires are not "pure" human, but at a glance she looks very human. A search of "vampire human solo" returns humanoids with visible non-human features (pointy ears, tails, wings, etc.)

The reason why I am asking this question because this image is part of a set featuring the owl girl (pool #38472), but there is no continuity between the images (so it doesn't fall under the "complete comic rule"). Absent of all context, those not familiar with this character would assume she is human, and those who are familiar with this character would not recognize her at all. So I think it fails the TWYS test. I know there is another picture in the pool that shows her as a human (post #4244719), but it probably got a pass because it also features furry characters in the background.

I think it is too human for this site, but what do you think?

if these vampire submissions are approved, then i don't know if it doesn't deserve being posted here because it's too human by standards:
post #4525920 post #4320447 post #4262171

maybe it's just a greyscale, but the character possesses grey skin, vampirism, and other traits that clearly shows it's not a typical human to be approved here.

the standards of e6 is just an absolute mess, the same feeling about photography of traditional media. i'd be uploading animal head submissions but they are disqualified, meanwhile elves, being cookie-cutter humans except distinguishable trait is just sharp ears, are qualified. it's just an irony yet reality of e6.

No pointy ears, not acceptable.

snake-girl said:
if these vampire submissions are approved, then i don't know if it doesn't deserve being posted here because it's too human by standards:
post #4525920 post #4320447 post #4262171

maybe it's just a greyscale, but the character possesses grey skin, vampirism, and other traits that clearly shows it's not a typical human to be approved here.

the standards of e6 is just an absolute mess, the same feeling about photography of traditional media. i'd be uploading animal head submissions but they are disqualified, meanwhile elves, being cookie-cutter humans except distinguishable trait is just sharp ears, are qualified. it's just an irony yet reality of e6.

Those were approved because of the elf ears.

cloudpie said:
Those were approved because of the elf ears.

i know, i only found it funny that submissions like animal-headed robot is less deserved of the approval than humans but pointy ears and labeled ‘elf’. lol

snake-girl said:
i know, i only found it funny that submissions like animal-headed robot is less deserved of the approval than humans but pointy ears and labeled ‘elf’. lol

what do you mean? robots of all sorts should be getting approved, whether or not they've got any animal features. that is, assuming they don't just look like a human in armor or something.

i found this post #4555863 would this help in some way

fliphook said:
i found this post #4555863 would this help in some way

it's not currently approved, and if it was it'd likely be because its relation to post #4322826, its parent. otherwise it's definitely irrelevant.

it says it is active and i checked flagging and there is no uploading guidlines option, it may be here due to the parent post. Civil Nitrogen says this image is part of a 'set' or 'pool' so it should be fine through that but it would be most important to tag properly with:

stake
impalement
fangs
alternate form / alternate species?
vampire
glove (markings)
humanoid

those do meet the TWYS guidelines and they show she is not actually human as humans can't really live so casual with a stake in the chest

sipothac said:
what do you mean? robots of all sorts should be getting approved, whether or not they've got any animal features. that is, assuming they don't just look like a human in armor or something.

i am talking about the deleted submission of this. the character is clearly a robot humanoid but with ursid head, it’s not human for sure but it’s removed for it. that’s e6.

fliphook said:
it says it is active

oh was it auto-approved or something? there's no approver name on the post, does unrestricted uploads do that?

fliphook said:
i checked flagging and there is no uploading guidlines option, it may be here due to the parent post.

post relevance is usually decided when a post is being considered for its initial acceptance by a janator or staff; normal member-level users don't have the ability to flag stuff for uploading guideline reasons.

i also found these

post #2440994 post #2208880 post #2533330

when did they update the uploading guidelines to reduce human_only

and the flagging options change depending if the post is status:pending and status:active

fliphook said:
i also found these

post #2440994 post #2208880 post #2533330

when did they update the uploading guidelines to reduce human_only

#1 has a mask that appears to be part of the character's face, judging by the closed eyes w/ eyelashes.
#3 is knotting the pumpkin, characters with dog penises get approved quite often.

sipothac said:
#1 has a mask that appears to be part of the character's face, judging by the closed eyes w/ eyelashes.
#3 is knotting the pumpkin, characters with dog penises get approved quite often.

