the boys being boys

Love when dacad does these two

Okay.. now this will REALLY get them fired.

Regular dudes doing regular things

soapfox said:
Regular dudes doing regular things

They should make a cartoon about that.
Call it something like...Periodic Segment or Typical Program...

ribe said:
the boys being boys

Tropa time

Love the cum trail, lol

kazumaru said:
They should make a cartoon about that.
Call it something like...Periodic Segment or Typical Program...

How about Standard Series?

Another Dacad masterpiece.

phenomania said:
Okay.. now this will REALLY get them fired.

I believe they are more likely to get promoted.

Why is this marked as young????

Mordecai be D R O O L I N~

implion said:
Why is this marked as young????

Every time Dacad posts, somebody flips a coin to see whether or not you'll need to be logged in to view it.

Either that, or Rigby de-aged between the last image and this one.

jcfynx said:
Every time Dacad posts, somebody flips a coin to see whether or not you'll need to be logged in to view it.

Either that, or Rigby de-aged between the last image and this one.

Why would de-aging be a concept in this specific post compared to the parent post though, is it because of the perspective or just the obvious size difference between the two with their species?

Ok yeah this is rediculous, it's fucking Rigby. It's a continuation of a post where Rigby is not marked young, this is fucking stupid

Implion said:
Why is this marked as young????

Somebody's stupidity probably

To the mods who banned Dacad over trying to remove the young tag, fuck you.

Who the fuck put a young tag on this? Rigby is 23 years old canonically. He's just short. He's like half Mordecai's height in the show. Are people with dwarfism underage because they're fuckin short? Seriously, what is the point of tags if the admins themselves are gonna tag shit wrong for no reason?

unban dacad. "young-coded" is complete bs. mods are grasping at straws

This isn't young you idiots

Phantoma_Fenrir said:
To the mods who banned Dacad over trying to remove the young tag, fuck you.

Un fucking god damn believable, this IS UNACCEPTABLE!

abnuuy said:
Who the fuck put a young tag on this? Rigby is 23 years old canonically. He's just short. He's like half Mordecai's height in the show. Are people with dwarfism underage because they're fuckin short? Seriously, what is the point of tags if the admins themselves are gonna tag shit wrong for no reason?

It is hard to even know what is wrong with the moderation here, absolutely terrible, how damn hard is it to understand Rigby is short, and Mordecai IS FUCKING TALL???

Hey, moderators, think about this: If several people, including the ARTIST THEMSELVES are disagreeing with you, you are probably, and this is most likely mind blowing for you, WRONG. Just because you got a shiny little badge doesn't make you the sheriff in town. People will get their pitchforks and torches out for what's right. And look at that, it's a losing battle for you. Unban Dacad, STOP being judgemental about their own opinion as the content creator, and stop being opinionated little shits. Thanks.

e6 moderators making FA mods look like saints. Insane.

vun0 said:
unban dacad. "young-coded" is complete bs. mods are grasping at straws

Mods really do be taking notes from FA staff, I guess

Dacad: This isn't young, i literally nade this
Admin: NUH UH *bans him*

least deranged furry site moderators

I think moderation should make some exceptions instead of forcing the young tag on any character who is under 5 feet. Especially for known characters who have canon adult age and who were not explicitly aged down. Also for OC's who, even though they look young, have adult features i.e. adult size breasts or penis, pubes or simply act and talk like an adult.

Understanding that there may be abuses if artists are given too much freedom to set the age of their characters (Yes, I've seen an artist say his character, which is clearly a child who may not even be 10 is a dwarf adult, just for legal reasons where he lives), but tagging every small character as young is just as bad. A middle ground would be appreciated.

FloofyOMC said:
Hey, moderators, think about this: If several people, including the ARTIST THEMSELVES are disagreeing with you, you are probably, and this is most likely mind blowing for you, WRONG. Just because you got a shiny little badge doesn't make you the sheriff in town. People will get their pitchforks and torches out for what's right. And look at that, it's a losing battle for you. Unban Dacad, STOP being judgemental about their own opinion as the content creator, and stop being opinionated little shits. Thanks.

