Acolyte, you're into some pretty bizarre things.

Mikaru said:
Acolyte, you're into some pretty bizarre things.

e621 is responsible for the corruption of me.

I was under the impression that this site was for art in general, not just furry art.

From the help page
Our mission: To archive the best/strangest animal/anthro-related artwork

From the avoid posting page
Avoid posting these things: Content that is not furry or furry-related

leomole said:
But e6 is for furry art. And these uploads are all not furry.

Sooo… to illustrate that this site is for furry art only, you show us where we can find THOUSANDS of pieces of non-furry artwork here.

A JOB WELL DONE.

Acolyte said:
Sooo… to illustrate that this site is for furry art only, you show us where we can find THOUSANDS of pieces of non-furry artwork here.

A JOB WELL DONE.

He's not wrong though. The site really is supposed to be about furry content, despite the not_furry tag having ~14k current posts. You've been around long enough to know this. The not_furry tag was probably already half it's current size before they made the "all content should be furry related" rule official... Which again, is a thing they actually did and still currently have rules posted about in multiple places around the site. They've also mentioned that posts made prior to the policy being official won't be deleted; The not_furry tag helps mark those.

You're also probably personally responsible for a significant percentage of that tag's bloating number.

Even still, the number of not_furry posts pales in comparison to the ~800k total post number on the site and is a poor statistic to point at to justify posting more irrelevant content.

I don't know why so many posts that are basically solo human (like this post), human focused, or just generally not_furry whatsoever, are getting approved lately but according to the site's own policies they mostly shouldn't be here.

Last I saw, non-furry art could be posted if it was of sufficient quality.

This ruling was more recent than last year.

Crispix said:
I don't know why so many posts that are basically solo human (like this post), human focused, or just generally not_furry whatsoever, are getting approved lately but according to the site's own policies they mostly shouldn't be here.

Another one of you guys. I try not to get into debates here, so I'm only going to say this: whatever the admins approve, that's what belongs on the site.

Blacklist what you don't want to see, don't dictate to others what to post.

That is all.

Shiitake said:
Last I saw, non-furry art could be posted if it was of sufficient quality.

This ruling was more recent than last year.

I know the furry-relevance rule has exceptions/caveats that basically say "The post may get approved if it's particularly humorous/cool/exceptionally-high-quality", but the majority of human-focused and non-furry submissions I'm seeing approved don't meet any of those criteria, and certainly not in the quantity that are making it through. For example, this post is low quality, completely non-furry, and doesn't meet any of the specified criteria, but I won't be surprised if it gets approved.

If you happen to have a link to wherever you saw a more recent official ruling on this, share it if you could? I was thinking about posting in the forums for a clarification.

Acolyte said:
Another one of you guys. I try not to get into debates here, so I'm only going to say this: whatever the admins approve, that's what belongs on the site.

Blacklist what you don't want to see, don't dictate to others what to post.

That is all.

While I still don't agree with this kind of content being uploaded to this site for a variety of reasons that I won't go into in a comment section, this brings up another good point while we're talking about blacklists:

Blacklists only function when people tag properly. I've mentioned it elsewhere before, but as long as non-furry content IS being approved here, myself and others would appreciate that you make sure to tag the large quantities of non_furry content you upload as such by applying that tag to it instead of leaving others to do it for you. It seems like, with a few exceptions, that most people who are the primary uploaders of not_furry content almost never tag it as such.

I feel like it's at least the minimum consideration people could make if they insist on coming to a furry website to upload non-furry material, instead of going to the sites that actually cater to non-furry content.

Also as another side note, tagging your picture sources is a pretty neat thing to do and helps people who do like whatever you posted find more of it.

Acolyte said:
we can find THOUSANDS of pieces of non-furry artwork here

Yeah, and there are hundreds of thousands of posts that actually align with the stated goal of site. Not furry art is something like 1% of the site.

Acolyte said:
Blacklist what you don't want to see

That's a great idea, but you don't tag your posts properly! All of your not_furry posts have had to be tagged as such by other users. Tell you what, if you do your job by tagging your submissions properly, then I'll never complain on one of your posts again. Does that sound fair?

leomole said:
Does that sound fair?

