post #2699192
Being a duplicate is not a valid flag reason. The post is also uploaded from the artist's Tumblre account and no 3rd party site.
Posted under General
post #2699192
Being a duplicate is not a valid flag reason. The post is also uploaded from the artist's Tumblre account and no 3rd party site.
Mikaeri said:
Yup... And well, the parent isn't sourced either. Waifu2x upscale? Maybe? Who knows, but it can't be confirmed from my knowledge if that upload is trustworthy.
Well, it could also be a Patreon reward...but judging the time difference between the flagged post and the larger version, it looks upscaled.
@mir0 ?
Updated
post #1632215 - "offends followers of hindu religion"
feline_lump said:
post #1632215 - "offends followers of hindu religion"
Well, he/she is not wrong. But talking about religion here, from all places?
Someone want to get in contact with the user who flagged post #2706561 and post #2706563? We don't flag duplicates (unless they're unsourced/third-party of lower quality), and neither do we flag content provided by the official artist unless it's considerably lower quality.
Yes, they're a bit blurrier and what not, but that's no reason to do that.
EDIT: On second examination, it does look like the artist applied some sort of smoothing or anti-aliasing that doesn't look great, but still. Just looks like vasoline was smeared on.
Mikaeri said:
Someone want to get in contact with the user who flagged post #2706561 and post #2706563? We don't flag duplicates (unless they're unsourced/third-party of lower quality), and neither do we flag content provided by the official artist unless it's considerably lower quality.
Yes, they're a bit blurrier and may have more artifacts or whatever, but that's no reason to do that.
Janitor can see the name of the flagger, don't they?
Mikaeri said:
Someone want to get in contact with the user who flagged post #2706561 and post #2706563? We don't flag duplicates (unless they're unsourced/third-party of lower quality), and neither do we flag content provided by the official artist unless it's considerably lower quality.
Yes, they're a bit blurrier and what not, but that's no reason to do that.
EDIT: On second examination, it does look like the artist applied some sort of smoothing or anti-aliasing that doesn't look great, but still. Just looks like vasoline was smeared on.
It's common practice for artists to apply a light blurring to their images to get rid of aliasing from the drawing process, you can see that the twitter images have fairly noticeable aliasing from the sharp brush combined with the resolution compression. If there weren't a point of reference to compare to, the pixiv images would be fine on their own merit. It's just a case of looking from white to black too quickly.
I have reservations about it, because it seems to be mixing the roles of approvers and moderators. Are approvers meant to be dealing with users misusing the flag system? Since approval powers were decoupled from account level, I had the impression that it was granted to users based on their artistic tastes and ability to judge image quality, and not necessarily their talent or capability in other areas. I'm not sure if the responsibility of knowing flagger names should be added to that. Since many approvers don't have moderator powers or authority, they'd need to contact a mod to take action against a flag vandal anyway.
That's what I was thinking. I have no strong feelings about it, but my thoughts are that if names were actually there, it might introduce an implicit bias towards approving or disapproving a post depending on who flagged it. It's not our responsibility to deal with vandals, it's simply to just make sure what we think belongs in the gallery belongs.
Eh, maybe. Think the concern more lies with approvers that weren't exactly selected as active roles. Test approvers, so to speak. Users that are anywhere from member to plat that have approval privileges but weren't given it because of any recommendations explicitly.
For most of the active approvers (me, NWS, Qpax, chinatsu, etc), I think we can be relatively trusted to keep that stuff under wraps and be responsible with our knowledge of who flags what images -- and thus respond quicker in the event of a vandalism if a moderator isn't available. But for those I mentioned, the test approvers... not quite.
Thing is though, it's not made out to be as problematic -- a flag vandal only appears maybe like every once or twice a week, sometimes more frequent but it's never to the point where we'd require direct action ourselves.
On another tangent, can we finally eliminate the "Janitor"/green role once and for all? I think it leads to a fair amount of confusion given they're pretty much the same as builders with approval privileges, except they get this mossy green color if you have those colors enabled. Kind of tired of having to keep tabs on what to call us. @evazion
Sacriven said:
I don't recommend it. It will indirectly promotes witch-hunting.
That basically sound like we can't trust Janitors right now.
It also is not very dependant of the user rank. After all, the mods still have the power in their hand. The only thing that it will do is speed up things. Otherwise, there is no benefit. And since Mikari said that a vandal only happens one or two weeks, I still think that it might be helpful to also have active Janitors who look through flags frequently.
The concern about not approving posts based on who flagged post is pretty much the same concern as approving a post uploaded by a specific user. Works vice-versa: Re-approving posts because one specific user flagged a post and not approving a post because of the uploader. It it actually more similar imo: If Janitors would base their decisions on the person doing the flagging or uploading alone, then we probably have reached such a point Sacriven mentioned.
So I only see Mikaeri's concern about the frequency about flag vandalism as a good counter reason. But ok, the discussion is still beginning, so there might be more reasons.
And yes, purge the Janitor color and the user rank. The same has been done with the Contributor status instantly. It's not like permissions are lost, anyway.
And right now, there are three Janitors who don't even have approval priviligies.
Updated
On another tangent, can we finally eliminate the "Janitor"/green role once and for all? I think it leads to a fair amount of confusion given they're pretty much the same as builders with approval privileges, except they get this mossy green color if you have those colors enabled. Kind of tired of having to keep tabs on what to call us. @evazion
I'll open an issue for it. I think albert meant to eliminate it at some point but it never quite got finished. But at this point I don't think there are any powers left that janitors have that builders with approval don't have.
evazion said:
Would there be any objection to making flaggers visible to approvers? I don't really see any reason to keep it hidden from them.
I've never felt like it was needed to see the flagger, so I'm of the opinion that no change to it is necessary.
We can just use this thread to report frivolous flags anyway.