Nothing worst than power tripping bastards not hearing to reason, disgusting and awful behavior

edu2703 said:
I think moderation should make some exceptions instead of forcing the young tag on any character who is under 5 feet. Especially for known characters who have canon adult age and who were not explicitly aged down. Also for OC's who, even though they look young, have adult features i.e. adult size breasts or penis, pubes or simply act and talk like an adult.

Understanding that there may be abuses if artists are given too much freedom to set the age of their characters (Yes, I've seen an artist say his character, which is clearly a child who may not even be 10 is a dwarf adult, just for legal reasons where he lives), but tagging every small character as young is just as bad. A middle ground would be appreciated.

"Tag what you see" could work if the artist among others could have a say on it instead of a few power tripping guys that want to be right despite all else, then it is just absolutely stupid

Hold up... isn't Mordecai and Rigby in their 20's? So how come its marked as young? smh

carnivore4lyf said:
Now I'm not gonna take sides in this. BUT I will say that as someone who saw THIS post FIRST and didn't see the parent post, first impression is that Rigby, in the style he's drawn here, does look kinda young.

Again, I'm NOT taking any sides in this. I'm just saying, that's the initial impression this post gives me.

So if you have a quick side eye look at a short guy with long hair, it is now a child girl?, is he also a girl when everyone and every fact say otherwise after you look just a bit more? Obviously not even if you now believe it!

jackinthefox said:
Hold up... isn't Mordecai and Rigby in their 20's? So how come its marked as young? smh

Stupidity

Apparently being short is "young coded" now.

randomlazyuser said:

So if you have a quick side eye look at a short guy with long hair, it is now a child girl?, is he also a girl when everyone and every fact say otherwise after you look just a bit more? Obviously not even if you now believe it!

You're example doesn't make much sense, given that real life "shotas" aren't exactly common. A better example would've been if you see a guy with long blond hair from the back for the first time, does that make him a girl?

Regardless, it's a moot point. What I'm saying is the the style Rigby's drawn in and his positioning here does make him look young visually. And if it weren't for the parent post, that'd most likely be the basic assumption.

How the fuck is this tagged as "young"
Mordecai and Rigby are over 20 years old in the show...

hey btw mods banned dacad because of this whole tagging nonsense. make it make sense

also btw literally all of Dacad's characters are short like that because hey guess what, it's their fucking art style. I hate to bring up the "short does not equal young" but the mods are making that really really difficult with how they're handling this situation. You can't just pick and choose who to target forced tags on.

carnivore4lyf said:
Now I'm not gonna take sides in this. BUT I will say that as someone who saw THIS post FIRST and didn't see the parent post, first impression is that Rigby, in the style he's drawn here, does look kinda young.

Again, I'm NOT taking any sides in this. I'm just saying, that's the initial impression this post gives me.

The thing I see most praised about this site is the tagging system, which has stayed better then other sites still to this day, purely because its Tag What You See. Even if the artist claims something else. What should be used here is the lore tag to say that they are adults but look young. They are in their 20's for sure, and the show is well known enough to know they are both adults, but because Rigby looks young in this it needs the young tag.

There are short characters here without the young tag if they look adult or are adults. Such as Chip 'N Dale. If an adult is made to look young in the show its from then basically its only save is the lore tag.

Rigby (voiced by William Salyers) is a 23-year-old, 3'5" anthropomorphic brown raccoon who works as a groundskeeper at The Park.

they do it for free.

casmin7~ said:
The thing I see most praised about this site is the tagging system, which has stayed better then other sites still to this day, purely because its Tag What You See. Even if the artist claims something else. What should be used here is the lore tag to say that they are adults but look young. They are in their 20's for sure, and the show is well known enough to know they are both adults, but because Rigby looks young in this it needs the young tag.

There are short characters here without the young tag if they look adult or are adults. Such as Chip 'N Dale. If an adult is made to look young in the show its from then basically its only save is the lore tag.

