Costumes, clothes, accessories, etc. do not make a human relevant.

I believe this part of the uploading guidelines is a bit odd.
a human with only a small accessory, like a fake tail or fake cat ear headband of course is not exactly furry enough to be relevant, I agree with that.
but the way the guideline is worded seems to extend to full costumes and so, fursuits as well, which I find silly; a drawn picture of a human character wearing a fursuit I would argue is relevant furry content to the site.

example posts that (if they werent already grandfathered) would be allowed with an adjustment towards the guideline
post #61265 post #13364 post #624793
there are even posts in the modern day being approved
post #4122933 post #4937352 post #5004466 post #4057301
due to these kinds of edge cases, I would say it should be reworded that costumes such as these (fursuits specifically, as they are furry relevant) would be allowed, especially as it's already somewhat lenient like that in practice.
what do you think? I can understand it may lead to semantics as to what costumes are "furry enough", but Im mostly only arguing in favour of fursuits specifically for this

Humans in a suit are still humans, some leniency is given when we can't reliably assume or see that they are a human, but otherwise just putting on a suit does not make a human relevant

Previous related discussion: topic #36352

donovan_dmc said:
just putting on a suit does not make a human relevant

thats whats confusing me because, why not? does the furry part of the image specifically have to be a living being/creature to count? as far as I understand the site is for furry content, are fursuits that arent living not furry content?
are plushies that arent living not furry? despite clearly depicting an animal character and being relevant to the community even when not being a living creature on their own?
post #1303020
I feel like all of these things end up being not so important semantics and technicalities about what we define as "furry" for the site, when unarguably fursuits are a part of the furry community and most wouldn't bat an eye at it. it feels like its more a matter of how much we want to exclude human only posts, despite featuring something relevant to furries/furry community in another way (and usually said human being mostly covered up in such content).

imo, as long as the major focus of the image is the suit its "furry enough" to me. and I dont think allowing it would majorly change the site experience besides preventing some unexpected inconsistent deletions that the fans of such content end up caught off guard with (like the other thread talked about). you can definitely say we should avoid posts that are too human, but pics like the grandfathered ones I linked above are 80% suit 20% human and despite that wouldnt fly today

crocogator said:
Previous related discussion: topic #36352

I agree with a lot of points in this thread, thank you for linking it.

I could understand not wanting to get e621 flooded by hundred of images depicting humans simply wearing stereotypical mickey mouse or Nekomimi ear Hairbands/headbands,tail buttplugs, or featureless printed hoodies/onesies. However I do agree that the ban on actual fursuits or principle parts of a fursuit does seem rather nonsensical given the nature of this website. As has been noted literally the world over we do cater "pointy eared humans", we also accept robots and inorganic characters that have no animal features, we accept plushies whether they have animal features or not, and we accept standalone pictures of mid transformations of a human that could potentially only involve sharping teeth or expanding ears... all these in situations were there are no other anthros or ferals in the image.

We also accept images that depict non-living things, I mention this aspect of 'life' because some have used the condition of a "living character" to justify why we might accept any robots or plushies but not fursuits.^{(besides there is such a thing as living fursuits worn by a humans of cource)}
post #4504259 post #4451490

Relevant: post #491896

A sculpture of a dog head? Relevant.
post #3767115 post #4997244

A fursuit* that's not being worn? Relevant.
post #4315850

Seems odd to me that a worn fursuit would be irrelevant.

regsmutt said:
A fursuit* that's not being worn? Relevant.
post #4315850

that's an ani-ini.

dba_afish said:
that's an ani-ini.

I put an asterisk next to fursuit because I meant to mention that but forgot lmao. I know it's tagged that way, but it's not moving on its own. Without the dialogue or parent image there'd be nothing to signal that's what it is.

regsmutt said:
I put an asterisk next to fursuit because I meant to mention that but forgot lmao. I know it's tagged that way, but it's not moving on its own. Without the dialogue or parent image there'd be nothing to signal that's what it is.

yeah, but generally relation to other posts is considered when determining relevance, so, I'm not really sure that post being used as evidence for an inconsistency makes snese.

dba_afish said:
yeah, but generally relation to other posts is considered when determining relevance, so, I'm not really sure that post being used as evidence for an inconsistency makes snese.

Yeah that's fair. I didn't really nitice the parent post at the time.

Regardless, what makes the examples in the op acceptable compared to what wouldn't be is a bit arbitrary.
And like. I don't think that fursuiting (or potentially like, a human having sex with a fursuit head, or even plushophilia if you want to make the argument that if a zero_pictured image would be accepted then adding a human shouldn't change that) is really a popular enough theme to worry about it taking over the site. Especially when compared to elves, Zelda fanart, and four-eared anime catgirls.

bringing this back again with a great example of arbitrary deletion
this deleted post #5074279 (direct image link for convenience )
showing a human (barely anymore, really) in a latex suit, their entire statue being reshaped quadruped, the only human bit still visible being the eyes behind the clear visors. deleted for being human only, lol. then the slight alt version where the visor isnt see through is fine.
another
I believe deletions like this dont really help the site, more nuance with content thats clearly furry relevant should be had, especially when the same image with a few pixels difference is completely fine. or even other images under the same trope like post #4803081

frg said:
bringing this back again with a great example of arbitrary deletion
this deleted post #5074279 (direct image link for convenience )
showing a human (barely anymore, really) in a latex suit, their entire statue being reshaped quadruped, the only human bit still visible being the eyes behind the clear visors. deleted for being human only, lol. then the slight alt version where the visor isnt see through is fine.
another
I believe deletions like this dont really help the site, more nuance with content thats clearly furry relevant should be had, especially when the same image with a few pixels difference is completely fine. or even other images under the same trope like post #4803081

What pushes those deletions into very silly territory is that they'd be approved if the suits were removed. Human faced/headed ferals are a thing. Not a popular thing, but a thing.
post #4733644