Posted under Art Talk
This topic has been locked.
In relation to https://e621.net/posts/6150737, does this not fall under young humanoid? I dont understand how this got past approval if it is a humanoid that is young. It is by definition against the rules, but if im wrong I would like to know because im very confused now
Updated by Versperus
the rule is for "human-like" characters, essentially characters that could be mistaken as human at a glance. humanoid as a whole covers a lot of stuff that falls outside of that.
it's "Underage Human & Human-Like Characters", not necessarily humanoids
It's also only the head that matters, if the head looks human on an underage body the post is likely to be deleted
donovan_dmc said:
It's also only the head that matters, if the head looks human on an underage body the post is likely to be deleted
except for taurs, which seem to be allowed.
Inconsistency in grey area (though tbh I personally think that image would not have survived the initial purge or been reinstated) approvals is a product of there being multiple janitors whose subjective judgement vary.
It's personal enough that with 'grey area' stuff that gets approved you can usually guess who approved it.
If you feel a post has been approved in error, the best course of action would be to flag the post for review, then, if unflagged, politely ask the unflagging Janitor about it. If that is unsatisfactory, escalate it up the ladder to the Lead Janitor then an Admin then Rainbow Dash.
In this case, the post has already been flagged and unflagged. Therefore, you can either politely message IsFaputa and politely discuss it or politely escalate to Strikerman and politely discuss it with him. If either decide it's necessary, they'll bring it up to staff as a whole, and we'll discuss it behind the scenes and come to a collective decision.
Hmmm... given what NMNY has specified back then and is found under 'uploading guidelines' topic #45501 it seems this does fall under the purge.
- Elves("simple pointy eared humanoid") are banned
- color is ignored in species/form categorization.
- only other defining feature is a antennae, which is likely insufficient (NMNY faq: [...]"humans with a few glued on animal features (noses, tails, ears, whiskers, etc.)"[...])
ryu_deacon said:
Hmmm... given what NMNY has specified back then and is found under 'uploading guidelines' topic #45501 it seems this does fall under the purge.- Elves("simple pointy eared humanoid") are banned
- color is ignored in species/form categorization.
- only other defining feature is a antennae, which is likely insufficient (NMNY faq: [...]"humans with a few glued on animal features (noses, tails, ears, whiskers, etc.)"[...])
Those guidelines were made when the situation was still developing and an overabundance of caution was needed
Plus I'd say it is better to encourage not uploading these things at all to avoid middle ground issues as much as possible
Additionally, ryu_deacon, if you feel that way, then you now know what to do. If you want to know why someone did something, asking them is a lot more productive than blind postulation. It's not like it's a secret or anything, you're free to report back to the thread, but this is just a waste of time that encourages conspiratorial thinking; just ask them directly.
aacafah said:
Additionally, ryu_deacon, if you feel that way, then you now know what to do. If you want to know why someone did something, asking them is a lot more productive than blind postulation. It's not like it's a secret or anything, you're free to report back to the thread, but this is just a waste of time that encourages conspiratorial thinking; just ask them directly.
I was literally responding to the op in precisely the same manner that both 'dba afish' and 'Donovan DMC' did. I was answering their question and no I was not making assumptions, I was basically quoting what NMNY has said thru the rules and their provided faq(which not everyone might remember). I find it rather odd that you believe me directly linking to the rules would promote conspiracies.
I said it encourages conspiratorial thinking, not that it was conspiratorial thinking. The conspiratorial thinking comes in when people use that understandable yet fundamentally flawed reasoning to start saying "My reading of the rules says this should be deleted, but Staff Member A said it shouldn't be deleted, so they must be getting paid off to leave this up!", even after staff thoroughly explains the matter in public.
If you think that's oddly specific & unrealistically overblown, I agree with you in all but the unrealistic point, as this exact thing happened like a week ago. You'll have to forgive me for wanting to cut speculation short in favor of directing people to just ask for the justification if they're interested in it, but this happens all the time, & I'd prefer not to have things devolve.
As for the difference between your response & the earlier ones, for one, they made their statements in the absence of a pre-existing ruling, so they weren't explicitly ignoring staff instructions on the matter. More importantly, you're specifically ignoring what they said - & their accurate explanations of the rule as it stands - and instead decided to use an outdated ruleset to critique a modern ruling that uses a different ruleset. Elves are not disallowed, and pointy ears are sufficient for the purpose of this rule as it's enforced today; this is why the flag & uploading guidelines don't say "humanoid", & instead say "human-like".
People use incorrect or outdated information to come to inaccurate conclusions all the time, which is why both I and Clawstripe told people to just ask instead of postulate. If you had, then you'd have received the updated guidelines instead of misapplying the old guidelines & furthering the confusion on the matter.
I don't know if there are additional reasons for IsFaputa's ruling, & if this is insufficient, then I'll again say to ask them if you have specific questions about this specific case.