I don't know, it does seem like when it comes to Dacad, there are some mods that have a particular... thing against them. Like, in the parent post to this, the young tag has been locked, but I really can't see how that depiction of Rigby is tagged as young when compared to the many other depictions of petite anthro raccoons by other artists that aren't tagged young.
Like, is it just because Mordecai is bigger than him? Is it truly just a height different thing in the parent post? You can't really see any other body proportions besides his legs, but that doesn't tell you enough at all.

Edit: Also, if it is a height difference thing in the parent post, that's what size_difference is for. I like e621 as a site because it has the best tagging system of any art site, but this feels like a corruption of that system. It just makes me sad to see something so principled abused in such a manner.
I can kind of see the argument in this post for the tag, although I know I could find at least 10 depictions of raccoons by other artists that deserve the 'young' tag at least as much as this does. But I have the feeling that in this case it isn't so much about the content as it is the artist. If anyone challenges me on this though I'll do it.

Actually, I keep editing this comment because this the situation is bizarre and I can't stop staring at it. This post is tagged as 'young', which is an inconceivably egregious mistake to me. I don't want to just, like, randomly put other works on blast for no reason, and I feel like it's self-evident why the 'young' tag is inappropriate there without a comparison. Suffice it to say, if that's what qualifies as 'young', then an extremely arduous undertaking must be made in order to fix the sacred consistency of the tagging system

scth said:
I don't have the context of the show, and he definitely looks young to me. The entire point of TWYS is that knowledge of the character is completely irrelevant to general tags, and tags like adult_(lore) were added because of this. Short does not necessarily mean young, but it can make someone look young, and that's all that matters for tagging.

Tag what you see isn’t always tag what you see, remember that comic where the artist literally wrote that the character was male in huge letters in the margins and mods insisted on tagging “ambiguous gender”

Imagine managing a website with millions of drawings, but can't see the difference between short characters and kid XD
Admin moment
I mean... if that was an original character where you can't find how old he is, alright... but jeez, it's Rigby here, we all have the info !

n0b0 said:
Tag what you see isn’t always tag what you see, remember that comic where the artist literally wrote that the character was male in huge letters in the margins and mods insisted on tagging “ambiguous gender”

Text also isn't relevant to general tags (outside of general tags that are only about text).

The only young thing about this is the mods mental capacity. Stop trying to be worse than FA

I feel like you probably shouldn't ban someone for using the tagging system correctly :/

scaliespe said:
The reason why it seems that Dacad gets focused on so much is probably because his artwork is very popular, and that increases the chances that someone will see it and think it looks young and add the young tag...

This is a very helpful reply! And I agree with it for the most part. But I think I would still argue that the comparison I'm making is to other very popular artists. And still, if the issue is a matter of proportions, I can see it in this post, but in the parent post, Dacad's Rigby is fairly consistent with the proportions of anthro raccoons that aren't fully humanized. Large head, short limbs proportional to body size, that's all very standard. And it's not just raccoons really. It's plenty of Pokemon too. I mean if you search a pre evolution with 'order:score -young', you can see this (Scorbunny is a good example.) 1709 is obviously a very high up vote count, but it isn't the highest

[Edit: Also, I do get the arm proportion argument in this post, but what of in the parent post? Their legs seem equivalent in proportion, the main difference really is just that Mordecai is three times Rigby's height.]

And also, you're right, I misspoke, it usually is users fighting over the tag. But the decision isn't really one way or the other. Like, I don't buy the locked tag on this post. The guide you linked is a great reference, but I think we all know that very few male anthros are drawn with properly broad shoulders and a square jaw.
Like, it's a good starting point but it breaks down when dealing with many furries. All short characters (both short anthros and short pseudo-feral anthros of animals like raccoons) should be considered children by this. Hell, by this reference, Whygena's Reggie should be tagged young, because he's an adolescent? And he doesn't appear in just "some random artwork". (Actually, an aside, but essentially all twinks in art, and even the ideal beauty standard of feminine men are adolescent by this reference. But honestly maybe that's just a comment on the way we fetishize youth as a society. But that's all besides the point)