Nah. The whole "furry, not-furry" is a grey area for me. I'll continue to tag my posts based upon the obvious of what I see, according to the site guidelines, and leave the rest for others to mince and nitpick over.

It has some sort of non human egg being put into it's body, leave the human alone guys.

Also good gif is good, but a bit small.

Crispix said:
He's not wrong though. The site really is supposed to be about furry content, despite the not_furry tag having ~14k current posts. You've been around long enough to know this. The not_furry tag was probably already half it's current size before they made the "all content should be furry related" rule official... Which again, is a thing they actually did and still currently have rules posted about in multiple places around the site. They've also mentioned that posts made prior to the policy being official won't be deleted; The not_furry tag helps mark those.

You're also probably personally responsible for a significant percentage of that tag's bloating number.

Even still, the number of not_furry posts pales in comparison to the ~800k total post number on the site and is a poor statistic to point at to justify posting more irrelevant content.

I don't know why so many posts that are basically solo human (like this post), human focused, or just generally not_furry whatsoever, are getting approved lately but according to the site's own policies they mostly shouldn't be here.

Well guess what bud? The people who are accepting these non-furry pics are the same people that wrote those guidelines. If they're gonna break their own rules, than why stop them?

leomole said:
Yeah, and there are hundreds of thousands of posts that actually align with the stated goal of site. Not furry art is something like 1% of the site.

That's a great idea, but you don't tag your posts properly! All of your not_furry posts have had to be tagged as such by other users. Tell you what, if you do your job by tagging your submissions properly, then I'll never complain on one of your posts again. Does that sound fair?

Why do you care? I see things that are on my blacklist when they haven't been tagged properly, and do you know what I do? I either keep scrolling, or I fix the tagging myself. If you don't want to see it so bad, than do what I do, and fix it so you don't have to.

Crispix said:
While I still don't agree with this kind of content being uploaded to this site for a variety of reasons that I won't go into in a comment section, this brings up another good point while we're talking about blacklists:

Blacklists only function when people tag properly. I've mentioned it elsewhere before, but as long as non-furry content IS being approved here, myself and others would appreciate that you make sure to tag the large quantities of non_furry content you upload as such by applying that tag to it instead of leaving others to do it for you. It seems like, with a few exceptions, that most people who are the primary uploaders of not_furry content almost never tag it as such.

I feel like it's at least the minimum consideration people could make if they insist on coming to a furry website to upload non-furry material, instead of going to the sites that actually cater to non-furry content.

Also as another side note, tagging your picture sources is a pretty neat thing to do and helps people who do like whatever you posted find more of it.

Or you know, you could just put something like:
Human solo
Not_furry
in your blacklist, and it will take away any posts with both solo humans and anything not-furry. Also, are you using the blacklist correctly? If you have all your blacklisted things in a row like:
Gore fenoxo smash_bros avian
It's only going to blacklist pics that have ALL of those tags in it. You need to put them in a column. Like this:
Heavy
Core
Cheese
Lol_comments
Hopefully this helps, and hopefully you'll all stop fighting over goddamn tagging on a furry version of r34. If they approve it, than regardless to what the sites rules say, than its approved. I'm pretty sure someone put a quote picture for situations like this. Pretty sure it was this one

Likely reason it stayed:
Egg laying tentacles.
Pretty non human to me.

Considering the post was approved, there isn't much reason to carry on this argument. Blacklist tags like human and/or not_furry and move on.

Luccareon said:
Well guess what bud? The people who are accepting these non-furry pics are the same people that wrote those guidelines. If they're gonna break their own rules, than why stop them?

IKR? So they're saying: "Hey you, stop posting pix that the admins are going to approve! You should know better than that!" :D

Acolyte said:
Another one of you guys. I try not to get into debates here, so I'm only going to say this: whatever the admins approve, that's what belongs on the site.

Blacklist what you don't want to see, don't dictate to others what to post.

That is all.

This was down voted?

Dingalingus said:
This was down voted?

