please stop spamming it
thank you

I think when the movie will be released everyone here will think of the porn in the theater

Tickets against people who don't source to your liking

Please stop spamming them

Thank you

In all seriousness, you're a janitor, figure out how to use the blacklist, you post stuff just aggravate people so learn how to deal with it yourself.

NotMeNotYou said:

Tickets against people who don't source to your liking

Please stop spamming them

Thank you

as it's still not against the rules

In all seriousness, you're a janitor, figure out how to use the blacklist, you post stuff just aggravate people so learn how to deal with it yourself.

post #560833

Peekaboo said:
I support this Zootopia spam, better than MLP spam at least.
The average art quality has been far superior to every previous MLP spam-wave as well.

Depends on the artist, the art quality is kinda professional. When it comes to me, there are more MLP then other pics with good quality. (From an artstyle quality POV)

I was interested in Zootopia three days before the announcement trailer. I'm the only true fan around here

Fenrick said:
I was interested in Zootopia three days before the announcement trailer. I'm the only true fan around here

Once I saw the trailer, it already caught my interest, furry movie or not.

The same I can't quite say for Frozen when I saw movie posters for it. I didn't really know what to make of it, despite the fact that it was a Disney movie. Hell, I never even saw it in theaters or watched the trailers.

I did watch it when it came out on DVD, and my opinion changed immediately.

GameManiac said:
The same I can't quite say for Frozen when I saw movie posters for it. I didn't really know what to make of it, despite the fact that it was a Disney movie. Hell, I never even saw it in theaters or watched the trailers.

I did watch it when it came out on DVD, and my opinion changed immediately.

I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't watched Frozen.

post #371708
"I liked Zootopia 2 years before everyone started liking it"
- local hipster

Fenrick said:
I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't watched Frozen.

I will die before I see Frozen.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I will die before I see Frozen.

I'm hoping to be the only person who has not seen Avatar or Titanic by the end of my life.

Welp, you guys aren't going to be hearing from me for awhile. I'm going to be busy forcing uncontacted tribesmen to watch those movies.

Fenrick said:
I'm hoping to be the only person who has not seen Avatar or Titanic by the end of my life.

Welp, you guys aren't going to be hearing from me for awhile. I'm going to be busy forcing uncontacted tribesmen to watch those movies.

Avatar and Titanic are good movies. Avatar the cartoon is good. The Last Airbender needs to die en masse.

I never really got why Frozen was so popular. I mean, sure, it was decent, but it didn't seem spectacular to me in any way.

Never saw frozen either, or most any recent Disney movie for that matter.

No interest in zootopia to be honest

More like Zoophilia

And RustyTorpedophile's picture makes me uneasy.

AllGoodNamesAreTaken said:
It's gonna be like THE furry movie

Isn't that Disney already?

Sorry for adding to the spam. :x

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Avatar the cartoon is good. The Last Airbender needs to die en masse.

Isn't that the truth.

Honestly, when I saw it in theaters, I wanted to like it enough and had high hopes for it being a successful movie franchise. But at the end of it, I was sorely disappointed in it.

Watchmojo couldn't have said it better themselves. The Last Airbender could've been the next Star Wars. But for the life of me, I can't picture Avatar Aang and Fire Lord Ozai ever fighting in the movies.

Fenrick said:
I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't watched Frozen.

Nah, I didn't see it either

I also prefer it to MLP.

Dragonlayer said:
I also prefer it to MLP.

I prefer keep clam and use the blacklist... but I never do I like to see everything even the weird ones c:

NotMeNotYou said:
as it's still not against the rules

Should be . . .

I do chuckle whenever complaints arrive when a flood of a type of art comes in given, you know, the whole pony thing :P

CamKitty said:
Should be . . .

I do chuckle whenever complaints arrive when a flood of a type of art comes in given, you know, the whole pony thing :P

How? Sources get deleted or change, or we can't find one. Should we punish people for the fact that the artist reupload them on a different account? Or deletes it and reuploads it? Or should we punish people that draw stuff and directly upload it to us whose source would be 'my tablet'?
We value art more more than a source, so we won't make that against the rules.

NotMeNotYou said:
How? Sources get deleted or change, or we can't find one. Should we punish people for the fact that the artist reupload them on a different account? Or deletes it and reuploads it? Or should we punish people that draw stuff and directly upload it to us whose source would be 'my tablet'?
We value art more more than a source, so we won't make that against the rules.

