Is this fair?

My post was deleted because it violated TOS. Except it didn't:

post #640879
Pixiv link: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=2511606

TOS says breasts bigger than a head and a half are deemed grotesque. These are barely bigger than one head.

Second of all, in terms of exaggerated body proportions there are more ludicrous posts on this site (Not a bad thing): post #585273 post #546150 post #322692 post #632889 post #294720. It looks like who ever deleted my post felt the need to go after mine and ignore the rest.

This would be a case for the deletion appeal but since this happened to me in the past: post #636586. I think there's a double standard in play here where popular artists get more lenient standards while others don't and I think it should be addressed. Any thoughts on the matter?

Thats nice, no one cares. Stays deleted.

Eleven said:
post #636586

That post was flagged for "bad art", as I recall, not "ToS violation", and it was subsequently reapproved; I don't see the connection here.

Eleven said:
post #640879

Just as you suggest, this really is an issue for the deletion appeal thread. FWIW, I think you're correct, both in that it's not a violation and in that the ToS provision against 'grotesque' proportions is inconsistently applied, but I don't think there's really anything to be done about it; it's the downside that comes with having the moderation queue run by humans, and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Eleven said:
there are more ludicrous posts on this site

This argument makes me want to strangle puppies every time I see it. It's like you're in court, defending someone who snatched a lady's purse by saying "Well, there are people who robbed banks and got away with it!"

The rule is not subjective, it is objective: "bigger than a head and a half". If there are posts that violate that rule, they should be flagged as ToS violations, too.

Ah! I knew that image looked familiar, I distinctly remember not approving it the FIRST time it was uploaded a year ago.

post #382862

glasnost said:
That post was flagged for "bad art", as I recall, not "ToS violation", and it was subsequently reapproved; I don't see the connection here.

Connection is that rules are being applied inconsistently. I was lucky that someone deemed it fit to reapprove it after people complained but that doesn't mean it won't occur in the future.

This argument makes me want to strangle puppies every time I see it. It's like you're in court, defending someone who snatched a lady's purse by saying "Well, there are people who robbed banks and got away with it!"

Appealing to precedent and tradition is a valid point. I upload what I think would be most accepted by the community. I gauge what is accepted by the community by what has been uploaded in the past. If I see that a similar picture has been uploaded and gets good ratings I'd try to upload a similar picture. And if two pictures with similar content are treated differently its fair to cry foul over preferential treatment.

The rule is not subjective, it is objective: "bigger than a head and a half". If there are posts that violate that rule, they should be flagged as ToS violations, too.

They seem to be well accepted and I'm not using them as an example to sling mud at the janitors who approved them and the contributors who uploaded them. asanagi is known for his proportions and one of his pictures has a fave rating of 235+ members and an up-vote of 35 privileged+ account holder. If after 200+ people saw the post and decided not to flag it then it'd be a jerk and selfish move for me to do it, and like I said its not a bad thing.

A good way to curb this inconsistency is to have a standardized system geared away from subjective bias and towards objective standards.

Fencedude said:
Ah! I knew that image looked familiar, I distinctly remember not approving it the FIRST time it was uploaded a year ago.

post #382862

You're not helping. Instead of addressing my points you're set on trolling me. If you're going to spam then just stop posting.

All you are doing is whining that a post wasn't approved, and giving us examples of other images that were approved, and how many favorites and votes they have is immaterial.

It was not approved the first time it was uploaded, and then actively deleted the second.

If you wanted to contest this, we have the deletion appeal thread, but making an appeal to fairness is, in fact, a great way to NOT get it undeleted.

I'm not quite sure what you're going for. At first you say it's not a ToS violation, but it is, and you later acknowledged it. That should basically be the end of it.

Whether existing posts exist that also violate the ToS doesn't matter; feel free to bring them up here so we can rightly flag them.

Whether a janitor approves your image in defiance of the ToS doesn't matter; so long as someone later flagged it for the violation, and no one took it upon themselves to save the image afterward, the consensus is that it doesn't belong.

If there happened to be a ToS violating image with a bunch of favorites and up-votes, it doesn't change the fact that it is a ToS violation, and anyone would be in the right to flag it.

