She may be the birthday girl, but we're getting the real gift here.

Flagged?

akustaka said:
Flagged?

I have a feeling that the troll who's been going around randomly downvoting normal comments now has stepped up his efforts by bugging the admins with false flaggings, but I don't have definitive proof of it so I won't comment on it further. Ultimately it's up to the admins if it's a false flag or the reason is indeed correct.

birthday girl gets birthday plaps

dirtyratmatt said:
I have a feeling that the troll who's been going around randomly downvoting normal comments now has stepped up his efforts by bugging the admins with false flaggings, but I don't have definitive proof of it so I won't comment on it further. Ultimately it's up to the admins if it's a false flag or the reason is indeed correct.

There's a decent chance it might be a false flag, but technically the artist who's been uploading posts here has been accidentally including broken bluesky links with all their posts (which you aren't supposed to do, but you should just really fix it instead of flagging), alongside a valid furaffinity link. Reached out to let them know and it's planning to go and fix their other posts that have those broken links.

dirtyratmatt said:
I have a feeling that the troll who's been going around randomly downvoting normal comments now has stepped up his efforts by bugging the admins with false flaggings, but I don't have definitive proof of it so I won't comment on it further. Ultimately it's up to the admins if it's a false flag or the reason is indeed correct.

gooncario said:
There's a decent chance it might be a false flag, but technically the artist who's been uploading posts here has been accidentally including broken bluesky links with all their posts (which you aren't supposed to do, but you should just really fix it instead of flagging), alongside a valid furaffinity link. Reached out to let them know and it's planning to go and fix their other posts that have those broken links.

No and no.

As usual. Whenever there's a flag that states "[FLAG] Does not meet the uploading guidelines" it suggest an extensive use of generative AI in the process of creating the image. Thus implying the image was made mostly by AI rather than a human.

Whether it is the case or not will be determined by the staff of the site.

lovemesomefoxylady said:
No and no.

As usual. Whenever there's a flag that states "[FLAG] Does not meet the uploading guidelines" it suggest an extensive use of generative AI in the process of creating the image. Thus implying the image was made mostly by AI rather than a human.

Whether it is the case or not will be determined by the staff of the site.

That is... very much not what that means. "Does not meet the uploading guidelines" is a catchall for, as it suggests, anything that violates the uploading guidelines. Yes, that means AI, but it also means bad quality, advertisements, memes... It's for anything on the flagging system that doesn't have a more specific option listed (ie, young-human is its own option, so you'd check that off instead). The only ones who get to see the exact reason for the flag are the staff and the person who flagged the image.

And, given that pawprincess has 3 years worth of art here and nothing with "status:deleted", troll definitely sounds a lot more likely.

rintherose said:
And, given that pawprincess has 3 years worth of art here and nothing with "status:deleted", troll definitely sounds a lot more likely.

With the emergence of AI gen 2022 any budding artist that came during and after that year is up to scrutiny.

Nobody is above the suspicion either - with plenty of stories regarding artists that you can see online with their style getting a sharp style change and consistency they never had before.

I can imagine at least one reason going through their socials that could tip an eventual suspicion on the AI angle.

Publishing a vast amounts of art that's colored/rendered in short span of time. While normally it's okay, nowadays it makes people suspicious and for a good reason. I'm almost certain the reason this was flagged was suspicion of AI.

What I am not claiming however is that it is definitely AI. But those random flags for not meeting guidelines when everything else seems A-OK do point that way. Especially if the flag isn't near immediately dismissed.

It's sort of up to staff to decide if they've a reliable method for checking or dismissing those claims.

^Their furaffinity account has work going back 6 years, so still no on the "budding artist" thought. What I was trying to imply is that they would almost certainly have been caught at least once in that time, but there have been no images from pawprincess that have been deleted from the site (for any reason). It's ridiculous to speculate on the reason for a flag, but moreso to jump straight to "it's AI" as the most likely reason for it. Hell, there's rules against that specifically because it causes debates like this one.

rintherose said:
^Their furaffinity account has work going back 6 years, so still no on the "budding artist" thought. What I was trying to imply is that they would almost certainly have been caught at least once in that time (...) Hell, there's rules against that specifically because it causes debates like this one.

That's fair; though playing open cards with reason for a flag wouldn't be bad either. Precisely because it would skip debates such as these. Also I hinted at a possible reason for a false positive that could've tipped someone off in earlier post. That doesn't mean that I even imply it is true. I can see it as a false positive!