i didn't see that penis but what about #2

snake-girl said:
i am talking about the deleted submission of this. the character is clearly a robot humanoid but with ursid head, it’s not human for sure but it’s removed for it. that’s e6.

you could talk to staff, ask them why they deleted it, point out why it should stay, people make mistakes mairo may have overlooked that. the body panel lines are hard to notice can easily be mistook as muscle tone lines

fliphook said:
it says it is active and i checked flagging and there is no uploading guidlines option, it may be here due to the parent post. Civil Nitrogen says this image is part of a 'set' or 'pool' so it should be fine through that but it would be most important to tag properly with:

stake
impalement
fangs
alternate form / alternate species?
vampire
glove (markings)
humanoid

those do meet the TWYS guidelines and they show she is not actually human as humans can't really live so casual with a stake in the chest

Would that be enough to satisfy the mods? She does look less human than actual humans.

fliphook said:
i also found these

post #2440994 post #2208880 post #2533330

The middle picture involves a character from a work that has animal people in it (never read Twokinds, but I know of it). If that's all it takes, then I might have some luck. The third picture is very, very subtle, but it also got approved.

Yeah, maybe being part of the pool and tagging the character's name would be enough to get it approved. How closely do the mods scrutinize new posts?

EDIT: Never mind, 2nd picture got deleted

civil_nitrogen said:

Yeah, maybe being part of the pool and tagging the character's name would be enough to get it approved. How closely do the mods scrutinize new posts?

i have two examples in my flag history where staff deleted, restored, deleted a post. so if they take it down you could point out why it should stay, send them to this thread see what they make of it. the site is staffed by multiple people with different ideals as to what is allowed. all users here have all the same reading material in the uploading guidelines but not everyone picks up or remembers the same information.

it wouldn't hurt to put a good description about the image as well and be sure to put it into the pool right away. that would have information between those posts like a story arc to help keep it here.

so from my end it looks promising. it just might be a small battle to get the right footing to stay based on who sees the post. and you can always talk to staff (politely) to reconsider if taken down

civil_nitrogen said:
The middle picture involves a character from a work that has animal people in it (never read Twokinds, but I know of it). If that's all it takes, then I might have some luck.

That's not supposed to be all it takes. It needs to be part of a series of posts that has a focus on animals or animal people, not merely be part of a setting that has them. I honestly don't know why that was accepted, I'm pretty sure human-only stuff like that wasn't allowed 4 years ago.

watsit said:
That's not supposed to be all it takes. It needs to be part of a series of posts that has a focus on animals or animal people, not merely be part of a setting that has them. I honestly don't know why that was accepted, I'm pretty sure human-only stuff like that wasn't allowed 4 years ago.

when i found that picture i searched for

human_only inpool:false ischild:false isparent:false status:active

maybe it was tagged wrong but it was not in a pool, did not have relative post and was approved almost 4 years ago i think that was after the updates. maybe it was a fluke but mairo did approve it maybe have a word with them, they may know something we don't about the post or they thought it was a character that has alternate forms which would help civil nitrogen with their post

heck even though this thread is open to everyone, staff may have bigger fish to fry than to look into every forum post, why not just ask one to come here and see what they think

e621 doesn't operate on how 'too human' something is. If you post a human character with pointy ears it's allowed: link

Any mutation from the norm is allowed, it is only disallowed if a character is completely human without any non-human element. that means something that is furry like fursuits can be rejected on the basis that the wearer is human.

wolfmanfur said:
e621 doesn't operate on how 'too human' something is. If you post a human character with pointy ears it's allowed: link

Any mutation from the norm is allowed, it is only disallowed if a character is completely human without any non-human element. that means something that is furry like fursuits can be rejected on the basis that the wearer is human.

hold on i may have gotten stupid a bit and don't know where i'm going with this but check this post #3691862 warning young/cub/shota
approved 1 year ago

watsit said:
That's not supposed to be all it takes. It needs to be part of a series of posts that has a focus on animals or animal people, not merely be part of a setting that has them. I honestly don't know why that was accepted, I'm pretty sure human-only stuff like that wasn't allowed 4 years ago.

It wasn’t, but the staff members are all human and do occasionally make mistakes, especially when attempting to process roughly 2000 new posts every day.

That particular post has now been deleted, though.

scaliespe said:
It wasn’t, but the staff members are all human and do occasionally make mistakes, especially when attempting to process roughly 2000 new posts every day.

