Because there's nothing 'furry' about elves.
When it's human/elf, it's basically 'human + human with pointy ears'.

For example: https://e621.net/posts/4950231
What's 'furry' about that? It's human + exotic human.

And, to expand on that: Orcs + humans or elves is yet more non-furry content.
It's 'human with green skin (And sometimes an underbite) + human (or elf)'.
Example: https://e621.net/posts/4948020
Not furry in the slightest.

Ain't e621 supposed to be about collecting furry art? Why is art lacking furries of any kind allowed?
Orks? Not a furry creature.
Elves? Not a furry creature.
So why is art where the content is only these non-furry beings allowed?

E6 is furry focused, not furry only. The characters have non-human traits, so they are fine. Also for the example image, there is a reason for why it's tagged as not_furry :)

how would you write a policy that excludes everything along the lines of humans, elves, and cyclopes, but includes everything past that point?

some furry characters don't actually have fur, so you can't require fur.
some furry characters don't actually have ears, so you can't require animal ears.
some furry characters don't actually have tails, so you can't require tails.

Yes it should be. In fact i would go so far as to say any art should be allowed without restriction except those relating to ownership and copyright. Our purpose here is not to judge. As is often said, make use of your black list if there are things you don't want to see.

blackheart327 said:
Yes it should be. In fact i would go so far as to say any art should be allowed without restriction except those relating to ownership and copyright. Our purpose here is not to judge. As is often said, make use of your black list if there are things you don't want to see.

This is a curated booru, not a personal gallery nor an art dump

blackheart327 said:
Yes it should be. In fact i would go so far as to say any art should be allowed without restriction except those relating to ownership and copyright. Our purpose here is not to judge. As is often said, make use of your black list if there are things you don't want to see.

Yeah, no. I don't want to see e621 get flooded with non-furry art.
It already has a problem with waves of art depicting humans with an extra set of furry ears, which somehow counts.
Not neko, who have animals ears & tail. But literally humans with human ears + animal ears.

furry_birb said:
Yeah, no. I don't want to see e621 get flooded with non-furry art.
It already has a problem with waves of art depicting humans with an extra set of furry ears, which somehow counts.
Not neko, who have animals ears & tail. But literally humans with human ears + animal ears.

✨🌟𝐵𝓁𝒶𝒸𝓀𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓉🌟✨

rupikonna said:
✨🌟𝐵𝓁𝒶𝒸𝓀𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓉🌟✨

✨🌟They can use a different booru instead of asking for this one to 'accept all art'🌟✨

Also, there's no tag to properly blacklist humans with an extra set of ears to qualify as the absolute minimum of furry.

furry_birb said:
✨🌟They can use a different booru instead of asking for this one to 'accept all art'🌟✨

Bruh non-furry stuff been part of the site's content since the start of the site, and you are here demanding entire site to ban specific categories of content just to suit your personal tastes. This is exactly what blacklists are for.

furry_birb said:
Also, there's no tag to properly blacklist humans with an extra set of ears to qualify as the absolute minimum of furry.

You're looking for animal_humanoid. Blacklist both animal_humanoid and not_furry, on separate lines.

If you're ok with seeing humanoids as long as an anthro or feral is also present in the image, blacklist animal_humanoid -feral -anthro all on the same line.

rupikonna said:
Bruh non-furry stuff been part of the site's content since the start of the site, and you are here demanding entire site to ban specific categories of content just to suit your personal tastes. This is exactly what blacklists are for.

I did not 'demand' shit.
Point to where I said 'Remove this now'.

Amazing as it seems to be for the internet; I raised a question to discuss something I saw as an issue. In a rather respectful way.
I raised the question and made my points. Nowhere did I 'demand' jack shit.

I was asking about specific combinations.
Kind of like how human + anthro = allowed.
But human + human = not allowed.