I do get the general and legal issues, and I do honestly agree with the 'better safe than sorry' approach. Like, I disagree with the tag, but if that's the way it's gotta be, then that's the way it's gotta be. What really gets me personally is just the inconsistency of it. I realize that's probably an insurmountable issue. This is a huge site after all. But... I mean, I've never seen mods and admins present in comment arguments as frequently as on Dacad's post, and they did just get temp banned, so something feels broken right now

scaliespe said:
The reason why it seems that Dacad gets focused on so much is probably because his artwork is very popular, and that increases the chances that someone will see it and think it looks young and add the young tag. It’s not the admins doing this, it’s most often just regular users fighting over the tags, and then an admin has to come in to lock the tags one way or the other. The reason why you can find other posts of the same character that look like they should be tagged young but aren’t is most likely because they aren’t nearly as popular, so most people just don’t notice or care. This post has over 3000 favorites, and probably thousands more who have seen it. Compare that to some random artwork that has like 50 favorites… not that many people have seen it. And from my experience, the majority of users here don’t bother with editing tags, and likely don’t even know how to, so the chances of someone who actually tries to fix tags seeing one of those posts is significantly lower than it is for a really popular post like this one. You can click the "Tags/Desc" history button on this post to see how many times the young tag was added and removed before an admin finally locked it. That being said, if you see other posts that look like this one but are lacking the tag, feel free to add it. People not tagging young on fairly young-looking characters is definitely a big issue that we’re trying to fix, especially on canonically adult characters, but currently it only tends to get fixed on really popular posts. It’s not just Dacad specifically, though. There are some popular Pokémon artists here who have faced the same situation. But at least all we do here is add a tag instead of completely nuking the artwork like FA did.

So what does this tag mean, anyway?

There’s a lot of controversy around this one, but it does not mean that the character is underage, as many seem to think. In actuality, it only means that the character looks like they could be underage, not that they factually are underage. Of course, anyone familiar with this character knows that he’s an adult in canon. So, if you know that, then what’s the problem? Some adults look really young. You can go to any porn site and find photos and videos of people who really look like kids, but it’s legal because they’re actually 18 and just happen to look young. That’s essentially what this tag is. "Looks young, regardless of whether or not they actually are young." That’s also why we have an adult_(lore) tag, which is present on this post. That basically says "this character may look young, but they are actually an adult."

So then, you might ask, why?

Legal reasons, mostly. E621 is accessible from every country on Earth, and laws around content like this vary widely.
E621 is hosted in the United States, where any artwork of either canonically or visibly underage fictional characters is legal and protected under freedom of expression in the First Amendment. However, this is not true for many countries in Europe and around the world. In many of these countries, such content is not only illegal, but the lore of the character is disregarded. If they think that the character looks young, they’ll treat it as such. So for the sake of users accessing the site from such locations, we try to tag anything that might look young so that they can avoid seeing such content. Even edge cases. It’s one of those "better safe than sorry" things, which is why the rule with that tag is to add it to even more ambiguous cases as opposed to removing it. The tag generally only gets removed or locked off if it’s obvious that the characters don’t look remotely underage.

So then why does this look "young"?

To some people, it will seem obvious. Others, especially people familiar with this character, may not see it. But there is an objective standard by which we measure this.
Take a look at this article. This was written for artists studying how to draw humans at different ages, but it’s very helpful for our purposes too. It illustrates the changes in body proportions that one expects to see between childhood and adulthood. According to this chart, Rigby here falls firmly within the "child" category. But again, that only means that he looks young - there are cases of even real-life adults who look pretty close to that. They are outliers, however, and you’d definitely check their ID if they walked into a bar, but that’s what the tag is for anyway. "Looks young, regardless of actual age."