I don't know what exactly Munkelzahn wrote in those tickets but I personally would like to have some people forced to stop doing some type of wrong sourcing. Like for using only direct links as a source especially when they are not working for anyone else (like pixiv). And posting stuff that was uploaded directly should really have just one correct source instead of 'myself', 'my tablet', or anything an user can think of.

I also don't see why we're okay with making people takedown art because our tag policy, but now suddenly "We value art more more than a source, so we won't make that against the rules."

Granberia said:
I don't know what exactly Munkelzahn wrote in those tickets but I personally would like to have some people forced to stop doing some type of wrong sourcing. Like for using only direct links as a source especially when they are not working for anyone else (like pixiv). And posting stuff that was uploaded directly should really have just one correct source instead of 'myself', 'my tablet', or anything an user can think of.

Yeah this basically. I always thought shitty sourcing like just "my computer", any booru link, or not having one for one that would be easy to find (like say something from Kayla-na's gallery, for example) should get someone bopped.

If there isn't a good one, that happens, but shitty sourcing should be as bad as shitty tagging. In my opinion anyways.

Mainly since I think sourcing is the main reason art should be here, since it direct's people to the artist that give the site life if possible.

I don't really understand why we permit sources that aren't URIs. I guess writing one of the texts 'furaffinity','pixiv','inkbunny' etc is slightly more helpful than no sources at all. OTOH it doesn't seem like it would be a particular problem to require people to provide valid URIs.

Granberia said:
I don't know what exactly Munkelzahn wrote in those tickets but I personally would like to have some people forced to stop doing some type of wrong sourcing. Like for using only direct links as a source especially when they are not working for anyone else (like pixiv). And posting stuff that was uploaded directly should really have just one correct source instead of 'myself', 'my tablet', or anything an user can think of.

To me, there's a few parts to this:

• 1. Direct link sourcing
• 2. Text like "Doug Winger" or "Image Board"
• 3. Text like "My tablet"
• 4. Sourcing to e621 (should be parent)

#1 Is mildly annoying, but often it helps to find the source and it's usually better than adding no source at all (which people would probably do if we started slapping for direct links). It's also kind of hard to chide people for putting direct links in it's a secondary way for people to upload. Sourcing this way for pixiv is mildly obnoxious, but with saucenao it's easy enough to figure out where it came from.

#2 is the most pointless out of any of these and I know we've slapped people for doing this excessively in the past but it's also not nearly as much of a problem as it once was. As of right now it's not explicitly mentioned in the CoC, but we probably just need a way to easily clean up plain text sources (I'm going to attempt to wipe this search but unfortunately I don't think there's a good way to automate it :( ). Feel free to remove these and add a correct source, and feel free to delete any of these that say "image board" whether you add a correct source or not.

#3 is pointless, but uploaders who do this usually need help with tagging themselves as an artist since they are unfamiliar with the site in general. Not that I'm condoning #3, it's just that I don't think slapping people for it would accomplish anything. If you see this, feel free to remove it (please make sure the artist is tagged if you do).

#4 is similar to #3 except that the "artist" is usually an editor. People rarely do this but I've seen it happen a few times. If you see this feel free to parent it instead, preferably tagged with edit, colored, etc.

I also don't see why we're okay with making people takedown art because our tag policy, but now suddenly "We value art more more than a source, so we won't make that against the rules."

Because we value tagging more than we value sourcing.

parasprite said:
#1 Is mildly annoying, but often it helps to find the source and it's usually better than adding no source at all (which people would probably do if we started slapping for direct links). It's also kind of hard to chide people for putting direct links in it's a secondary way for people to upload. Sourcing this way for pixiv is mildly obnoxious, but with saucenao it's easy enough to figure out where it came from.

There are also direct links to inkbunny and they, as far as I know, can't be reverse searched by one click in vanilla e621 (And esix extend is probably not working for everyone.)
It's really annoying when I want just to go to IB to fav pic there, but have to wait several seconds because their reverse search is not that fast.

parasprite said:
#3 is pointless, but uploaders who do this usually need help with tagging themselves as an artist since they are unfamiliar with the site in general. Not that I'm condoning #3, it's just that I don't think slapping people for it would accomplish anything. If you see this, feel free to remove it (please make sure the artist is tagged if you do).

IMO there should be a way to distinct pics that are uploaded directly here. Either by tag or by source, so people can search for such pics. I remember that there was once forum about this, but there's still nothing about sourcing such files here.

parasprite said:
Because we value tagging more than we value sourcing.

And a lot of artists (not to mention e621 users) value sourcing their art correctly. I just hope that this policy is not going to be quickly revised only after some known artist would make takedown because of sourcing.

