Posted under General
Oh, I missed it when I scanned the upgrade page. Even still I'd have to see someone upgrade exclusively for that feature before believing it's an issue. Yes, it's a feature that you get when upgrading but the tag/favorite/page limits, the ability to have subscriptions, and variable posts per page are far more useful and far more likely to draw payment.
The Titanic's cabin walls not being attached to the ceiling wasn't an issue until it sank in that case. Odd example, sure, but not sure why something that may be an issue should be put off until it causes problems. Whether people take advantage of it or not, it still can be seen as profiting off of work that the artist doesn't even want displayed. Although we rarely seem to care what artists think and feel anyway, I guess.
NCAA_Gundam said:
Even with that, the question is why knowingly upload them in the first place? Especially when the concept behind the banned artists is that with their requests, we shouldn't upload them.
Instead of beating around the bush with a question you already know the answer to, why not just get to the point and state your real question: Shouldn't we punish users who repeatedly upload content from banned artists?
Personally I wouldn't be inclined to do anything to them, sure it is disingenuous, but I'm honestly for retaining the images (even in a hidden state), and as long as I personally support the retention of such data it would be awkward for me to also support saying users who upload such content should be punished for their actions. The reason I'm for retention of such data is because it isn't all that rare for artists to delete images, purge "their past" (complete termination of their previous works and sites), or downgrade their available art (image size reduction and the like). Given that, I have no issues in meeting their request in the manner of preventing easy distribution of their content, but I'd be no where inclined to agree to complete deletion of their materials from the database altogether.
OOZ662 said:
The Titanic's cabin walls not being attached to the ceiling wasn't an issue until it sank in that case. Odd example, sure, but not sure why something that may be an issue should be put off until it causes problems. Whether people take advantage of it or not, it still can be seen as profiting off of work that the artist doesn't even want displayed. Although we rarely seem to care what artists think and feel anyway, I guess.
While I'm definitely not in agreement with advertising of seeing banned content as a "feature," and would personally think that at minimum it be Builder+ who can see such content, I think the only thing that can be done at this point is simply removing it being advertised. It being a "feature" was already advertised and people potentially could have paid for it, so it would be bad now to back out changing which user level can view such content. I'm going to assume that a refund is out of the question, but offering one would be the only right thing to do if the user level to view that content was changed.
Anyways as it currently stands the number of users who can view "censored" content is 3,296 users, or 0.75% of the registered users, which of purely gold and platinum members it is 2,796 users (0.64%). Builder and Contributor members make up 438 users (0.10%), and the various moderator ranks make up 62 members (0.01%).
NWF_Renim said:
Instead of beating around the bush with a question you already know the answer to, why not just get to the point and state your real question: Shouldn't we punish users who repeatedly upload content from banned artists?
That's not my real question, and please don't put words in my mouth. It's sort of, what's the point of having "cease and desist orders" if they aren't followed? And seeing said images is advertised as a benefit? I don't think there's a need to punish people that do do it if it's like that, but in my mind, it's like "well if they do it, should I do the same?" when there's no impetus to stop it.
If talking about a selfish intent on my part, it's probably noting the fact that depending on the image it can still be listed as "Hot" or "Popular" from what I see. Or can only Gold+/Contributers+ see that in those listings?
NCAA_Gundam said:
If talking about a selfish intent on my part, it's probably noting the fact that depending on the image it can still be listed as "Hot" or "Popular" from what I see. Or can only Gold+/Contributers+ see that in those listings?
Banned posts do not appear for basic members, period. That includes the Hot and Popular pages.
NCAA_Gundam said:
That's not my real question, and please don't put words in my mouth. It's sort of, what's the point of having "cease and desist orders" if they aren't followed? And seeing said images is advertised as a benefit? I don't think there's a need to punish people that do do it if it's like that, but in my mind, it's like "well if they do it, should I do the same?" when there's no impetus to stop it.
Don't really think I put any words in your mouth, given what you're saying now, but alright.
Uploaded posts are approved and banned as separate aspects of the image, but regardless of whether it is banned, approved, or even deleted, it is still in the database and accessible to someone. If the end goal is to have it in the database (and archived), than the simple action of uploading it results in you "winning." There is no punishment (as you say the "impetus to stop") which goes back to your originally stated question, which is why do it? Flip the question around and ask "why not do it?" If the images get approved there is really only gain from doing it, so there is no real reason to not do it. So, the matter comes down to lack of punishment and reward for continuing to do it. You can target either of those points, but imo since we want to retain those images the reward will always stay, and if we're accepting of the images and keeping them, then a punishment for those who upload it seems very awkward when we've both rewarding and punishing them for the same action.
Well, there is an alternative to rewarding or punishing for uploading images from banned artists and that's simply permanently deleting the images themselves. Then it would simply be like the images were never uploaded in the first place.
But honestly, if the reason "the artist doesn't want their work uploaded here" isn't enough of an answer to "why not do it?", then there's really nothing else to be said.
Saduharta said:
Well, there is an alternative to rewarding or punishing for uploading images from banned artists and that's simply permanently deleting the images themselves.
As mentioned earlier, this can't really be automated due to the possibility of making a mistake and nuking a whole lot of stuff that shouldn't go down. Personally I like the idea of a delay similar to the mod queue, though probably longer., before an image gets nuked. Though I guess it could also be a janitorial thing like approvals...except backwards.
I don't see how any artist could think this "feature" is not some sort of deceit. If the information about it spreads among artists, any excuse we have will be useless.
If we are not able to make changes to the feature, some penalty should be imposed on those who knowingly upload banned art.
Just a proposal, (1) remove mention of being able to see banned posts as a feature from the upgrade info page and (2) remove the ability to see banned posts from gold and platinum ranks. (3) If a currently existing gold or platinum user requests access to banned posts cause it was listed as a feature, then promote them to like a new "legacy" (or whatever you wish to call it) rank that has access to it that rests between platinum and builder or something similar to that nature. This would not be offered to new gold or platinum accounts created after this change.
There are two ways to look at artist bans.
1) They are just a way of appeasing take down requests. Gold accounts can see banned posts just because it's a convenient level to enable it, not necessarily to entice people into upgrading. The fact is that most of the ban requesters will never purchase an account here nor will they contribute enough to be promoted. If this is the case then you should be able to upload a banned artist, but all future uploads should be marked as banned.
2) Bans are genuine. Only janitors should be able to see banned posts, and then only for the purposes of moderating them. You should not be able to upload a post for a banned artist. Of course this is hard to enforce. An uploader could just not tag the artist, or come up with a new artist identity.
It's not hard to figure out what the intent of the current system is. Obviously it's a bit dishonest but I prefer to only permanently delete posts if the artist insists on it, and that has yet to happen so far. I'm not too worried about Japanese artists understanding the nuances of the moderation process on Danbooru. Western artists might figure it out by virtue of reading this thread, but personally I've fewer qualms about permanently deleting their art since it's a legal minefield anyway.
Honestly I like NWF's compromise; If we're keeping the images, why not just leave them to the tiny group of moderators who can do things with them? Minimizes any chance of something popping up in the future and it makes sense to me; Those are the people who could actually do something with the images should they need to be unbanned or perma-removed for some reason. And it cuts the number of users who can see them to some 1% of who currently can.
If it's too much trouble, I understand. But I wouldn't think changing level permissions on one thing would be too hard.
To me the single most important change that could be made would be the removal of banned posts being a listed feature on the upgrade info page. I'd have no issues if no other changes were made, but this one single change is the one that I think needs to be done. Even if Gold or Platinum accounts can see banned images, it shouldn't be stated as one of the features.