It’s not just the fact that he’s short, or because of the size difference. Those are both irrelevant. It’s all about body proportions. In particular, it has to do with the size of the head and the limbs in proportion to the torso. He has a fairly large head and short/scrawny limbs compared to his torso size, which gives him that distinctly underdeveloped appearance. Compare him to Mordecai who, regardless of his larger size, has more distinctly adult proportions. His arms in particular are proportionally longer and thicker - that is, more developed than Rigby’s. So that’s why the post needs to be tagged as young. It may be hard to get used to that if you’re familiar with this character and are used to seeing him as an adult, but the legal system in certain countries most likely won’t care about any of that, and we’re trying to keep everyone safe.

Here’s a tip, though: you can edit your blacklist with the line young -rating:s -adult_(lore) if you want to blacklist young but you still want to be able to see posts like this where the character is known to be an adult regardless of how they may appear.

I hope that helps!

Sorry but I still disagree. In cases like this where the line is blurry I think you should err on the side of artist intention. Having posts tagged as young can be really detrimental to an artist's public image, especially bigger artists like this and I have seen people accuse Dacad of being a cub artist because of e6 tags, which really sucks. Maybe you don't mind cub art, and that's your choice, but a lot of people do and this has a pretty grand impact on people when they are mislabeled as such. In addition, if users have an issue on particular artists' styles and how their character seem young to them in an ambiguous and contested case, it should be the onus of the user who wishes to not see the content to blacklist the particular artist instead of everyone else to adjust their blacklist to make sure certain artists don't end up incorrectly blocked. I have 0 interest in adding a general young -adult_(lore) entry because that would include your classic 1000 year old dragon lolis, and I sure as fuck don't want to see those.
Art is a subjective medium, in cases where it is up to interpretation you need to let people interpret. We only tag what we see, and not everyone here sees something young looking.

I personally think tagging this as "young" is absolutely ridiculous and temp banning Dacad was even moreso.

They don't look young to me, maybe it's because I know the characters or maybe its just because I think putting human proportion standards on animal people is dumb af.

For anyone who tries to use the 1000 vampire comparison it just didn't work in general when that's comparing HUMANS (Vampires being lumped in there) with ANIMALS. Even Beastars has varying heights and proportions.

I think if you want everything to strictly be judged by human proportions that makes the furry community a lot more bland, and while it's being said that the height isn't the factor here this kinda response has led to many people being fearful that their short gremlin of a character might get slapped down with a "sus" sticker.

You can't even see their faces in this animation which would be one of the main reasons someone might see these characters as "young". The heck.

Still, disrespecting the artist's own expressed opinion over yours and BANNING them for it (even if for just a week), is still unjustifiable. You just openly ignore what many people and the artist themselves believe for your own opinion, and punish them when their opinion doesn't match yours. Almost sounds like an ego play to me.

implion said:
Why is this marked as young????

e6 tag police back on their bullshit, they literally compared him to a 1000 year old dragon loli. lol, lmao even.

And apparently us bickering about this "unnecessary drama", according to this post having the lol_comments tag which is meant for either humor or "unnecessary drama" comments. Nice.

Dacad being banned is like when Charlie's grandma got sent to hell for saying "Damn"

casmin7~ said:
Rigby's age doesn't matter if they are drawn to look younger.

He's just short. If he were drawn any different, he would be tagged as his brother instead.

casmin7~ said:
The thing I see most praised about this site is the tagging system, which has stayed better then other sites still to this day, purely because its Tag What You See. Even if the artist claims something else. What should be used here is the lore tag to say that they are adults but look young. They are in their 20's for sure, and the show is well known enough to know they are both adults, but because Rigby looks young in this it needs the young tag.

There are short characters here without the young tag if they look adult or are adults. Such as Chip 'N Dale. If an adult is made to look young in the show its from then basically its only save is the lore tag.

i have a literal screenshot to back that up. Dick ride harder.

I tried to edit the post to remove the "young" tags, cause they don't apply here, but they've been locked in, so you can't remove them.