We do very occasionally make exceptions, and if someone on the mod staff thought a flagged image was worth keeping on an exceptional basis, they will either reapprove it (hopefully with an explanation), or they will debate it in the comments or forum and we will come to a consensus in that context. That hasn't happened in your case.

Fencedude said:
All you are doing is whining that a post wasn't approved, and giving us examples of other images that were approved, and how many favorites and votes they have is immaterial.

It was not approved the first time it was uploaded, and then actively deleted the second.

If you wanted to contest this, we have the deletion appeal thread, but making an appeal to fairness is, in fact, a great way to NOT get it undeleted.

And all you are doing is being a jackass and purposefully trying to offend me. I see you're even a janitor and I wouldn't expect you to be coarse for no reason unless you're going "fuck being civil I have internet powers". Stop it, I'm not whining and you're not helping. Now:

I'm not asking for my post to be reapproved, if you read the goddamn opening post you'll see I did not ask for reapproval.

If you read the opening post you'd see I'm asking for the TOS to be followed to a T and I'm asking the consensus of other people on the subject matter. Glasnot is the only one in thread that cared to stay on topic. He said he believed it was an inconsistency , the picture was not TOS in his opinion and its a downside to the system. Shinjidude asked for clarification, you completely missed the point with "lawl your whining, lawl you want your post to be undeleted, lawl you think votes/fav matter" and you haven't said a thing worthwhile.

I'm appealing to fairness, popularity and tradition because appealing to objectivity does not work. We have an objective standard of what is grotesque and what is not, its even undergone revisions since the last time I saw it, yet this inconsistency is still in place because someone somewhere with no accountability decided that he'll delete it for his own sake.

Shinjidude said:
I'm not quite sure what you're going for. At first you say it's not a ToS violation, but it is, and you later acknowledged it. That should basically be the end of it.

I didn't acknowledge it being a TOS. I still maintain that whoever deleted it was mistaken and didn't read the TOS closely enough.

Shinjidude said:
Whether existing posts exist that also violate the ToS doesn't matter; feel free to bring them up here so we can rightly flag them.

If that is the mentality then I can't change it.

Shinjidude said:
Whether a janitor approves your image in defiance of the ToS doesn't matter; so long as someone later flagged it for the violation, and no one took it upon themselves to save the image afterward, the consensus is that it doesn't belong.

That's not applicable here. The picture is not a TOS violation.

This was not even submitted to the mod queue for consideration by other staff members. The message says "This post was deleted. Reason: ToS (breasts)" as opposed to "This post was deleted. Reason: Unapproved in three days after returning to moderation queue". It leads me to believe that the pic was deleted on the spot without the customary 3 day review.

Shinjidude said:
If there happened to be a ToS violating image with a bunch of favorites and up-votes, it doesn't change the fact that it is a ToS violation, and anyone would be in the right to flag it.

I'll keep that in mind.

You seem to be missing a fundamental fact.

For an image to be accepted, it has to not violate the ToS, AND be liked by at least one Janitor/Mod. Just because an image does not violate our terms of service, does not mean it will automatically be approved.

Is this fair? No, not really. But its not intended to be.

Eleven said:
post #640879
TOS says breasts bigger than a head and a half are deemed grotesque. These are barely bigger than one head.

First, the TOS says "breasts or penises that are larger than two heads in size", not "a head and a half". Also, to my understanding, it's not to be taken as a ruler-strict exact measurement, but an at-a-glance approximate.

Second, and more importantly, the size of Yukari's head in that pic is uncannily small in proportion to the rest of her whole body, not just that of her breasts. It's somewhat creepy, and were I a janitor, I most certainly would not have approved it in the first place on those grounds.

That said, were her head in proportion to her torso overall, I don't think those would be a ToS-violating size.

I think there's a double standard in play here where popular artists get more lenient standards while others don't and I think it should be addressed. Any thoughts on the matter?

Even the best of artists draw a bad pic once in awhile, and those tend to either not be uploaded here, or die in the mod queue. I don't see the problem existing as you described.

Some pics may be seen as "good enough to bend the rules for". I also see no problem with this, provided it doesn't become commonplace.

In any case, if an image is seen as a violation of the ToS, it should be flagged for review and possible deletion, regardless of factors such as artist, score, age of the post, "tradition" or "precedent", et cetera.
If you see a problem with those asanagi pics, then by all means, help keep Danbooru clean by flagging them. At least one of his pics was flagged on those grounds, and was not reapproved. Same applies to kloah's work, and any others with similarly ridiculous proportions.