Edit:
I believe I got mixed up between the human only rule & the young humanoid rule; on me for trying to help on the forums while busy at work. To clarify, young humanoid characters do also apply to this rule. Apologies for the confusion.
Updated
aacafah said:
I said it encourages conspiratorial thinking, not that it was conspiratorial thinking. The conspiratorial thinking comes in when people use that understandable yet fundamentally flawed reasoning to start saying "My reading of the rules says this should be deleted, but Staff Member A said it shouldn't be deleted, so they must be getting paid off to leave this up!", even after staff thoroughly explains the matter in public.If you think that's oddly specific & unrealistically overblown, I agree with you in all but the unrealistic point, as this exact thing happened like a week ago. You'll have to forgive me for wanting to cut speculation short in favor of directing people to just ask for the justification if they're interested in it, but this happens all the time, & I'd prefer not to have things devolve.
As for the difference between your response & the earlier ones, for one, they made their statements in the absence of a pre-existing ruling, so they weren't explicitly ignoring staff instructions on the matter. More importantly, you're specifically ignoring what they said - & their accurate explanations of the rule as it stands - and instead decided to use an outdated ruleset to critique a modern ruling that uses a different ruleset. Elves are not disallowed, and pointy ears are sufficient for the purpose of this rule as it's enforced today; this is why the flag & uploading guidelines don't say "humanoid", & instead say "human-like".
People use incorrect or outdated information to come to inaccurate conclusions all the time, which is why both I and Clawstripe told people to just ask instead of postulate. If you had, then you'd have received the updated guidelines instead of misapplying the old guidelines & furthering the confusion on the matter.
I don't know if there are additional reasons for IsFaputa's ruling, & if this is insufficient, then I'll again say to ask them if you have specific questions about this specific case.
What I used is not outdated, as I specified in my initial post it is also found in the present uploading guidelines
=================================================
↑ Bad Things to Upload:
Underage Human & Human-Like Characters: Any submissions containing underage human or human-like characters involved in explicit sexual activities, or featuring those characters nude with visible genitalia and / or anus, are not allowed.
"Human-like" means all humanoid fantasy races, especially ones that have more skin than fur, and either no or only very minor animal features, like tails, ears, claws, etc.
This includes, but is not limited to, elves, orcs, vampires, dwarves, gnomes, "human but has a tail and animal ears", stylized humans like The Simpsons, and similar content.
Visual appearance counts for what is "young" first and foremost, but canonical age may also count for borderline depictions.
If the young character is uninvolved in any ongoing explicit activities themselves, or is not nude themselves, that is allowed
=================================================
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/11143
again I am not stating a opinion, I am simply referring to the rules that anyone could have forgotten the specific details of and you come off as complaining about me bringing up these rules.
If something has changed then maybe those uploading guidelines should be updated before attacking me, because your attack encourages said conspiratorial thinking.
Updated
as I specified in my initial post it is also found in the present uploading guidelines
ryu_deacon said:
Hmmm... given what NMNY has specified back then and is found under 'uploading guidelines' topic #45501 it seems this does fall under the purge.
Forgive me for finding that initial post somewhat confusing; I see now what you were attempting to communicate.
I won't preclude myself from being confused; I defer on these matters to janitors. That said, I fail to see how that means you wouldn't be best served doing what I said multiple times & just asking IsFaputa. That is all I'm trying to say. I apologize for potential inaccuracies fostered while attempting to explain what I hoped would be a simple reminder that any confusion is best solved by asking them instead of getting off-topic and confused by attempting to relitigate the matter prematurely. Clearly, that was a misguided concern, & no derailments have resulted from that.
If you read an attempt to preclude unproductive theorizing as an attack, then I'll not waste time further clarifying. If you don't think IsFaputa made the right ruling, then talk to them.
What counts as humanoid (the tag) and what is deleted in young humanoid is not a 1:1 match. The first was made to categorize stuff that's borderline relevant to the site (and to give a counterpart to anthro), the latter was done for reasons outside of our control. We prefer to err on the side of keep when possible with this, and yes, this means the grey area is a weird gray area.
Flag it if you see it or if you're not sure. If you disagree with something unflagged, talk to the janitor that handled it. If you still disagree, you're always welcome to pass it up the chain (in this case to Striker).
regsmutt said:
Inconsistency in grey area (though tbh I personally think that image would not have survived the initial purge or been reinstated) approvals is a product of there being multiple janitors whose subjective judgement vary.It's personal enough that with 'grey area' stuff that gets approved you can usually guess who approved it.
Different janitors also have different niches that they focus on or content they prefer to not deal with. Young, gore, scat, certain themes, 3D, animations in general, etc. just to name a few. I tend to focus on those specifically (less so animations) so others don't have to deal with them as much, so you'll see my name come up with those a lot.