That particular post has now been deleted, though.

oh hello!, glad you're here, what do you think of civil nitrogens initial question

• Every post is judged individually.
• We work by the "Tag What You See" rule. If a character looks like a human, it is treated as a human. This rule is subjective to some extent, so different approvers will judge differently on what counts as a "non-human feature".
• If all characters in an image appear to be human, they are deleted, regardless of other posts, and lore.
• There are exceptions e.g. for comics with "human only" pages in between, or sequences. It's quite common for transformation content.
• Being a part of a series that features "non-human creatures" doesn't justify a post of a "human".
• Sometimes human only posts slip through. Either because the approver, or a user with unrestricted uploads, was inattentive.

I hope this can clear some questions.

We're hardly perfect. Approvers can get tired, burn out, even suffer from tunnel vision. If you think a picture has been approved inappropriately, you can flag it, although use your head when doing so.

civil_nitrogen said:
This is the image in question. (WARNING: blood)

I would regard that as being too human. Going by TWYS, she looks human (even if lore-wise she isn't) so counts as too human for the archive's theme. As there is frequently no continuity between images of a set as there would be in a parent/child link or a pool, being part of a set wouldn't matter a whole lot.

fliphook said:
stake
impalement
fangs
alternate form / alternate species?
vampire
glove (markings)
humanoid

those do meet the TWYS guidelines and they show she is not actually human as humans can't really live so casual with a stake in the chest

Not really. It's implied that the stake is jammed into her chest, but just looking at it, it could just be stuck in her cleavage. Also, bona fide humans have spent time with things jammed through them and lived. The fangs aren't really distinctive enough to get into humanoid pointy ear territory. Now, if we got into orc tusks or Venom mouth-o'-fangs, then you'd have a case, but those little things again are hardly any more fangy than real human canines. It being an alternate species is irrelevant. Vampire and humanoid is purely lore here. And the glove markings fall under the funky skin colors guideline. Consider birthmarks, tattoos, psoriasis, and other real life skin discolorations.

Is it splitting hairs? Definitely. Part of a Janitor's job is figuring out not just where to split the hairs but how finely. And then you end up saying, "Screw it," and make a decision which you hope doesn't blow up in your face later on.

snake-girl said:
if these vampire submissions are approved, then i don't know if it doesn't deserve being posted here because it's too human by standards:
...
maybe it's just a greyscale, but the character possesses grey skin, vampirism, and other traits that clearly shows it's not a typical human to be approved here.

Those vampires have humanoid pointy ears, so they get a pass. Humanoid pointy ears can be a pain sometimes when the ears aren't really pointy enough, and admittedly some staff think they're still too human, but the line has to be scribbled somewhere.

On the other hand, funky skin colors don't count. It could be body paint, excessive carotene in the body, a really cold day, or just a Simpsons character and yet still be human.

snake-girl said:
i know, i only found it funny that submissions like animal-headed robot is less deserved of the approval than humans but pointy ears and labeled ‘elf’. lol
______________________

i am talking about the deleted submission of this. the character is clearly a robot humanoid but with ursid head, it’s not human for sure but it’s removed for it.

A clearly animal-headed robot would be accepted but, as Sipothac points out, it needs to look the part, regardless of what the lore claims. Of the example you posted, it looks like a human wearing a fursuit head.

fliphook said:
i found this post #4555863 would this help in some way

On its own, it would be deleted. However, as it's childed to a parent post that is relevant, it's able to stay as it provides context, much as pages in a comic do to each other.

fliphook said:
i also found these

post #2440994 post #2208880 post #2533330

Sipothac's assessment of #1 and #3 are correct. #2's approval was an oversight, perhaps because Mairo got tired or tunnel visioned. He may be our most experienced Janitor, but he's only mortal, just like you and me.

fliphook said:
hold on i may have gotten stupid a bit and don't know where i'm going with this but check this post #3691862 warning young/cub/shota
approved 1 year ago

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It's been deleted now. As I can't speak for Mairo for that #2 above, I can't speak for Lance Armstrong on why he approved this one, but whatever the reason, he likely thought the character was actually a partially shaved raccoon rather than a human with a fursuit head. It can be rather easy to miss.

Clawstripe said:
We're hardly perfect. Approvers can get tired, burn out, even suffer from tunnel vision. If you think a picture has been approved inappropriately, you can flag it, although use your head when doing so.

