Usatarou Deletion

Your examples are somewhat lacking though, you presented one that was never approved in the first place and the other you've presented was deleted by the person who had approved it. Even if you did approve them, the first question I would simply have would be "is there another to vouch for the image if it was flagged?" Since there were two separate people who approved my two examples of more or less the same thing, then in theory that at least suggests that my examples would most likely have had a second person to vouch for them.

We make the ToS seem like some kind of end all argument, when it really isn't. Sure a lot of the stuff on there is on there for a good reason, but that doesn't mean all of it is. In the examples you bring up evasion, you have things that really exist more for a shock value aspect. Oversized body parts aren't really in the same field, though it has been tossed together with them. If we had a character from some series where their hand could enlarge to some super size and someone posted an image of it, there wouldn't be an issue with it, but give a character a penis that's "too large" or breasts that are "too huge" and all of a sudden it's become "disproportionate" and "grotesque." I don't buy that.

jxh2154 said:
This doesn't make any sense.

What I meant to say is that in your argument of "they shouldn't have been approved in the first place" you're merely falling back onto the argument that "such and such is listed as banned on the ToS, therefore it's always unacceptable." In the past we had argued that the ToS is not a set-in-stone set of rules, and that there does existed things with sufficient quality to be consider an exception to what is banned.

To use an example that the ToS has flaws, the existence of the images under the furry tag and the definition of what is banned on the ToS "Any image or movie where a person's skin is made of fur or scales." Effectively everything that were to receive this tag should be deleted, but would that be right? I'd argue no, it wouldn't be right. What is banned isn't really what we have there written on the ToS, it's really something else we're targeting. The majority of what would be approved and would fall under our furry tag is not the same as what we're trying to prevent on the site. So our ToS isn't necessarily an accurate list of banned content, nor are its definitions always correct.

jxh2154 said:
The talk of number of favorites is utterly pointless.

I don't care if an image has 10,000 favorites, it will be deleted if there's a reason.

Danbooru is not a democracy.

Well that's settled. I hoped that you'd see the logic in what I was saying, but not everyday is Christmas.

evazion said:
I suppose you wouldn't mind if I made exceptions for post #575376 and post #496858 too. After all, judging solely by art quality they are at least as good as Usatarou's works.

If you're going to start making exceptions for things, you had better be willing to make exceptions for everything equally.

Read my post.

If the quality is high but the content is against TOS, putting how the picture is recieved into consideration is allowable.

Using my logic, those pics would remain banned because not only is it TOS, nobody likes it. You just proved that general consensus works. Shit gets down rated, good things get rated highly.

NWF Renim said:
Your examples are somewhat lacking though, you presented one that was never approved in the first place and the other you've presented was deleted by the person who had approved it. Even if you did approve them, the first question I would simply have would be "is there another to vouch for the image if it was flagged?" Since there were two separate people who approved my two examples of more or less the same thing, then in theory that at least suggests that my examples would most likely have had a second person to vouch for them.

What does it matter how many people there are to vouch for a post? You just complained about extreme proportions being banned based more on personal taste rather than quality. By your own logic, shouldn't scat and guro should be allowed if they are of good quality, regardless of your personal tastes or how many janitors are there to vouch for them?

That said, perhaps you'll find post #411787 a better example. It's well drawn, approved by two separate people, and was relatively well received. Should it be allowed? I argue no. I personally like fakepucco, but it's still a clear-cut ToS violation, and I try to follow the rules set out in the ToS despite my personal tastes.

We make the ToS seem like some kind of end all argument, when it really isn't.

Given that the ToS was written by Albert and it's up to him what kind of content he wants to allow on his site, it sort of is. With things like furry it's pretty obvious what he's targeting, but with the grotesque proportions clause it's less obvious what his intentions are. Unless he says otherwise, I have to assume that extreme futa is what he intends to ban there. If that's not what he means, then I don't know what else he could possibly have in mind. If Usatarou's posts aren't extreme enough to violate that clause, then what is?

Ok, people really need to warn when linking to scat images.

That aside, I'm surprised by the cries of "its not fair!" from people who have been here more than long enough to know that "fairness" is incredibly far down the list of priorities around here.

I personally think the two-heads rule is extremely lenient in regard to breast/genital proportions. A penis larger than two heads in length will be at least as long as the character's arm from shoulder to wrist. That's a hell of a lot of leeway.

The fact that some images, wherein dicks match or eclipse their owners in size, are lost because of this rule is no real loss at all as far as I'm concerned. The internet is a vast and strange place, and if I wanted to see things of that sort, there are plenty of options.

NWF_Renim said:
The ToS has and will be changed overtime. The fact that they're on the ToS does not also mean that the reasoning that got it put up there in the first place is a good enough reason to keep it on the list either.

No matter how accurate the TOS currently are I see 2 reasons why they're better kept that way:
1) appearing stricter than they actually are greatly reduces the risk of clueless users uploading crap in the prohibited fields, which I believe is the main point. If the TOS were to say that exceptions can be made when posts really are of high quality, then we'd see more users posting bad art that they genuinely deem so.
2) ensuing ①, deletion drama is better when confined to staff than when shared with users. Objective TOS give less room to users for debate.

So whatever the staff agrees on internally I don't think the TOS are likely to get any more flexible.

