Help on comments says:

Limiting

Non-contributors can only post 15 comments an hour. However if you post a comment without bumping the post, you can comment as much as you'd like and ignore the limit.

However, no matter what button I press, “Post” or “Post without bumping”, I get error message saying, “Error: Hourly limit exceeded”.

How come?

(I'm recreating art gallery of Khaosdog, who has deleted all her galleries and disappeared from the Internet, from my backup of her FA gallery (the backup is outdated, unfortunately, but it's at least something). These comments are for original descriptions)

Great, some retard decided it's great idea to downvote comments with descriptions. I still don't get why the heck one vote is enough to almost remove the comment. Dear admins, why don't you increase default threshold?

Thanks for re-uploading them,they're pretty damn good
Especially being non-digital

Also,not sure why the post-without-bumping button doesn't work for you,but clearing cookies usually works.Unless,that was a recent change

She's one of my favorite artists. It would be a great loss for the community to never see her art again. *sigh* Why oh why did she remove her art just because of inability to be active online?...

FeralBeast said:
Help on comments says:
However, no matter what button I press, “Post” or “Post without bumping”, I get error message saying, “Error: Hourly limit exceeded”.

How come?

The 'post without bumping' button currently follows comment limits just like the Post button; we need to look at it and figure out what we want it to do.

FeralBeast said:
(I'm recreating art gallery of Khaosdog, who has deleted all her galleries and disappeared from the Internet, from my backup of her FA gallery (the backup is outdated, unfortunately, but it's at least something). These comments are for original descriptions)

She deleted all of her galleries from the internet? Perhaps she didn't want her galleries on the internet. Did you ask about putting her galleries back on the internet?

FeralBeast said:
Great, some retard decided it's great idea to downvote comments with descriptions. I still don't get why the heck one vote is enough to almost remove the comment. Dear admins, why don't you increase default threshold?

You do that in your settings.

ippiki_ookami said:
You do that in your settings.

ippiki ookami, 99% of users don't change default settings. I don't care about my thresholds, because I always click “show hidden comments” anyway (it's hard to understand what's going on if half of the comments are hidden). What I care about is that people who like the art I post can see the artist's original descriptions, even if ONE retard decided it's very funny to hide them.

RedOctober said:
She deleted all of her galleries from the internet? Perhaps she didn't want her galleries on the internet. Did you ask about putting her galleries back on the internet?

She's not online. And I'm a scum who does't care anyway. Just like 99% of e621's visitors. :P

Art belongs to the people! There's nothing more childish than a gallery wipe.

FeralBeast said:
ippiki ookami, 99% of users don't change default settings. I don't care about my thresholds, because I always click “show hidden comments” anyway (it's hard to understand what's going on if half of the comments are hidden). What I care about is that people who like the art I post can see the artist's original descriptions, even if ONE retard decided it's very funny to hide them.

We let the users decide what their own thresholds are, instead of deciding for them. If they want to still be able to see comments that have been voted down 30 times, then they can do that. You can even go into the positives if you so choose. If they want to keep it as 0, that's their prerogative.

you know, you CAN upvote your own comments. If it's just one "retard" as you said, then the vote will return to zero and not be hidden.

FeralBeast does:
>Tells admins to force-edit the site-wide comment threshold.
>Openly admits to being too lazy to change own thresholds.
>Calls users retards and scum.
>Very likely didn't get permission to post any of said artist's work.

I like this guy already.

I hate when people put the artist's description of the image in the comments.
Of course, I despise the idea of needing to describe art at all.

FeralBeast said :
Bones

Rather quick one.

Size 8.2 x 11.8 inch (21 x 30 cm).
Watercolores and colored pencil.

This seems like important info,especially if the original gallery's no longer available

FeralBeast said:
Great, some retard decided it's great idea to downvote comments with descriptions. I still don't get why the heck one vote is enough to almost remove the comment. Dear admins, why don't you increase default threshold?

Because zero is a good in between.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Of course, I despise the idea of needing to describe art at all.

Sometimes a description is part of the art, sort of like illustrating a prose story or writing about a picture. Other times (a lot of the time, I admit), it's as irrelevant as you say. I guess it depends on the description.

Indeed, art that needs a companion description, probably isn't aesthetically pleasing, and probably isn't art. But that's not to say that you won't want to annotate the work for some reason, explain where you got inspiration from, describe your characters in the work, etc.

The first comment containing a description seems to work well enough, but what if each picture should probably get their own wiki-style page that could be edited along with the tags? Even if it was hidden by default. I've seen speculation of adding a literature section, that might work similarly...

Furmillionaire said:
Art belongs to the people! There's nothing more childish than a gallery wipe.

That isn't generally the view on this site. I mean, in one respect it is, because we're essentially archiving and cataloging oodles of images based on a wide range of elements, so they are easier to find and view. But at the same time, the idea tends to be that the art belongs to the artist, and if they decide they don't want to share their art through this medium, that is 100% their prerogative.

And yes there is. Selfishly insisting on distributing someone's work (and by "work" I mean "time and effort put into a task") against their will because "everyone should have it." It is the fruit of the artist's labors, not yours. They may share it as they see fit. Or not.

RedOctober said:
That isn't generally the view on this site. I mean, in one respect it is, because we're essentially archiving and cataloging oodles of images based on a wide range of elements, so they are easier to find and view. But at the same time, the idea tends to be that the art belongs to the artist, and if they decide they don't want to share their art through this medium, that is 100% their prerogative.