Amazing, I know.

furry_birb said:
Also, there's no tag to properly blacklist humans with an extra set of ears to qualify as the absolute minimum of furry.

animal_humanoid.
or just humanoid.

wandering_spaniel said:
You're looking for animal_humanoid. Blacklist both animal_humanoid and not_furry, on separate lines.

If you're ok with seeing humanoids as long as an anthro or feral is also present in the image, blacklist animal_humanoid -feral -anthro all on the same line.

Huh. I did not know the blacklist could do boolean like that. Neat!

wandering_spaniel said:
You're looking for animal_humanoid. Blacklist both animal_humanoid and not_furry, on separate lines.

If you're ok with seeing humanoids as long as an anthro or feral is also present in the image, blacklist animal_humanoid -feral -anthro all on the same line.

To be fair animal_humanoid includes both characters that have four ears and characters that have no human ears. Idk if there's a 'four-eared animal humanoid' tag.

dba_afish said:
animal_humanoid.
or just humanoid.

humanoid is way too broad, ranging from humans with slightly pointy ears, to certain types of flora_fauna, demons, ghosts, etc. To say nothing of how badly humanoid is mistagged for anthros. animal_humanoid includes animal_head, which is plenty relevant, alongside humans with questionably-fake ears. I have yet to find a good way to blacklist what's basically humans (humans with slightly pointy ears, or humans with horns or animal ears popping out of their hair as if wearing a headband with horns or ears on it) without still letting a bunch through and/or excluding furry-relevant posts.

blackheart327 said:
Yes it should be. In fact i would go so far as to say any art should be allowed without restriction except those relating to ownership and copyright. Our purpose here is not to judge. As is often said, make use of your black list if there are things you don't want to see.

A booru containing all art with the tagging standards of e6 might sound amazing, but I'm sure it would be even more of a pain to host, moderate, and generally maintain than how e6 already is.

wandering_spaniel said:
You're looking for animal_humanoid. Blacklist both animal_humanoid and not_furry, on separate lines.

If you're ok with seeing humanoids as long as an anthro or feral is also present in the image, blacklist animal_humanoid -feral -anthro all on the same line.

Just a heads up; 'animal_humanoid -feral -anthro' in my settings did not work.
Using this image: https://e621.net/posts/4952391
It's not showing up as blacklisted. When you said that setup should block all animal humanoids EXCEPT those with anthros and ferals.
Unless it being listed as an 'anthro' AND 'animal humanoid' is making it squeak by?

(Also not sure if it should be flagged for removal, as per the 'no young humans' rule, given it's listed as 'young anthro' and looks 90% human...But that's a different discussion)

furry_birb said:
Using this image: https://e621.net/posts/4952391
It's not showing up as blacklisted. When you said that setup should block all animal humanoids EXCEPT those with anthros and ferals.
Unless it being listed as an 'anthro' AND 'animal humanoid' is making it squeak by?

those blacklist options will hide any post tagged animal_humanoid unless it is also tagged either anthro or feral. that post is tagged anthro so it still shows up.

that post is mistagged, however, it should not be tagged as both animal_humanoid and anthro, these tags are mutually exclusive for a post with a single _(non-TFing) character.

furry_birb said:
(Also not sure if it should be flagged for removal, as per the 'no young humans' rule, given it's listed as 'young anthro' and looks 90% human...But that's a different discussion)

that's only applied to characters who are being sexualized, since that's a safe post it's probably fine.

No it shouldn't be allowed. e621 is anthro porn platform. Having humans with pointy ears doesn't make them anthro. It goes against e621 goal. If you want to watch elf stuff go to hentai platform, this is anthropomorphic pornography platform.
Saying "use your blacklist" is NOT a solution to this.
To be honest, no content depicting humans in a sexual action should be allowed here. That extends to human x anthro stuff.

notcreative50 said:
No it shouldn't be allowed. e621 is anthro porn platform. Having humans with pointy ears doesn't make them anthro. It goes against e621 goal. If you want to watch elf stuff go to hentai platform, this is anthropomorphic pornography platform.