Probably because he specifically told people to use their blacklists in order to avoid seeing the content he uploads, but then when he was asked by multiple people to actually tag his own posts with a simple tag so that the blacklisting he himself just suggested would actually function, he outright refused to do so in a completely asinine manner.

I frankly find that to be pretty dickish and disrespectful to the users of this site.

Luccareon said:
Why do you care? I see things that are on my blacklist when they haven't been tagged properly, and do you know what I do? I either keep scrolling, or I fix the tagging myself. If you don't want to see it so bad, than > do what I do, and fix it < so you don't have to.

He does, and so do I, including on this particular post. It just gets obnoxious after a while when you've had to tag literally hundreds of posts from a small handful of users who prolifically upload a specific type of content but refuse to use simple tags to mark it. It's not outrageous to ask that they use them.

Luccareon said:
Or you know, you could just put something like:
Human solo
Not_furry
in your blacklist, and it will take away any posts with both solo humans and anything not-furry. <etc>

Not a single one of your suggestions would have helped on this post. The uploader outright refuses to use the not_furry tag even when asked, and he didn't even bother to tag this post with human. Both had to be added after the fact by the very users you're quoting. I don't have an expectation of blacklisting or tagging to be perfect, but you'd hope that if you ask a prolific repeat offender to take the 10 seconds it takes to add easy important tags to the constant posts they make that they would have the consideration to make an effort to do so.

Crispix said:

Not a single one of your suggestions would have helped on this post. The uploader outright refuses to use the not_furry tag even when asked, and he didn't even bother to tag this post with human. Both had to be added after the fact by the very users you're quoting. I don't have an expectation of blacklisting or tagging to be perfect, but you'd hope that if you ask a prolific repeat offender to take the 10 seconds it takes to add easy important tags to the constant posts they make that they would have the consideration to make an effort to do so.

I usually tag human. Just forgot on this post. I'm only human.

You're on an open-membership image board where anyone can upload just about anything. When they do, maybe they'll tag correctly, maybe not. The community here corrects and adds tags and the admins approve or delete images.

If this is your peeve, expect to be peeved as long as you're here. If you see a thumbnail you don't like, just keep scrolling down or click it, add the tags you've blacklisted and keep it moving.

That's a proactive solution that's a thousand times more effective at controlling what you don't want to see, rather than trying to get others to do what you want them to do.

Acolyte said:
I usually tag human. Just forgot on this post. I'm only human.

You're on an open-membership image board where anyone can upload just about anything. When they do, maybe they'll tag correctly, maybe not. The community here corrects and adds tags and the admins approve or delete images.

If this is your peeve, expect to be peeved as long as you're here. If you see a thumbnail you don't like, just keep scrolling down or click it, add the tags you've blacklisted and keep it moving.

That's a proactive solution that's a thousand times more effective at controlling what you don't want to see, rather than trying to get others to do what you want them to do.

Like I said in the exact block of text you quoted: I don't have an expectation of perfection, and I'm well aware of how the tagging system functions. I simply have an expectation that someone who uploads as much of a particular kind of content as you do, would have the courtesy to other users of the site to add the tag for that content when requested repeatedly by others.

Why are you refusing to tag not_furry? This is basic stuff, and the tag is even well defined per it's wiki page. It's totally obnoxious that you tell people to blacklist, then refuse to add the tags that would make those blacklists function better. If I upload intersex material, I try my best to tag it appropriately because I know plenty of people don't want to see that and have it blacklisted. I don't expect you to get it right 100% of the time, nobody does; My only expectation is that you'd put forth some level of effort to try in order to be considerate to other users once it's been pointed out to you. Right now you don't even try, you actively (and as of this comment thread, knowingly) leave the mess to be cleaned up by other users.

The onus of tagging the tags in your blacklist shouldn't have to fall solely on the people who blacklist those particular tags; what would the point even be of blacklists if the people who didn't want to see an image ...were the people who had to see every one of those images? Should we force all the people who dislike intersex art to be the people who go around looking at literally every single intersex picture to determine if the tag has to be added? cub? scat? gore? vore? No, we shouldn't, because that's an unreasonable expectation that renders the whole feature useless.