Granberia said:
There are also direct links to inkbunny and they, as far as I know, can't be reverse searched by one click in vanilla e621 (And esix extend is probably not working for everyone.)
It's really annoying when I want just to go to IB to fav pic there, but have to wait several seconds because their reverse search is not that fast.

This is kind of besides the point, but I thought you might find this helpful.

All eSix Extend does is use inkbunny's existing "search by md5" feature. If you can't use extensions (you happen to be on mobile or something), you can always search manually by checking the md5 box on inbunny's search page. Alternatively, if you want a quicker way you can add the md5 to the end of this url:

https://[b][/b]inkbunny.net/submissionsviewall.php?mode=search&md5=yes&text=[color=lime]md5 goes here

Like so:

https://[b][/b]static1.e621.net/data/0b/eb/[color=lime]0beb0edeed87176c987fa415faa313b8[/color].jpg
https://[b][/b]inkbunny.net/submissionsviewall.php?mode=search&md5=yes&text=[color=lime]0beb0edeed87176c987fa415faa313b8[/color]

IMO there should be a way to distinct pics that are uploaded directly here. Either by tag or by source, so people can search for such pics. I remember that there was once forum about this, but there's still nothing about sourcing such files here.

I'm not sure exactly how that would work in practice, but that's an interesting idea. I'll make a note of this for future use. :)

but there's still nothing about sourcing such files here.

That wiki was written before the CoC and, while they are definitely guidelines that I'd recommend people follow out of courtesy, it doesn't have any actual authority. There are a number of howto:, help:, and e621: pages that are like this but just I haven't gotten around to cleaning them up yet (there's a lot of good information in them that's probably worth salvaging, but some of it is just too outdated and needs to be scrapped).

parasprite said:
That wiki was written before the CoC and, while they are definitely guidelines that I'd recommend people follow out of courtesy, it doesn't have any actual authority. There are a number of howto:, help:, and e621: pages that are like this but just I haven't gotten around to cleaning them up yet (there's a lot of good information in them that's probably worth salvaging, but some of it is just too outdated and needs to be scrapped).

That wiki was last updated on 03/26/2014 by ippiki ookami (and that was important change since other boorus are now invalid source), first version of CoC was on wiki at the end of 2013. This wiki does not look really outdated, and to be honest I thought that it isn't. If that's not the rules then what are the rules? CoC only mentions "Knowingly adding or editing a post source to an incorrect link." Does that mean that anything else can be only enforced by admin saying "Stop that!" and enforcing rule about disregarding admins?

I was about to post in feature request thread suggestion to make quick links to help pages on upload page but, if I understand correctly, there is nothing reliable to be linked there? And most importantly if these are just guidelines then why ippiki ookami gave this record? And many more here.

Granberia said:
That wiki was last updated on 03/26/2014 by ippiki ookami (and that was important change since other boorus are now invalid source), first version of CoC was on wiki at the end of 2013. This wiki does not look really outdated, and to be honest I thought that it isn't. If that's not the rules then what are the rules? CoC only mentions "Knowingly adding or editing a post source to an incorrect link." Does that mean that anything else can be only enforced by admin saying "Stop that!" and enforcing rule about disregarding admins?

I was about to post in feature request thread suggestion to make quick links to help pages on upload page but, if I understand correctly, there is nothing reliable to be linked there? And most importantly if these are just guidelines then why ippiki ookami gave this record? And many more here.

The wiki was updated since the Code of Conduct went live, true, but what parasprite said was true. The rules of the site are reflected in the e621 Code of Conduct and Site Rules, which accurately state that putting in a source that you know is incorrect is against the rules.

With regards to Administrator ippiki_ookami, you will note that the majority of those records are gray. Neutral records are designed to notify you that something happened. Because it's not against the rules, it is used so an administrator can improve the website as best as they can. If the intent was malicious or in poor taste, I wouldn't let it stand.

The reds that I see he submitted were people who continued to source direct links after ippiki asked them to stop, which is disobeying staff instructions. I understand that it's a fine line, but the administration does have the leeway to do what they feel is fit in order to improve the site for others. I understood, when I wrote the Code of Conduct, that a living environment like e621 could never operate with a strict set of rules, so adaptability was built in to address situations that weren't accounted for.

If this becomes a serious enough problem, we might put in a rule, but I would rather have a site that a source wasn't required and, if it were added to a post, it would allow someone to view other works by that artist. This site is for the artists, as well as the users.