Eleven said:
I didn't acknowledge it being a TOS. I still maintain that whoever deleted it was mistaken and didn't read the TOS closely enough.

Hmm, reading things over again, I guess you didn't. Doing a measurement though (~200 for the head, ~300 for the breasts) it does violate the 1.5 head rule that you cited. In your favor though, the ToS guidelines did get bumped to 2 heads. So I guess it isn't even actually a strict ToS violation by the rules.

Even so, I still think the proportions are aesthetically displeasing, and especially if the flagging caption was "Bad art" rather than "ToS violation", I would support upholding the deletion.

Eleven said:
This was not even submitted to the mod queue for consideration by other staff members. The message says "This post was deleted. Reason: ToS (breasts)" as opposed to "This post was deleted. Reason: Unapproved in three days after returning to moderation queue". It leads me to believe that the pic was deleted on the spot without the customary 3 day review.

This is actually a good point. Images that aren't clear ToS violations should not be deleted on sight, and instead left for a 3-day review.

Still, as far as your argument goes that this deletion should be reversed due to "fairness" and that approval criteria should be strictly objective, that simply isn't how the system works here, and that fact is intentional.

Regardless of whether an image is a ToS violation or not, the primary criteria for approval is the image's quality in the eyes of the mod staff.

This is pretty much entirely subjective, and it really can't be anything else, as there is no way to generate a completely objective metric for "good art".

Quality also consists of many different aspects, including proportion and composition. Aside from that last point, the image in question is sound. The proportions though still lead me to not see it as good art. If another janitor/mod/admin disagrees they are welcome to accept the image based on their own opinion.

@Sgcdonmai

I take a precursory glance and when in doubt I open of photoshop and measure. I'm thorough like that.

Fencedude said:
You seem to be missing a fundamental fact.

For an image to be accepted, it has to not violate the ToS, AND be liked by at least one Janitor/Mod. Just because an image does not violate our terms of service, does not mean it will automatically be approved.

Is this fair? No, not really. But its not intended to be.

I have contributor status so the second one doesn't apply UNLESS the picture was sent to the moderation queue, and it wasn't.

This isn't a case of one mod/jan seeing a problem, submitting it to the mod queue and letting it die. Its a case of one mod just killing it outright for a reason that doesn't apply.

Eleven said:
I have contributor status so the second one doesn't apply UNLESS the picture was sent to the moderation queue, and it wasn't.

If glasnost is to be believed above, it was flagged for "bad art", in which case it *was* sent to the moderation queue. As I mentioned though, it really should have stayed there for the full three days rather than however long it was between being flagged and deleted.

Eleven said:

This isn't a case of one mod/jan seeing a problem, submitting it to the mod queue and letting it die. Its a case of one mod just killing it outright for a reason that doesn't apply.

On the flip side, there are a few shit pictures that constantly get reapproved by janitors/mods (please see waha gif and its friends. As to say what is more dangerous, I'd say one-sided reapproval is more dangerous. There is always the deletion appeal thread for you, Eleven.

I do not think Fencedude is being particularly offensive to you, at least not intentionally. The site is about nerd elitism, and that's what makes it great. Fairness almost never becomes an issue here.

It'd be nice to have a reapproval appeal thread, but thats for another forum discussion.

Eleven said:
@Sgcdonmai
I take a precursory glance and when in doubt I open of photoshop and measure. I'm thorough like that.

I would like to discourage anyone from being that exacting on this, for a variety of reasons.

Shinjidude said:
If glasnost is to be believed above, it was flagged for "bad art", in which case it *was* sent to the moderation queue.

glasnost was referring to post #636586 that was used as an example, not post #640879 that is the pic in question.

Eleven's right on that part, it didn't go through the queue as it should.

Granola said:

I do not think Fencedude is being particularly offensive to you, at least not intentionally. The site is about nerd elitism, and that's what makes it great. Fairness almost never becomes an issue here.

No kidding, I haven't even told him to sit down, shut up and GTFO yet.

Fred1515 said:
glasnost was referring to post #636586 that was used as an example

Wow, that is...amazingly horrible.