Unban Dacad and remove the "Young" tags on his posts please.

casmin7~ said:
The thing I see most praised about this site is the tagging system, which has stayed better then other sites still to this day, purely because its Tag What You See. Even if the artist claims something else. What should be used here is the lore tag to say that they are adults but look young. They are in their 20's for sure, and the show is well known enough to know they are both adults, but because Rigby looks young in this it needs the young tag.

There are short characters here without the young tag if they look adult or are adults. Such as Chip 'N Dale. If an adult is made to look young in the show its from then basically its only save is the lore tag.

I've literally seen characters that look like full adults being tagged under young. I've also seen "Tag what you see" be used maliciously because a character's face wasn't showing and therefore was "a weird looking human and therefore irrelevant to the site." That's not a good system if a well-known character with their face in a textbox is considered a human because their face wasn't shown connected to the body. That's just violation of common sense.

reversesixtynine said:
I've literally seen characters that look like full adults being tagged under young.

/posts/4575642
/posts/4573815
/posts/4569282

A few examples of what I mean

nevos said:
I personally think tagging this as "young" is absolutely ridiculous and temp banning Dacad was even moreso.

They don't look young to me, maybe it's because I know the characters or maybe its just because I think putting human proportion standards on animal people is dumb af.

...

Yeah. If you look at the wide array of digitgrade anthros of smaller animals, like cats, raccoons, bunnies, etc., based on the human proportions, they should essentially all be tagged young. But that's just obviously absurd. Take for example Leto's character Rico. He's never tagged young, and he clearly shouldn't be, but the proportion of his limbs to his body, the size of his head, and his height all indicate that he's a toddler by that metric? That would just be a misleading and obfuscating tag if it were applied in such a manner.

I am a firm believer that the site staff reserves the right to run the place however they please, even if it's disagreeable, because it's theirs at the end of the day and we can choose whether or not we participate. However, force-tagging the artist's stuff with a pedo tag is wrong. Why not just remove his art if you have a disagreement on how it's being tagged by him?

scaliespe said:

So what does this tag mean, anyway?

Sorry, I know you put time into trying to address this and calm people down, but I can't agree with the points you made. Tags mean what the community using the site widely interpret them to mean. You cannot just tell everyone it's 'supposed' to be different and then it is. That's not reasonable, as the community interpretation is the entire point of the tag system.

Your post reads like it is reaching for reasons that dance around why this was really done. I hope that's not the case, but I respectfully do not believe you can confidently describe how this action makes everything legally OK in every serviced country. Nor do I think you are able to provide a solid reason as to why the staff would lock a tag onto an artist's picture against their will instead of just cutting off the relationship between the artist and your site, i.e. removal of hosted content. There is no situation in which an artist would agree to this arrangement as you currently have it.

If you're going to try and get the mods to unban dacad or change the tagging system, you should start a forum post about it instead of discussing it in a comments section.

bicycles2 said:
Nor do I think you are able to provide a solid reason as to why the staff would lock a tag onto an artist's picture against their will instead of just cutting off the relationship between the artist and your site, i.e. removal of hosted content. There is no situation in which an artist would agree to this arrangement as you currently have it.

The artist is free to file a takedown request at any time.
No account is required for this.

My personal opinion? TWYS is a perfect system, the problem is that what the moderators "see" seems to have priority over what the average user "sees".

If I had to come up with a solution off the top of my head, I would say a rating system for tag changes similar to the one for posts would go a long way in helping to fix the problem.

Wait Mordecai and Rigby are canonically adults in the show, why is this lock tagged as young? Just because Rigby is short?

katauni said:
Wait Mordecai and Rigby are canonically adults in the show, why is this lock tagged as young? Just because Rigby is short?

At this point it feels more like just targeting Dacad tbh. Because it's pretty clear how moronic the idea of tagging this as that is.

Dang much as I would hate to see it, I hope Dacad just removes their work entirely from here. If its gonna cause this much drama, its probably better for them mental health wise if they just keep their content off of here, especially if its gonna get targeted the way it sometimes does.

The mods locked the young tag. Moderation at its pettiest.

katauni said:
Wait Mordecai and Rigby are canonically adults in the show, why is this lock tagged as young? Just because Rigby is short?

