feline_lump said:
The nude parts look out-of-place, and the art style is vastly inconsistent with the artist's other posts. It's most likely a nude filter.
Considering that the work itself is already deleted in Pixiv, I suppose you are right.
Posted under General
Yes, one needs to be wary of the nude filter flagging reason. It can easily turn into a neutral or even negative feedback for the flagger. But in this case, the artist is known for making nude filters (but only about the same copyright, if I remember correctly).
And nude filter is a valid flag reason.
post #1383006
Bizarro version of the "No." appeals?
feline_lump said:
post #1383006
Bizarro version of the "No." appeals?
The flag reason suggests vandalism, but the two legs in the middle (look at the short thighs and the huge feet) showcase pretty bad perspective (foreshortening).
reiyasona said:
The flag reason suggests vandalism, but the two legs in the middle (look at the short thighs and the huge feet) showcase pretty bad perspective (foreshortening).
In any case, we shouldn't reward flag vandalism with a deletion even if the post looks off (imo) like in this case. I.e. even if it gets deleted, one should contact the flagger about it that "yes" is not a valid flag reason.
Provence said:
In any case, we shouldn't reward flag vandalism with a deletion even if the post looks off (imo) like in this case. I.e. even if it gets deleted, one should contact the flagger about it that "yes" is not a valid flag reason.
I agree, a mod+ should look into it. This was a clear violation of the flag guidelines (howto:flag).
reiyasona said:
The flag reason suggests vandalism, but the two legs in the middle (look at the short thighs and the huge feet) showcase pretty bad perspective (foreshortening).
Doesn't look that bad to me. Realistically, feet are bigger than one might expect because of the distance you normally view them at, and the angle is low enough that the level of foreshortening is plausible. (Source: I've drawn many figure drawings of people lying down, from close proximity)
CodeKyuubi said:
Doesn't look that bad to me. Realistically, feet are bigger than one might expect because of the distance you normally view them at, and the angle is low enough that the level of foreshortening is plausible. (Source: I've drawn many figure drawings of people lying down, from close proximity)
I guess the problem is more that the knees aren't at the same place (i.e. the thighs aren't the same size). Especially good visible for the right girl.
It also doesn't matter, because the flag reason is still vandalism.
post #2547421
Looks like someone is salty?
Provence said:
post #2547421
Looks like someone is salty?
That particular flagger is not the one who flagged the previous 8 pictures. Different IPs, too.
dean_exia said:
That particular flagger is not the one who flagged the previous 8 pictures. Different IPs, too.
Ah, I know that (or I didn't though they were the same person. But it still seems off is all.
I also consider this topic as a collection of invalid flagged posts, so we can track down easier people who repeat things^^.
Provence said:
That's funny, because I heard the contrary, too :o.
This is a site that has everything, from stick figures to really AA class art. If we were to keep the "good" art then we should get rid of at least 70% of the sites content.
I think that only obvious crap should be flagged, and we generally don't get that here often.
Also. It seems that few users here are simply flagging stuff at random. So many good pictures get flagged, that it is not even funny.
asferot said:
This is a site that has everything, from stick figures to really AA class art. If we were to keep the "good" art then we should get rid of at least 70% of the sites content.
Nope.
Sorry if my answer is so short, but you are overexaggerating.
And yes, too many bad flags is not good, there you are right. Can only see this with this big flagging wave earlier this morning. Can't hope it doesn't repeat.