ya gotta draw the line somewhere. otherwise you'll have a whole bunch of ambiguity and zero standards as to what interpretation of "anthro" should be allowed on here, is it the tails and cat ears? or is it the muzzle and nose that make an anthro? fur? what if they're a scalie?

we just say "they got to have a non-human feature (besides just funny colors i guess)" and leave it at that which yes, does also cover otherwise totally human girls with massive horse cocks, see post #4390255

notcreative50 said:
No it shouldn't be allowed. e621 is anthro porn platform. Having humans with pointy ears doesn't make them anthro. It goes against e621 goal.

it's very bizarre to see a random user just try to externally prescribe a website's mission statement like this. that has never been e6's goal, and it never will be.

maybe just, like, use your blacklist, my dude.

dba_afish said:
those blacklist options will hide any post tagged animal_humanoid unless it is also tagged either anthro or feral. that post is tagged anthro so it still shows up.

that post is mistagged, however, it should not be tagged as both animal_humanoid and anthro, these tags are mutually exclusive for a post with a single _(non-TFing) character.

that's only applied to characters who are being sexualized, since that's a safe post it's probably fine.

Thank you, and the mistagging could possibly be my fault; I added 'animal_humanoid' because that character basically looks human except for the nose and a bit of fluff on the chest (Remove the fluff *& he does not look like he even HAS fur).
I figured it was the proper tag, but I did not remove (and don't like to remove tags in general, in case I'm wrong) 'anthro', as I did not know they were mutually exclusive.

No. My thing is human x anthro. As it is also for others, by blocking this will screw me over and many others.

lewdkeyframe said:
No. My thing is human x anthro. As it is also for others, by blocking this will screw me over and many others.

Except my thread literally says 'human/elf' and 'elf/elf' (And by extension, orc/elf(or human, or other orc). Not 'anything human' or 'human/anthro'.

furry_birb said:
Except my thread literally says 'human/elf' and 'elf/elf' (And by extension, orc/elf(or human, or other orc). Not 'anything human' or 'human/anthro'.

i think they were trying to respond to notcreative's crazed rant

notcreative50 said:
No it shouldn't be allowed. e621 is anthro porn platform. Having humans with pointy ears doesn't make them anthro. It goes against e621 goal. If you want to watch elf stuff go to hentai platform, this is anthropomorphic pornography platform.
Saying "use your blacklist" is NOT a solution to this.
To be honest, no content depicting humans in a sexual action should be allowed here. That extends to human x anthro stuff.

wow I didn't expect to see an entire block of wrong in this thread, but here we are anyway I guess.

Also FWIW this logic would exclude feral content too.

watsit said:
humanoid is way too broad, ranging from humans with slightly pointy ears, to certain types of flora_fauna, demons, ghosts, etc. To say nothing of how badly humanoid is mistagged for anthros. animal_humanoid includes animal_head, which is plenty relevant, alongside humans with questionably-fake ears. I have yet to find a good way to blacklist what's basically humans (humans with slightly pointy ears, or humans with horns or animal ears popping out of their hair as if wearing a headband with horns or ears on it) without still letting a bunch through and/or excluding furry-relevant posts.

I've always been wondering this, cause I used to not have humanoid on my blacklist as there are many images that just seem to have it at random at times that are perfectly not human like. But then elves fall into that same category, and all they have is pointy ears, but look exactly like humans so I ended up just blocking the entire tag to avoid seeing all of it knowing that I'd be missing out on things I did want to see just based on humanoid ranging from literal human, to nothing like one and being coloured entirely differently.

Example: https://e621.net/posts/781509

Maybe could try adding something like bl'ing it but not when Anthro is tagged?

The meaning of what a Furry is had devolved so badly to the point anything not human counts, which it should never had been in the first place. Orcs? Elves? Human-imps? Every demi-human who look human in every way if not for minor additions or exclusions? They are all equally furry these days solely because of what they are NOT: human.

