1. This comparison has nothing to do with this topic.
2. This thread is only about how this self-uploading should be treated.
So, since you are one: Do you have propositions^^?
Posted under General
D_Krauzer said:
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2364595?tags=widowmaker_%28overwatch%29
+9https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2371637?tags=user%3AD_Krauzer
-6So much Danbooru ...
Going to be brutally honest here, if you hadn't uploaded your own drawing no one else would've and the first picture is better drawn than the second.
Danbooru is suppose to be a "repository of high-quality anime-style art" as stated on the wiki front page and by uploading your own art you're basically saying that your art is really good.
You can't be your own judge. The judgement of whether or not something is good is not a call the creator can make of their own works without bias, it's a decision others must make.
Provence said:
2. This thread is only about how this self-uploading should be treated.
After I mentioned in one topic about me selfposting, i got -9 rating penalty to my posts.
Hoobajoob said:
is better drawn than the second
LOL
Proportions, gesture ... Doubtlessly obvious that you know all. Please teach me, Master
This is example. Your "high-quality anime-style art" can't even can't fit vagina in the right place !
It makes no sense to continue the dialogue with you
D_Krauzer said:
After I mentioned in one topic about me selfposting, i got -9 rating penalty to my posts.
LOL
Proportions, gesture ... Doubtlessly obvious that you know all. Please teach me, MasterThis is example. Your "high-quality anime-style art" can't even can't fit vagina in the right place !
It makes no sense to continue the dialogue with you
... and this is why self-uploading should not be allowed, period. Too much attachment leads to reactions like this.
BrokenEagle98 said:
... and this is why self-uploading should not be allowed, period. Too much attachment leads to reactions like this.
Certainly it is better to post art without artist permission ?
Don't stay aside. What is better? Pussy draw in the right place or not self-posted anime speedpaits with totaly broken proportions ?)
It's time to admit, moderators know nothing about human sexuality, anatomy and even art.
Example: This is one reason why good artists ignore HF.
Updated
D_Krauzer said:
Certainly it is better to post art without artist permission ?
Don't stay aside. What is better? Pussy draw in the right place or not self-posted anime speedpaits with totaly broken proportions ?)
It's time to admit, moderators know nothing about human sexuality, anatomy and even art.
Example: This is one reason why good artists ignore HF.
BrokenEagle98 said:
... and this is why self-uploading should not be allowed, period. Too much attachment leads to reactions like this.
D_Krauzer said:
Certainly it is better to post art without artist permission ?
Don't stay aside. What is better? Pussy draw in the right place or not self-posted anime speedpaits with totaly broken proportions ?)
It's time to admit, moderators know nothing about human sexuality, anatomy and even art.
Example: This is one reason why good artists ignore HF.
You seeked out this thread to complain about your one of your own subpar self-uploads getting downvoted, compare it to better artwork just because they have the same character, and then try to justify uploading it by comparing that to people on the site uploading better artwork from other artists just because they're not self-uploading like you are.
Had you not done any of this, on top of going against a self-uploading rule in the first place months ago, you wouldn't also be getting a Negative on your account for this. The only thing you've done here is give more clout as to why a stricter rule can be enforced. You haven't contributed anything substantial to this conversation. You need to stop.
Updated
Apollyon said:
You seeked out this thread to complain about your one of your own subpar self-uploads getting downvoted, compare it to better artwork just because they have the same character, and then try to justify uploading it by comparing that to people on the site uploading better artwork from other artists just because they're not self-uploading like you are.
Had you not done any of this, on top of going against a self-uploading rule in the first place months ago, you wouldn't also be getting a Negative on your account for this. The only thing you've done here is give more clout as to why a stricter rule can be enforced. You haven't contributed anything substantial to this conversation. You need to stop.
OMG you don't get my point ... anyway forget that.
I doubt that you will listen to the advices
As far as I know no one democraticly elect moderators :) and they don't exposed by any testings.
The things which one of them wrote is ridiculously funny. Now I understand site completely.
"Subjective" is not even the worst side of current rating system.
I don't stand injustice in real life or in the Internet (not only for myself)
I never took money for art requests and don't do PR
Honestly, I have never ever visited this website and just uploaded some picts. I would be grateful if you ban me with reason: "talks too much" or " fagot" or "хуй"
Jarlath said:
... and this is why I'd strongly suggest we add that warning to the TOS. So we can point to it when people don't read the upload pages.
Both in TOS (who reads EULAs before agreeing, anyway) and as a separate warning to upload page, once issue #2598 is taken care of.
Type-kun said:
Both in TOS (who reads EULAs before agreeing, anyway) and as a separate warning to upload page, once issue #2598 is taken care of.
I'd still recommend adding it as plain text, as a general warning is still better than none. If only do avoid the drama we saw here.