Because some people are utterly incompetent immature losers who refuse to admit when they're wrong. Rigby is an adult and a big part of his character arch is him being insecure because he's tiny and broke and his younger brother is huge and successful for fuck sake.

cinder said:
There isn't a single argument in the world that would convince you.
That's fine – you are entitled to your opinion. So let's not waste any more time and skip to the conclusion.

The bottom line is this: the artist can remove their artwork from the site at any time and for any reason.
That includes being dissatisfied with the site's tagging policies.

That had always been an option – and it still is. The ban had not affected that ability whatsoever. Moreover, they can even set a condition under which any future posts that would get tagged young would be removed, and we will honor and enforce it. I know about at least one artist who elected to do so in the past, although they later changed their mind.
As of right now, Dacad had not done this.

Not only that, but Dacad currently has almost 200 other posts on e6 tagged young: dacad young.

post #1797295 post #1749396 post #2008898

If you want to come up with reasons why you don't believe that the characters featured in those posts look young, that's your prerogative.
Honestly, none of our business. I will ask you to avoid referring to it as "pedo stuff", though, as that equates this kind of content with real-life CSAM.

However, the simple reality of the situation is that Dacad will not be granted a special exemption to the Tag-What-You-See principles that everyone else has to follow. Regardless of how many Twitter mobs they send our way.

Fair enough. My understanding was that Dacad is banned and communication isn't open. If that isn't the case and he has a say over whether his work remains on the site with those tags then that's at least a resolution, and it helps to have that point clarified.

The argument over semantics is moot on my end, as whether or not I'm convinced that the tag belongs there does not matter over someone who can force the tag to be there. That's reality.

Apologies for the p-word. I meant to come across representing that forcing this tag on someone's work has a certain connotation toward them, but that was too far and that's not really my battle to fight as described above.

sanestvaporeonfan said:
If you're going to try and get the mods to unban dacad or change the tagging system, you should start a forum post about it instead of discussing it in a comments section.

Based on experience, that's like talking to a brick wall that also gets mad at you

cinder said:
The bottom line is this: the artist can remove their artwork from the site at any time and for any reason.
That includes being dissatisfied with the site's tagging policies.

terrible reponse to something like this

cinder said:
There isn't a single argument in the world that would convince you.
That's fine – you are entitled to your opinion. So let's not waste any more time and skip to the conclusion.

The bottom line is this: the artist can remove their artwork from the site at any time and for any reason.
That includes being dissatisfied with the site's tagging policies.

That had always been an option – and it still is. The ban had not affected that ability whatsoever. Moreover, they can even set a condition under which any future posts that would get tagged young would be removed, and we will honor and enforce it. I know about at least one artist who elected to do so in the past, although they later changed their mind.
As of right now, Dacad had not done this.

Not only that, but Dacad currently has almost 200 other posts on e6 tagged young: dacad young.

post #1797295 post #1749396 post #2008898

If you want to come up with reasons why you don't believe that the characters featured in those posts look young, that's your prerogative.
Honestly, none of our business. I will ask you to avoid referring to it as "pedo stuff", though, as that equates this kind of content with real-life CSAM.

However, the simple reality of the situation is that Dacad will not be granted a special exemption to the Tag-What-You-See principles that everyone else has to follow. Regardless of how many Twitter mobs they send our way.

rigby is an adult IN CANON you cant just smack young on a short charcter "tag what you see is not a golden standered it has excpetions

Cinder said:

bicycles2 said: ...

There isn't a single argument in the world that would convince you.
That's fine – you are entitled to your opinion. So let's not waste any more time and skip to the conclusion.

The bottom line is this: the artist can remove their artwork from the site at any time and for any reason.
That includes being dissatisfied with the site's tagging policies.

That had always been an option – and it still is. The ban had not affected that ability whatsoever. Moreover, they can even set a condition under which any future posts that would get tagged young would be removed, and we will honor and enforce it. I know about at least one artist who elected to do so in the past, although they later changed their mind.
As of right now, Dacad had not done this.