Some people are clearly exploiting this to skirt around specifics, rules, and even laws.

It's ridiculous. And people exploiting this knows this.

And this shouldn't be a question to start with. If you ask me, in accordance to the rules, no, elves, orcs (especially those who try so hard not to look like a monster), drawves (fucking why do I have to say that), hobbits, goblins (same as orcs), imps (same as orcs), and so on, should not be allowed. They are all too human.

Although if I remember right, doesn't the new rule only ban YOUNG human and demi-human characters in adult art?

casmin7~ said:
I've always been wondering this, cause I used to not have humanoid on my blacklist as there are many images that just seem to have it at random at times that are perfectly not human like. But then elves fall into that same category, and all they have is pointy ears, but look exactly like humans so I ended up just blocking the entire tag to avoid seeing all of it knowing that I'd be missing out on things I did want to see just based on humanoid ranging from literal human, to nothing like one and being coloured entirely differently.

Example: https://e621.net/posts/781509

Maybe could try adding something like bl'ing it but not when Anthro is tagged?

You might be interested in blacklisting the humanoid pointy ears tag.

You can combine tags and operators on the same line for your blacklist btw, so you could blacklist
humanoid -feral -anthro (on one line) to block humanoids unless there is a feral or an anthro.

misterwolf said:
The meaning of what a Furry is had devolved so badly to the point anything not human counts, which it should never had been in the first place. Orcs? Elves? Human-imps? Every demi-human who look human in every way if not for minor additions or exclusions? They are all equally furry these days solely because of what they are NOT: human.

Some people are clearly exploiting this to skirt around specifics, rules, and even laws.

It's ridiculous. And people exploiting this knows this.

And this shouldn't be a question to start with. If you ask me, in accordance to the rules, no, elves, orcs (especially those who try so hard not to look like a monster), drawves (fucking why do I have to say that), hobbits, goblins (same as orcs), imps (same as orcs), and so on, should not be allowed. They are all too human.

Although if I remember right, doesn't the new rule only ban YOUNG human and demi-human characters in adult art?

Like Lafcadio asked, how would you objectively ban demi-humans while not banning other species that people do define as furry? It can't be "I know it when I see it" because that's a subjective opinion up to each individual staff member and prone to differences of opinion.

misterwolf said:
Although if I remember right, doesn't the new rule only ban YOUNG human and demi-human characters in adult art?

It banned all young humans and humanoids in sexual situations, including animal humanoids.

kyureki said:
Like Lafcadio asked, how would you objectively ban demi-humans while not banning other species that people do define as furry? It can't be "I know it when I see it" because that's a subjective opinion up to each individual staff member and prone to differences of opinion.

Oh that's simple. You don't. Just like the people who exploit increasingly loose and confused definition of what is "furry" as the perfect excuse to feed into their narcissism*, people will just circumvent it all someway somehow. Even if you prove it by intent alone, it's not going to fix the issue at large.

• That narcissism as in making the character look literally look like them in every way except the one or two aspects that TECHNICALLY allows you to pass it off as NOT you even though we all know it's you.*

The only way you can ensure you fix/avoid the problem like the one they're dealing with or at the very least greatly mitigate the issue is to just ban all of the group that's at the heart of all of this. That way, there is no room to get around any of it as far as that group is concerned. No human looking kids in sexual situations or adult arts period. Even if their legs are a horse's ass. Even if their in-lore age is 10000 years old. Even if they're really hairy or got pointy ears, tuskes, long nose, claws or a tail. Even if their skin is sparkledog colors. And from there, hopefully it doesn't get to the point where they gotta ban more things like monkeys just because people suddenly wanted to make them look SO HUMAN to skirt the rules.

Otherwise, don't do that and solve the problem some other way you can afford to do.

misterwolf said:
The meaning of what a Furry is had devolved so badly to the point anything not human counts, which it should never had been in the first place. Orcs? Elves? Human-imps? Every demi-human who look human in every way if not for minor additions or exclusions? They are all equally furry these days solely because of what they are NOT: human.