That way, there's absolutely no excuse and self uploaded posts are fair game for immediate flagging or removal.
Saduharta said:
Though again, that brings up the question; Hoe does one prove a self uploader beyond someone making their username the same as their artist tag/general artist name? If we're going to have it be a flaggable offense, we'd need some way to prove it's being done.
I'd be looking for the source first - if there's no source link, that's one possible indicator. Combine this with uploading a lot of pictures drawn in the same style, and we've got a possible case. Plus, the Admins can check IP addresses of we're dealing with sockpuppets.
At the very least, we can flag those posts for removal and explain why. If they continue, then there's grounds for a ban.
If someone really wants to circumvent the self-upload ban, then we certainly would not be able to stop them. That's one of the reasons why this rule was challenged before, it's just not enforceable in many cases.
For example, a user uploads a lot of art from a certain artist, some people may suspect him for self-uploading but he could just as well be a simple fan of that artist or style. There's no way to say for sure, unless that user does something exceedingly stupid, and related witch-hunts is the very last thing we need.
I'm not saying that self-uploads should be officially allowed, but hard ban in ToS is not a good idea either. It will create more problems than it solves. And what's even more important, artwork should never be discriminated against because of who uploaded it. Issuing warnings to users who clearly upload their own stuff may be fine, but flagging otherwise good posts just because they were self-uploaded is definitely not.
Let the artwork quality speak for itself. If it's bad, then post won't get approved or will get flagged regardless of it being self-upload or not.
It's not about the quality. That was cleared here before. It's only about the uploader. That means: Flagging because of this is a no.
And of course there are ways to circumvent this rule. There are always ways to do this. So what exactly do you fear?
I really don't think that there are much people who wants to upload their art under another name. Artistic proud and this stuff. Especially with the reasons that artists get worked up with when their art is critisized in a bad way.
Or said in another way: A simple text won't hurt that much.
I suspected a person of this recently and then posted a feedback asking them to refrain from self-uploading. They messaged to say they weren't the artist. I was going by the use of comments on every one of the post for a commission for the artist and the fact it was 10 in a row. Had there been a hard ban rule I would have made a worse call. What this taught me was that even the biggest red flags are not a guarantee of a positive result.
From that, I'm going with MyrMindservant and Provence's perspective. If the sourcing, number of same artist uploads and low quality of them all stick out as red flags, that still doesn't guarantee anything. Unless the name of the uploader and artist are the same or they say they're the artist openly, only then can you pursue the case as a straight violation of the self-upload policy, and if they're someone like keine-sensei who uploads their own work but is respectful, that weakens the case of the hard ban.
Personally, if anything, I notice most shitty art is uploaded by people with shitty attitudes, regardless of whether they made it or not. I'd vote we move towards quicker bans of guys like D Krauzer as soon as they start to give anyone tude. New users with bad attitudes are some of the largest sources of the bad uploads on this site over the past year.
I'd also have this as a compromise: A sanctioned artist list of uploader-artists who have been reviewed by the moderation staff as capable of making that self-judgment of quality, and ask that all of their posts be subject to future moderation, regardless of how good it is, and a list of those people that can be posted as a wiki and only changed by janitor level and above. If someone isn't on that list, has never produced decent artwork historically and never ran by anyone here whether someone else thinks their art is any good or listen to our guidelines, then those people will have incurred enough demerits that bans would be a feasible remedy, to encourage them to listen, or just stop having to put up with their shit. A guideline for getting on that list would require the artist to reach out to the staff first before they do anything, and if a no is given, then they must respect that no. Using this or another thread for moderating these people and bringing them out of the woodwork.
On that note, I'd also say that we should have the worst offenders work be considered banned_artist as the ultimate punishment to punish anyone who violates all these rules. A deterrent rule like that would definitely stop a good portion of bad uploader-artists, and a good one will follow them to the letter. Just my suggestion, I'd say at least the banned_artist bit for bad uploader-artists is not a bad idea. Definitely piss off the worst of them.
buehbueh said:
I suspected a person of this recently and then posted a feedback asking them to refrain from self-uploading. They messaged to say they weren't the artist. I was going by the use of comments on every one of the post for a commission for the artist and the fact it was 10 in a row.
I think I posted feedback on the same person you posted feedback on. He wasn't the artist but he advertised the artist's commissioning on every one of his uploads.
buehbueh said:
On that note, I'd also say that we should have the worst offenders work be considered banned_artist as the ultimate punishment to punish anyone who violates all these rules. A deterrent rule like that would definitely stop a good portion of bad uploader-artists, and a good one will follow them to the letter. Just my suggestion, I'd say at least the banned_artist bit for bad uploader-artists is not a bad idea. Definitely piss off the worst of them.
Haven't had a case like that since bluedemon13.