Breast size and the ToS

I know this has been discussed before, but I'm still confused by the guidelines regarding acceptable breast size in the Terms of Service.

My (original) understanding is that its intent is to prevent pictures with absolutely absurd proportions from being uploaded. This has been pretty effective. However, I see pictures get flagged and deleted that I wouldn't consider to be part of the description of "grotesque". I feel the wording of the guideline, "larger than twice the head size", is a bit troublesome.

It presents a couple difficulties. One is that judging the depicted volume of the breasts isn't always clear cut. Two is that there are real women who are naturally endowed with such breasts, and when taking this to the stylistic realms of art, it seems like an unrealistic restriction.

The way the guideline is being applied just doesn't seem to jibe with the intent, or at least my understanding of it. Can we get the aim of this guideline more clear?

Is this really something you can quantify? The whole concept comes across as very subjective and any specific metric would simply be a guideline.

On a personal note even IRL there is a point where breasts go from being just too big to making my skin crawl.

It's a guideline, inevitably. Not everyone finds the same stuff grotesque.

I personally think it's important, though, that the ToS does list it under 'grotesque' -- flagging an image based on that should say that whoever's flagging it actually finds that image literally grotesque, not just "these breasts are too big for the ToS." Just like you wouldn't approve an image unless you personally found it Danbooru-quality, you shouldn't flag an image for being grotesque unless you personally find it grotesque...

However, since the OP didn't link to any specific images they were complaining about, it's hard to say anything beyond that.

Xabid said:

However, since the OP didn't link to any specific images they were complaining about, it's hard to say anything beyond that.

post #933173 would be my guess.

Wrote up the post before I saw that, actually.

I probably should've done some examples, despite how obvious I thought the issue was. I'll get to that later today.

The ToS for breast size does seem kinda of flexible. I've seen many posts that maybe should've been flagged but weren't, because of the body/head proportion in relation to the breasts. As for post #933173, I can't put my finger on it but something about those boobs seems off, but not enough to flag it in my opinion.

Dogenzaka said:
The ToS for breast size does seem kinda of flexible. I've seen many posts that maybe should've been flagged but weren't, because of the body/head proportion in relation to the breasts. As for post #933173, I can't put my finger on it but something about those boobs seems off, but not enough to flag it in my opinion.

I think that'd be one that actually qualifies for "grotesque", actually. Assuming the bit of purple under her left elbow is her hip, going by her character design, her breasts stretch the entire length of her torso.

I see what it is now. Her breasts are too thin at the chest and ballon out too much. Makes me think of a snail's eyestalks.

Arrei said:
Assuming the bit of purple under her left elbow is her hip

I'm hoping that's just part of her dress flairing out.

For what would fall under "grotesque", these now-deleted images are good examples: post #8398 post #37181 post #314114 and post #559067. Those seem to fall under my understanding of the intent of that guideline in the ToS.

The wording, however, seems to stretch further (no pun intended) beyond that, and include what could be described as pretty large breasts or stylistic depictions. It allows for the line to be crossed too easily.

Not_One_Of_Us said:
For what would fall under "grotesque", these now-deleted images are good examples: post #8398 post #37181 post #314114 and post #559067. Those seem to fall under my understanding of the intent of that guideline in the ToS.

The wording, however, seems to stretch further (no pun intended) beyond that, and include what could be described as pretty large breasts or stylistic depictions. It allows for the line to be crossed too easily.

I think that personal judgement also comes into play to grind a nebulous regulation down to an understandingly acceptable consensus on the threshold of breast size. Your examples are on the far end of the spectrum where anyone would agree that they're clear-cut violations, but we need to focus on the ones that are closer to the middle of the spectrum that slip by mainly because the aesthetics of an artist's style might convince some approvers to let them slip by.

I prefer to rate any post where each of a girl's breasts are as large as, or larger than, twice the size of her head (volume of the head, where perceivable, otherwise just the two-dimensonal area) as grotesque and thus not fitting with Danbooru's standards of quality.

There are scarce exceptions where the art is of sufficient quality to get a pass on the rule, but they are just that - exceptions.
There are cases where I think the rule ought to be enforced beyond its exact wording, as well - e.g. petite, childlike characters drawn with breasts that, while not greater than or equal to twice the character's head size, still manage to take up more than half the available space on the girl's torso (usually because the head has been drawn disproportionately large). These, too, are exceptions.

Personal judgment does indeed go into any case where I flag an image - and then my personal judgment may end up being overridden by a Janitor+, who believes that the artistic merit of the image is sufficient to override my objection. Except in cases of the most flagrant of violations, I always abide by these decisions.

My personal opinion is the same as sgcdonmai's above.

sgcdonmai said:
Petite, childlike characters drawn with breasts that, while not greater than or equal to twice the character's head size, still manage to take up more than half the available space on the girl's torso (usually because the head has been drawn disproportionately large).

I realize that I forgot to mention this.

I agree with Not_one_of_us, Ive noticed it for a while now. post #862174 was flagged and deleted for being grotesque when it didn't violate the two head rule. The rule is alright, its the enforcement that's arbitrary. We clearly have a rule and flaggers are ignoring it or out right misusing it. The rule should be taken literal. Its not like we don't have rulers to measure it. This is easily one of the most quantifiable characteristics of a picture, there's no reason to treat it ambiguously.

Well, a lot of this is just "different strokes for different folks', so to say, which makes enforcing the rule a bit tricky for anything borderline.

That said I'd have flagged each example that's been posted here. None of them seem to have artistic merit enough to exempt them, though someone higher up might thing otherwise and I'd not debate it.

In addition, I've noticed some people trying to appeal certain grotesque-flagged images on the grounds that the source material bears such proportions. Am I correct in assuming we still forbid non-extraordinary fanart of characters who violate the ToS with their actual design?

Queen's Blade's Cattleya comes to mind.

Action_Kamen said:
post #862174 (...) didn't violate the two head rule.

Bwuh? Yes, yes it most definitely does.

Arrei said:
In addition, I've noticed some people trying to appeal certain grotesque-flagged images on the grounds that the source material bears such proportions. Am I correct in assuming we still forbid non-extraordinary fanart of characters who violate the ToS with their actual design?

Yes. If the fanart doesn't bring the breast proportions down a notch to fall below the grotesqueness line, it's a violation even if the character's canonical depiction is above said line.

sgcdonmai said:
Bwuh? Yes, yes it most definitely does.

No it doesn't.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/f982df136751898

Its still within two head sizes. That's the thing with this rule its an objective rule that anybody can double check or verify. There's no reason why enforcing the rule to its letter should be as hard as you want us to believe.

At this point I am leaning towards lifting the ban on huge breasts. When I came up with the rule I had in mind the few drawings where the breasts were literally the size of the entire body, and the two head rule in hindsight is kind of arbitrary.

I think a better guideline for what constitutes guro art is what passes for R-18G on Pixiv (and even then there could be exceptions). Very large breasts typically don't warrant the R-18G tag, and I don't think they should be banned here either. Maybe the size limit should be increased to something like 4-5 heads.

albert said:
Maybe the size limit should be increased to something like 4-5 heads.

Something like that may be overdoing it, wouldn't it? Oftentimes extreme sizes mean major proportion problems, which would be at odds with the mission to only collect high quality art.