Some people are clearly exploiting this to skirt around specifics, rules, and even laws.

It's ridiculous. And people exploiting this knows this.

And this shouldn't be a question to start with. If you ask me, in accordance to the rules, no, elves, orcs (especially those who try so hard not to look like a monster), drawves (fucking why do I have to say that), hobbits, goblins (same as orcs), imps (same as orcs), and so on, should not be allowed. They are all too human.

nah

misterwolf said:
The meaning of what a Furry is had devolved so badly to the point anything not human counts, which it should never had been in the first place. Orcs? Elves? Human-imps? Every demi-human who look human in every way if not for minor additions or exclusions? They are all equally furry these days solely because of what they are NOT: human.

Some people are clearly exploiting this to skirt around specifics, rules, and even laws.

It's ridiculous. And people exploiting this knows this.

And this shouldn't be a question to start with. If you ask me, in accordance to the rules, no, elves, orcs (especially those who try so hard not to look like a monster), drawves (fucking why do I have to say that), hobbits, goblins (same as orcs), imps (same as orcs), and so on, should not be allowed. They are all too human.

Although if I remember right, doesn't the new rule only ban YOUNG human and demi-human characters in adult art?

misterwolf said:
Oh that's simple. You don't. Just like the people who exploit increasingly loose and confused definition of what is "furry" as the perfect excuse to feed into their narcissism*, people will just circumvent it all someway somehow. Even if you prove it by intent alone, it's not going to fix the issue at large.

• That narcissism as in making the character look literally look like them in every way except the one or two aspects that TECHNICALLY allows you to pass it off as NOT you even though we all know it's you.*

The only way you can ensure you fix/avoid the problem like the one they're dealing with or at the very least greatly mitigate the issue is to just ban all of the group that's at the heart of all of this. That way, there is no room to get around any of it as far as that group is concerned. No human looking kids in sexual situations or adult arts period. Even if their legs are a horse's ass. Even if their in-lore age is 10000 years old. Even if they're really hairy or got pointy ears, tuskes, long nose, claws or a tail. Even if their skin is sparkledog colors. And from there, hopefully it doesn't get to the point where they gotta ban more things like monkeys just because people suddenly wanted to make them look SO HUMAN to skirt the rules.

Otherwise, don't do that and solve the problem some other way you can afford to do.

Forum posts like this are hilarious.
Normally the people who like elves, dazzi, jingaimusume, etc. eventually decide they want to use a different booru because it means fewer instances of pikachu/renamon/salazzle anuses.
We don't even have the full Monster Girl Encyclopedia uploaded, and that's basically babby's first monster girl media.

I really don't think most people are intentionally trying to skirt the rules to upload humans to e6. At most, you have people who found an audience here despite not catering to furries. Beyond that it's just people uploading to any place that accepts their stuff.

This topic makes me feel Deja Vu and just a bit sad with how it keeps coming up.

To me e6 is kinda confusing in stuff like this, because i've seen some post specifically tagged not being human get deleted for being human. I specifically remember one of welwraith's posts being deleted for "human only" even though the character (carne) is specifically an alien, and was tagged as such. And even stranger was that a post with the same concept that was basically in the same perspective wasnt even flagged and is still up.

manwhoexists said:
To me e6 is kinda confusing in stuff like this, because i've seen some post specifically tagged not being human get deleted for being human. I specifically remember one of welwraith's posts being deleted for "human only" even though the character (carne) is specifically an alien, and was tagged as such. And even stranger was that a post with the same concept that was basically in the same perspective wasnt even flagged and is still up.

