Some rule clarification about nude filters

Yes, it seems there is a little issue about rules that are not accepted by some people who flag pictures because they are nude filters (post #2281363 and post #2301928). There is also one message that one approver "believe" (lol) it breaks the rules.
But if one reads the term of service page (where rules are listed) one change says explicitely that nude filter images are allowed on Danbooru:
"2.89.0: You can now upload watermarked, poorly compressed, and nude filter images, but they are discouraged and the original uncompressed artwork is preferred."

And I don't know why the other thread 7 years (forum #16472) ago was closed but I think a seperate thread would be good.

I've had a little talk with two moderators yet and I had two proposition how two understand this rule (2 varioations that I just copy and paste):

1. One can upload nude filter images with no restraints unless it's bad quality and even when the original pic is on dabooru, it doesn't matter
2. One can upload nude filter images with no restraints unless it's bad quality or the original pic gets uploaded.
What's the case?
[...]if this rule has some importance (variation 1), then the flag reason should get nuked.

(And it seems both moderators tend to variation 1)

Since this post got flagged by someone with approval powers I feel there is a big distrust in existing rules.

I've proposed this before and it got accepted. A nude filter image is acceptable as long as the original image cannot be found or it is of significantly higher quality than the unfiltered image and a better unmodified version cannot be found. post #2281363 and post #2301928 themselves have the original versions uploaded here but as far as we know, the uncensored version hasn't been released by the original artist.

tapnek said:

I've proposed this before. A nude filter image is acceptable as long as the original image cannot be found or it is of significantly lower quality than the filtered image and a better unmodified version cannot be found.

So you are going for variation 2 in this case? But if this variation is really the case then this rule has no really sense because this rule tell me:
You can upload the nude filter and even if the original picture is found, it doesn't tell me I can't upload them. They are allowed. Preferred is in my opinion a word that says:
If the nude filter has bad quality it shouldn't get approved. If that's the case here, ok, but I don't see any real quality loss.
It's still a possible point of view but I don't really think it is convincing...at least not me.

I think a better option is to flag the picture (if nude filter) with the reason "Quality check because nude filter" (if the uploader doesn't realize it is a nude filter) or is uploaded by approval because the uploader knows it is one.

But i think if more than two moderators or best one of the admins say something to this matter, it'd quite helpful.
If variation 2 is really the thing here, the rule needs to be revised and expanded by a sentence that says:
"Note: If the original picture is found the nude filtered upload can(!) get flagged.

Provence said:

If variation 2 is really the thing here, the rule needs to be revised and expanded by a sentence that says:
"Note: If the original picture is found the nude filtered upload can(!) get flagged.

I thought this was obvious from the rules.

tapnek said:

I thought this was obvious from the rules.

Considering the whole change it is also stated that furry uploads can be uploaded. There it is explicitely stated that they have to fulfill a higher standard. You can also read this in the other change considering nude filter: It's the word "preferred".
I read this preferred, since one can upload nude filter artworks as: If the quality is good enough, it can stay. Otherwise it can't get uploaded from the beginning since it always gets deleted if the original is found. This turns this "can" into a "shouldn't" and that's the complete opposite.

The following may be uploaded but are generally not recommended unless a better copy cannot be found:

There's a reason why it's not recommended to upload nude filters. They'll get deleted just like Pixiv manga samples. As for furry uploads, they are neither recommended nor not recommended but they are allowed to be uploaded. The higher standard thing is because a lot of furry art that get uploaded tends to be shit and the bias against furry art in general.

tapnek said:

There's a reason why it's not recommended to upload nude filters. They'll get deleted just like Pixiv manga samples.

So you say then pixiv manga samples fall under "poorly compressed"?

Provence said:

So you say then pixiv manga samples fall under "poorly compressed"?

Sort of. I'd say it's in its own category where you should have uploaded the original that was readily available instead of the preview of the original. The same should go with some Twitter uploads.

I think there's a disconnect in the rules. The rules page says one thing, the wiki page says another, and reality tends to agree with the wiki page. There are as of right now 12 active posts and 1376 deleted posts with the nude_filter tag, thus it appears that nude filter images are indeed not allowed. If this is the way it is, that's fine, but the rules page needs to be updated to reflect this reality.

I think the wiki page needs to be updated on this. I didn't think about that when the Terms of Service were being modified.

tapnek said:

Sort of. I'd say it's in its own category where you should have uploaded the original that was readily available instead of the preview of the original. The same should go with some Twitter uploads.

Meh. "Sort of" is not the same. If uploaded pixiv manga sample one doesn't upload a third party edit ftom another source. So one knows it is not the right source and the quality is always worse. And here comes where "badly compressed" and "nude filters" differ even if they fall under the same rule.
A nude filter don't have necessarily worse/bad quality but a badly compressed does always have it. That makes them not comparable. So we go here more for the furry comparison. It still sucks but it has a larger "quality part"^^.

BrokenEagle98 said:

I think there's a disconnect in the rules. The rules page says one thing, the wiki page says another, and reality tends to agree with the wiki page. There are as of right now 12 active posts and 1376 deleted posts with the nude_filter tag, thus it appears that nude filter images are indeed not allowed. If this is the way it is, that's fine, but the rules page needs to be updated to reflect this reality.

If that's case the rules are worthless if the pictures still get flagged with this invalid reason.
The rule change is also pretty recent. I wonder why the wiki page didn't get changed as well but rules should have, if the system here works normal, more important then a wiki page that everyone cn change.

I'm wondering what the mods have to think about all this.

tapnek said:

I'm wondering what the mods have to think about all this.

Yes. And I have also another point (thanks to your edit of the wiki page I realized this section):
There is an paragraph where there is explicitely stated that some posts should never ever get uploaded. The citated paragraph doesn't fall under this section. It's under the "restricted" part.
So the construction of this terms of service page also says "Variation 1".

I hope I'm not the only mod to chime in on this as, as I told Provence, I haven't really kept up with the discussion on this topic. Personally I find the concept of a nude filter to be fine uploading material so long as the overall image would be accepted if it weren't a nude filter. If there's effort in the edit, decent detail added, and no artifacts and/or increased compression then I don't see why shouting "nude filter!" is a reason to axe the post.

That said, you probably won't find me approving many nude filters, but that's because I don't approve many nude things in general. It happens, but it isn't as often that nudity is combined tastefully in a detailed image; gratuitous porn and "nudity for the sake of nekkid waifu" tend to bore me.

Not that I don't want to chime in, but was feeling somewhat reluctant because of my past support for allowing them and the topic being imo somewhat touchy (well photoshops in general).

OOZ662 said:

Personally I find the concept of a nude filter to be fine uploading material so long as the overall image would be accepted if it weren't a nude filter. If there's effort in the edit, decent detail added, and no artifacts and/or increased compression then I don't see why shouting "nude filter!" is a reason to axe the post.

This is where I'd like to stand in my opinion on them. Although I wished my own record showed that the handful I had approved met the standard of quality I believe, most unfortunately don't (whether approved due to lower personal standard at the time or not being vigilant enough to notice an area that was poorly edited) and were appropriately flagged and deleted over the course of time (well except for 1, which I feel was wrongly flagged).

So I guess that no other moderator took an action to say something, I assume this matter is discussed internally? Maybe the ones with approval abilities should also be asked what they think about it.

Whoever posted in topic #1791 should probably take a look at this topic as well. I'd like @jxh2154 to post his opinion here since he's the one that got nude filters banned in the first place but I doubt he posts anything anymore.

I contacted jxh directly via PM. I hope I can get a response :o.

My opinion is the same I've as I've posted in topic #11877. Nude filters should still be strongly discouraged.