Anyway, for posts that have been already approved, until albert states a clear word on that matter, I don't think one person should be enough to delete a post, because it condradicts with the nature of the approval/unapproval system in the first place. Posts should be resent in the queue if they can, and doubly approved posts should be allowed to stay, at least for now.
The current actual policy regarding TOS prohibited content is just too blurry to allow single individuals to handle deletions, and since the issue is entirely subjective only albert can change that.

evazion said:
What does it matter how many people there are to vouch for a post? You just complained about extreme proportions being banned based more on personal taste rather than quality. By your own logic, shouldn't scat and guro should be allowed if they are of good quality, regardless of your personal tastes or how many janitors are there to vouch for them?

I think it does matter how many people there are to vouch for it. These aren't the people voting up and down the image's score, these are people who have the power to approve the image. More or less, those that can approve the images constitute what danbooru is and isn't. To some extent those with approval power are reflective of what Albert would approve, given that we've all been approved by Albert through some form or another. If a large number of those with approval power approved an image, then I think that would indicate that the image is acceptable, given that we reflect to varying degrees what Albert would consider acceptable to begin with.

evazion said:
Given that the ToS was written by Albert and it's up to him what kind of content he wants to allow on his site, it sort of is. With things like furry it's pretty obvious what he's targeting, but with the grotesque proportions clause it's less obvious what his intentions are. Unless he says otherwise, I have to assume that extreme futa is what he intends to ban there. If that's not what he means, then I don't know what else he could possibly have in mind. If Usatarou's posts aren't extreme enough to violate that clause, then what is?

True it is up to Albert in the end what content he wants to allow on the site, but at the same time he is allowing some democratic choice on what is and is not acceptable. It certainly wasn't his will alone that put the nude filter on the ToS, it was through a more democratic means than him just saying so. Further more if it was simply just what was up to him, then we shouldn't run into instances of when he uploads an image and it gets deleted or unapproved, but he does allow it because he is also allowing us to use our own judgement as well. So this site is much more democratic than we're making it out.

It might seem obvious to you, but things like furry on there isn't obvious given how its definition runs counter to material that would be acceptable on danbooru. We're not going to be banning every image of Sonic the Hedgehog just because he's inherently a furry. The important issue is the underlying reason something is put on the ToS, and that is where the discussion should be on. Just because something is on there, doesn't mean that the underlying reason that it ended up there justifies that it should remain on there. If the underlying reason it's on the ToS is that people posting oversized genitals is being done for shock value, to get a reaction out of others or is being a source of mass drama in the comments, fine, but if it's simply that people didn't like the way it looked, that's another thing all together.

The proportions section of the TOS wasn't added until someone posted a bunch of images with breasts 5x the size of the girl and there was a rather intense discussion over what constitutes grotesque and if it should be banned.

Fencedude said:
Ok, people really need to warn when linking to scat images.

That aside, I'm surprised by the cries of "its not fair!" from people who have been here more than long enough to know that "fairness" is incredibly far down the list of priorities around here.

No harm in trying to voice a complaint every once in a while.

In all fairness we could just make something of a warning system where you'd see the tags and then be able to click to see the image, basically knowing what you're going for. That way nobody sees what they don't want and nothing has to be taken down.
Seems perfectly logical and sensical.

tammaro said:
In all fairness we could just make something of a warning system where you'd see the tags and then be able to click to see the image, basically knowing what you're going for. That way nobody sees what they don't want and nothing has to be taken down.
Seems perfectly logical and sensical.

We've already got such a system - the tag blacklist. It's been stated time and again, however, that the existence of this system does not excuse improper posting behavior, nor does it obviate the presence of, nor the need for, the TOS.

Cyberia-Mix said:
Posts should be resent in the queue if they can, and doubly approved posts should be allowed to stay, at least for now.

The problem still exists that a janitor can approve an image, and then - when it is sent back to the mod queue by a user with a valid objection - reapprove it themselves, essentially defeating the purpose of the unapproval system. Worse, after an image has been reapproved, it can never be flagged for deletion again.

We've had clear-cut cases of this being abused quite blatantly in the past, and there's no reason not to believe it will happen again in the future.

I still think that Janitors should not be able to reapprove something they approved once already.
Also, rather than the current "one flagging and that's that" system, images should be able to be resent to the mod queue as long as users have valid objections to them. A one- to three-month cooldown timer on unapprovals of any given image would curb any possible abuse of this, I think.

Action_Kamen said:
Making exceptions based on user-response is the best unless you believe that the users are all morons.

The problem with this is that when it comes to explicit content, it's kind of true.

There's been conversations in the past where people have noted that sub-par pictures get tens, sometimes hundreds of favourites because they happen to have some T&A.

If I remember correctly, that was actually one of the prime factors that lead to the change of the voting system, because before voting was limited to certain account levels the popular postings for the day were always flooded with explicit works, even if there were safe or questionable works that were of better quality.

Getting back on track here, I'm not saying that Usatarou's artwork was bad, but I am saying that I believe that scoring and favourites, which is something that by its very nature will always be subjective, shouldn't be able to supersede the governing rules of the TOS.

Now, whether the TOS needs to be looked at and the definitions of what qualifies as grotesque overhauled, that's something I'm not going to weigh in on, because I don't have enough experience in that regard to make an informed comment about it anyways.