Approval is based on visual appearance, not tags (especially since species tags are largely exempt from TWYS). If a post only features a humanoid that looks like a human aside from skin color, or a few other things, it gets removed for being not human. Though, different janitors have at least mildly different standards for that, and they can vote on borderline cases if I understand correctly.

scth said:
Approval is based on visual appearance, not tags (especially since species tags are largely exempt from TWYS). If a post only features a humanoid that looks like a human aside from skin color, or a few other things, it gets removed for being not human. Though, different janitors have at least mildly different standards for that, and they can vote on borderline cases if I understand correctly.

That's fair. Still confused on how anybody could see carne as a human though

manwhoexists said:
That's fair. Still confused on how anybody could see carne as a human though

There is very little that separates characters like post #4884158 from the Codename: Kids Next Door dad, who is just an ordinary human but gets presented as this weird human-shaped shadow being because it's more ominous.
The character has a humanoid facial structure (the lack of a nose is notable, but it's not exactly unusual for cartoons), there are some ring-like markings on the neck and arms but there's no reason to treat them as anything more than tattoos/body paint/etc. (otherwise we'd be approving random Demifiend art, especially art that removes his horn!), and the overall shape of the body+limbs is not even slightly distinguishable from a cartoon humanoid.

Notice, however, that the simple addition of a tail justifies a very similar post like post #4952505, and that the addition of body tufts does the exact same thing for post #4769203.

Of course, the existence of one post does not necessarily justify the existence of another, and these are all handed on a case-by-case basis according to janitorial judgment, but when a post gets deleted as human only we usually have a very good reason for it.

lafcadio said:
There is very little that separates characters like post #4884158 from the Codename: Kids Next Door dad, who is just an ordinary human but gets presented as this weird human-shaped shadow being because it's more ominous.
The character has a humanoid facial structure (the lack of a nose is notable, but it's not exactly unusual for cartoons), there are some ring-like markings on the neck and arms but there's no reason to treat them as anything more than tattoos/body paint/etc. (otherwise we'd be approving random Demifiend art, especially art that removes his horn!), and the overall shape of the body+limbs is not even slightly distinguishable from a cartoon humanoid.

Notice, however, that the simple addition of a tail justifies a very similar post like post #4952505, and that the addition of body tufts does the exact same thing for post #4769203.

Of course, the existence of one post does not necessarily justify the existence of another, and these are all handed on a case-by-case basis according to janitorial judgment, but when a post gets deleted as human only we usually have a very good reason for it.

Thanks for clarifying how you guys actually flag things for stuff like that. I do think it should be based on what the character actually is though

manwhoexists said:
Thanks for clarifying how you guys actually flag things for stuff like that. I do think it should be based on what the character actually is though

Many of us do, but believe it or not TWYS solves more problems than it causes, even if it... very, very often doesn't seem that way.

manwhoexists said:
Thanks for clarifying how you guys actually flag things for stuff like that. I do think it should be based on what the character actually is though

If I was told to approve Jijimon posts on the sole basis of the character being a Digimon (in other words, not a human), I would log out and never look back.

Looks more clearly non-human to me than the likes of Angewomon or Sakuyamon

miggyzl said:
Looks more clearly non-human to me than the likes of Angewomon or Sakuyamon

angewomon has wings, which, last time I checked, is a feature humans usually lack.

lafcadio said:
If I was told to approve Jijimon posts on the sole basis of the character being a Digimon (in other words, not a human), I would log out and never look back.

Looks like a cross between Itt and DnD Dwarves with all that hair.

watsit said:
To say nothing of how badly humanoid is mistagged for anthros.

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else in the thread so for people who haven't heard it before, the culprit is the new (as of 2020) upload form having easy to click buttons for character form, with no explanation or requirement to acknowledge what tags mean before being allowed to upload.

Otherwise for the thread topic.
Enough people who partake in anthro art are still into and possibly prefer humanoid bodies. Thread topic will not happen unless a competing platform is created specifically for the exclusion of a human but characters, and such a site will have far fewer furry-relevant posts as people both hold to the known site with a decade and a half of posts, and stay anyway if they still wanna see humans.