You know what IS a reasonable expectation? That you would try to add ONE SIMPLE TAG requiring a MINIMUM OF EFFORT to your own posts on upload when it's applicable after some users have requested you to do so.

Crispix said:
You know what IS a reasonable expectation? That you would try to add ONE SIMPLE TAG requiring a MINIMUM OF EFFORT to your own posts on upload when it's applicable after some users have requested you to do so.

I've erred and allowed myself to be drawn into debate. I must become stronger in the future.

So THIS will actually be my last comment. I'll let you have the last word, whatever you choose to say.

It's not my intent to disrespect anyone here. Seriously, why would I come here and upload content if I didn't like you guys?

Like I said before, furry, not-furry is a grey area for me. I uploaded post #848308. Should I tag it not-furry and hide the image from people who might consider it furry, or leave the tag off and outrage folks like you who get upset at the slightest hint of humanity?

I decided to not bother with that ONE tag, and tag everything else I can on an image. If an admin wishes to admonish me for this, then I'll accept that.

I tag what I see. I don't see "not-furry" in images. I'll simply let others tag that. The chances that you'll see one of my not-furry images before it's tagged such is slim, anyway.

Peace be unto you.

Acolyte said:
Like I said before, furry, not-furry is a grey area for me. I uploaded post #848308. Should I tag it not-furry and hide the image from people who might consider it furry, or leave the tag off and outrage folks like you who get upset at the slightest hint of humanity?

Please read the wiki article for the not_furry tag by clicking on the link in this sentence: it makes it very clear what should and should not be tagged with it for the vast majority of cases.

For the post you mentioned, post #848308, this would NOT receive the not_furry tag as it's an animal_humanoid. This particular category is mentioned under the "Furry:" heading of the not_furry article.

If this type of interpretational issue is the only thing preventing you from using the tag, I would be happy to try to answer any other interpretation questions you may have with trying to apply the tag until you get the gist of it; you could even PM me if you wanted. The wiki article should answer most cases as it stands though; please give it a read, myself and others would appreciate it.

Also for the record, I don't "get upset at the slightest hint of humanity" - anthro furry characters are partially human by definition, mostly.

Acolyte said:
I'll simply let others tag that. The chances that you'll see one of my not-furry images before it's tagged such is slim, anyway.

Please understand; this is just not the case. Take for example the user Leomole who posted earlier in this thread: He probably has a much stronger desire to not see not_furry content than I do, but you just have to take one look at his tag edit history to see just how many he's encountering on a daily basis where he's having to add the tag himself. He's putting in a lot of extra work for the benefit of others doing this.

I'm sure both of us, along with others, would appreciate if you would begin using the tag on your uploads.

Crispix said:
Please read the wiki article for the not_furry tag by clicking on the link in this sentence: it makes it very clear what should and should not be tagged with it for the vast majority of cases.

For the post you mentioned, post #848308, this would NOT receive the not_furry tag as it's an animal_humanoid. This particular category is mentioned under the "Furry:" heading of the not_furry article.

If this type of interpretational issue is the only thing preventing you from using the tag, I would be happy to try to answer any other interpretation questions you may have with trying to apply the tag until you get the gist of it; you could even PM me if you wanted. The wiki article should answer most cases as it stands though; please give it a read, myself and others would appreciate it.

Also for the record, I don't "get upset at the slightest hint of humanity" - anthro furry characters are partially human by definition, mostly.

Please understand; this is just not the case. Take for example the user Leomole who posted earlier in this thread: He probably has a much stronger desire to not see not_furry content than I do, but you just have to take one look at his tag edit history to see just how many he's encountering on a daily basis where he's having to add the tag himself. He's putting in a lot of extra work for the benefit of others doing this.

I'm sure both of us, along with others, would appreciate if you would begin using the tag on your uploads.

After some thought, I've changed my mind. I'll tag "not furry" and leave it for others to remove, if they deem it necessary.

Acolyte said:
After some thought, I've changed my mind. I'll tag "not furry" and leave it for others to remove, if they deem it necessary.

Thanks, much appreciated.

mikaru said:
Acolyte, you're into some pretty bizarre things.

This feels rather tame to me, honestly 🤣 A usual Thursday on e621.