And yes there is. Selfishly insisting on distributing someone's work (and by "work" I mean "time and effort put into a task") against their will because "everyone should have it." It is the fruit of the artist's labors, not yours. They may share it as they see fit. Or not.

That might seem intuitive because there's no clear idea of ownership. I collect quite a bit of art myself, what if the artist came up to me and said "I changed my mind, I want my painting/print/watercolor that you paid deary for back." Of course not, it's mine, I own it, you're going to have to buy it back from me.

Who owns it? Well, there's no one person. What is physically stored on FA's is FA's, what is physically stored on e621 is e621, what is physically transmitted to my computer is mine. (Copyright comes into play when you make a copy, it's the legal authority to make copies of the work, which may or may not be the person who owns the work itself.)

So if the artist wants to remove their work from a part of a site that they own, that's fine. Maybe childish, but totally acceptable.

Any Ruby people (I understand e621 is Rails based) should know about _why and his works mysteriously vanishing off the face of the Earth. Or at least the Internet.

ThenIThought said:
That might seem intuitive because there's no clear idea of ownership. I collect quite a bit of art myself, what if the artist came up to me and said "I changed my mind, I want my painting/print/watercolor that you paid deary for back." Of course not, it's mine, I own it, you're going to have to buy it back from me.

Who owns it? Well, there's no one person. What is physically stored on FA's is FA's, what is physically stored on e621 is e621, what is physically transmitted to my computer is mine. (Copyright comes into play when you make a copy, it's the legal authority to make copies of the work, which may or may not be the person who owns the work itself.)

So if the artist wants to remove their work from a part of a site that they own, that's fine. Maybe childish, but totally acceptable.

Any Ruby people (I understand e621 is Rails based) should know about _why and his works mysteriously vanishing off the face of the Earth. Or at least the Internet.

Ah, but it's one thing to request back work that has been bought and paid for, but it's another thing entirely to close down your public art gallery. I have in my apartment placed a few of pieces of photography that I took, developed, printed, and mounted. As you said, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to decide I no longer want my roommates and any visitors to see them, and I can take them down at any time. But what is happening here is if I had done that, but my roommie had made copies without my express permission, then, after I moved away -thus losing contact with him- submitted them for display at a downtown art gallery (even if he were to keep my name and information associated with them and claimed no part in the creation of the art).

Wait. Am I saying more or less what you just said?

hg3300 said:
you know, you CAN upvote your own comments. If it's just one "retard" as you said, then the vote will return to zero and not be hidden.

I did it. But it's annoying. There're some limits in place on how often one can vote, so it boils down to who is more determined. This is not what I'm here for.

Actini said:
I like this guy already.

The funny thing is, when I troll, everyone respects my opinion. But when I say something constructive, I'm told to stop trolling.

RedOctober said:
And yes there is. Selfishly insisting on distributing someone's work (and by "work" I mean "time and effort put into a task") against their will because "everyone should have it." It is the fruit of the artist's labors, not yours. They may share it as they see fit. Or not.

If an artist decides to remove some art from public for a serious reason, I respect their opinion. On the other hand, if they wipe their gallery for a childish reason, that means the artist doesn't respect their fans. So I don't feel obliged to respect them.

FeralBeast said:
If an artist decides to remove some art from public for a serious reason, I respect their opinion. On the other hand, if they wipe their gallery for a childish reason, that means the artist doesn't respect their fans. So I don't feel obliged to respect them.

qft

Although as previously stated,e6 does take removal request seriously.Funny thing is,even if she does want her art removed,she'd have to do the very thing that prevented her from keeping them in the first place.Ironic eh

FeralBeast said:
I did it. But it's annoying. There're some limits in place on how often one can vote, so it boils down to who is more determined. This is not what I'm here for.

...one can only vote once on anything. If by "more determined" you mean "creates alternate accounts" then that person is quite immature.

On the other hand, if multiple people downvote the comment, it may be a bad comment.

FeralBeast said:
If an artist decides to remove some art from public for a serious reason, I respect their opinion. On the other hand, if they wipe their gallery for a childish reason, that means the artist doesn't respect their fans. So I don't feel obliged to respect them.

Do you know for sure why she did it? I'm not asking this rhetorically, or in an effort to point out that you don't. You might in fact actually know the real reason, and if you do, please share. But it's one thing to not feel obligated to respect an artist. It's another thing entirely to actively disrespect them.

titaniachkt said:
Funny thing is,even if she does want her art removed,she'd have to do the very thing that prevented her from keeping them in the first place.Ironic eh

Oh, completely true, and pretty amusing, though essentially irrelevant to whether or not her art should be shared not only without her permission, but when her actions point to her desire to not have her art shared.

RedOctober said:
Do you know for sure why she did it?

From her FA page: “I recently moved in the outback which doesn't give me the possibility to come online regulary and be active in a community. I want to thank you all for the wonderful time here!” People say that she has troubles with the internet access. However, her prints regularly appear on FurBuy and are posted from Germany (WTF?).

Being unable to post replies to comments doesn't make wiping all galleries necessary in my book.

That is one hell of a strange reason to wipe a gallery.

FeralBeast said:
From her FA page: “I recently moved in the outback which doesn't give me the possibility to come online regulary and be active in a community. I want to thank you all for the wonderful time here!” People say that she has troubles with the internet access. However, her prints regularly appear on FurBuy and are posted from Germany (WTF?).

Being unable to post replies to comments doesn't make wiping all galleries necessary in my book.

That...that's weird.

Nevan said:
You can change the threshold in your settings.

Please try reading before replying next time.

FeralBeast said:
Please try reading before replying next time.

don't be a dick.