Actually you can't flag a post as doesn't meet uploading guidelines if you aren't Priv+

snpthecat said:
Actually you can't flag a post as doesn't meet uploading guidelines if you aren't Priv+

Approved posts, yes. In that case, just pointing out the post to someone should do fine.

oh...
...cool

i uh...
i am currently responding to this after readling all that, just once so far.

it is currently 4:30 a.m. for me, i should have gone to bed yesterday. i'll look at this again with a better rested head in the morning. if Civil Nitrogen an come up with conclusion themselves and act on that, then thats cool.

i'm gonna...
i'm gonna sleep for a bit and get back to this later.

thank you all.
thank you very very much.
good night

A shot story to provide context:

After noticing some pictures by this artist was part of a (non-continuous, yet ordered) series, I decided to compile them into a pool (pool #38472). I did that because no other sites did that, (Twitter is hard to follow, DeviantART has problems, and I refuse to go back to Tumblr). The only way I could see those pictures in order is if I make a set or pool on this site, and I'm sure others would want to see it too. I uploaded some of the rest of the images that weren't on this site to make the collection complete. I hit a wall in two places. Weeks 19 (here) and 40 (the subject of this discussion ). 19's problem is that I can't find a clean PNG version (I don't have a Newgrounds account), and I don't feel comfortable uploading that when I know a better version is available. And 40 I thought was too human for e6, but I wasn't sure so I started this thread.

clawstripe said:

I would regard that as being too human. Going by TWYS, she looks human (even if lore-wise she isn't) so counts as too human for the archive's theme. As there is frequently no continuity between images of a set as there would be in a parent/child link or a pool, being part of a set wouldn't matter a whole lot.

clawstripe said:
Not really. It's implied that the stake is jammed into her chest, but just looking at it, it could just be stuck in her cleavage. Also, bona fide humans have spent time with things jammed through them and lived. The fangs aren't really distinctive enough to get into humanoid pointy ear territory. Now, if we got into orc tusks or Venom mouth-o'-fangs, then you'd have a case, but those little things again are hardly any more fangy than real human canines. It being an alternate species is irrelevant. Vampire and humanoid is purely lore here. And the glove markings fall under the funky skin colors guideline. Consider birthmarks, tattoos, psoriasis, and other real life skin discolorations.

Yes, that was my first thought, her fangs looked no different from human teeth. If you lean back or view in a smaller resolution, the fangs disappear. If she does have pointy ears under that hair, it makes no difference because they are not visible, and there are no other pictures that show her in this form with pointy ears.

I asked for clarification, and I got my answer. I won't upload it. As much as I want the full collection to be complete, this site has rules. This is not a battle I'm willing to fight.

Even though it is part of a pool in the technical sense, there is no continuity. You're not really missing anything without it. Every picture has the phrase "Week X" on it, but I wouldn't call them page numbers even though they act like them.

civil_nitrogen said:
Yes, that was my first thought, her fangs looked no different from human teeth. If you lean back or view in a smaller resolution, the fangs disappear. If she does have pointy ears under that hair, it makes no difference because they are not visible, and there are no other pictures that show her in this form with pointy ears.

You figured correctly, but of course, there was no harm to double check by asking. A possible workaround would be to link the unuploaded pictures in the pool's description.

I do know how you feel, though. I once organized into a pool and finished uploading most of a series of major arcana tarot cards featuring monstrous humanoids. Unfortunately, a couple looked little more than humans wearing heavy cloaks, so I didn't upload them, instead linking via the pool description.

post #780888
A human and remains of a robot which are not even in focus.

grandfathered_content

snpthecat said:
grandfathered_content

That post doesn't fall under grandfathered content for human only due to it being created after 2014 (human only guidelines were instated in January 2015)

donovan_dmc said:
That post doesn't fall under grandfathered content for human only due to it being created after 2014 (human only guidelines were instated in January 2015)

grandfathered_content human_only id:600000..
should probably get cleared, most of them aren't superior versions of grandfathered content.

snpthecat said:
grandfathered_content human_only id:600000..
should probably get cleared, most of them aren't superior versions of grandfathered content.

It's not really worth our time to go through existing posts on the site to check if they might break our current guidelines. We handle posts as they come up.