Not only that, but Dacad currently has almost 200 other posts on e6 tagged young: dacad young.

thumb

At this point, dacad should let driver IDs laying around on the art to idi0t proof for this place.

cinder said:
The bottom line is this: the artist can remove their artwork from the site at any time and for any reason.
That includes being dissatisfied with the site's tagging policies.

"If you don't like our bullshit rules we vaguely enforce, you can leave."

Go fuck yourself.

cinder said:
If you want to come up with reasons why you don't believe that the characters featured in those posts look young, that's your prerogative.

"I'm gonna ignore every single valid reason the characters are small."

cinder said:
However, the simple reality of the situation is that Dacad will not be granted a special exemption to the Tag-What-You-See principles that everyone else has to follow. Regardless of how many Twitter mobs they send our way.

At least you admit there's a ton of people who know how wrong and off-base you dumbfucks are especially with your dumb Tag-What-You-See rule. You know what I see? A small of-age character, oh but things like canon or the artist's own intention happen to not matter at all, conveniently. Get fucked if you like shortstacks I guess.

Mods being dumb motherfuckers on a power trip as usual.

Kazumaru said:

soapfox said:
Regular dudes doing regular things

They should make a cartoon about that.
Call it something like...Periodic Segment or Typical Program...

Nichijou..!

randomlazyuser said:
At this point, dacad should let driver IDs laying around on the art to idi0t proof for this place.

Actually, this isn't a bad idea.
I mean, obviously literal drivers licenses would be silly, but do you think including some verification of age in the image would count as TWYS?

sanestvaporeonfan said:
Actually, this isn't a bad idea.
I mean, obviously literal drivers licenses would be silly, but do you think including some verification of age in the image would count as TWYS?

Yeah, that's totally going to go well.

werideatdawn said:
Yeah, that's totally going to go well.

Just a silly thought.

And besides,
1. obviously it wouldn't work in clear Ceci n'est pas une pipe type situations
2. It says "14" in the image.

Lol comments?

Love seeing mods on a furry website power trip. It's fucking Rigby you ass jacks, he's short

Dang, this whole "young tagging" situation is crazy. I just hope Dacad doesn't end up taking their art down from this site. I love their art.😥

Imagine being so bored with life, the only thing you can think to do is mark adult characters as young just for fun and giggle like a school girl, and then ban the artist for removing this brain dead false tag, and then activate child mode and *lock in* "lol_comments" as they get torn apart by the community calling them out. It's honestly embarrassing.

P.S. Rainbow Dash, if you're going to abuse people and make horrible arguments about it, try using your own account instead of posting as your pet bot. Considering you advertise yourself as it's main handler on the about, that's not very smart to try and be a stealth-troll. Also you've got years of reputation of abusing artists you don't like just for fun using your broken tagging system as fuel for it, so it only makes sense.

sanestvaporeonfan said:
If you're going to try and get the mods to unban dacad or change the tagging system, you should start a forum post about it instead of discussing it in a comments section.

And get banned, wasting your time.

theboiyaidragon said: ...

post #2806607

You really gotta wonder why a site with this big of traffic, connections, and history on the internet has moderation staff that has a maturity level to post intentionally inflammatory meme replies, and even emotionally charged responses that just aren't professional for something of this websites scope. This site has expanded so far beyond what it used to be and it still seems like the personalities have not matured to fit what is really needed. I just find it funny for over a decade to have such a rigorous and high standards for tagging and posting, only for the bar for moderator interaction to consistently not grow alongside the logistics of e621.

randomlazyuser said:
At this point, dacad should let driver IDs laying around on the art to idi0t proof for this place.

oh don't worry mate, it doesn't matter what proof you put in the image. If the mods feel differently they will blatantly ignore any and all proof provided within the very image in which they are "tagging what they see" and they will instead tag what they feel.

example image has been tagged "ambiguous gender" https://e621.net/posts/1167602?q=parent%3A2617284#tag-list

This also applies to any character that is not cis and cis presenting.