Posted under General
I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the ToS is mostly a guideline and that there are exceptions to the rules. Much like how yaoi has a hard ban yet it shows up and is accepted on occasion, the ban seems to be in place to keep out the worst of it.
As an avid loli fan, gigantic breasts doesn't usually cross my mind, but I don't think it should be fully purged. Perhaps a run through getting rid of what is genuinely bad.
Suiseiseki said:
I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the ToS is mostly a guideline and that there are exceptions to the rules. Much like how yaoi has a hard ban yet it shows up and is accepted on occasion, the ban seems to be in place to keep out the worst of it.
If yaoi has a hard ban, it's not in the ToS as listed in the wiki.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the who people try to get stuff that violates the ToS in do so not because they objectively feel the image in question is an exception to the rule due to it's high quality, but because the property in question appeals to them. Really, breasts of all sizes within anatomical reason are generally fine by me, but I'm puzzled by what I feel is a disconnect between, "grotesquely sized breasts" and "images that violate that portion of the ToS but are drawn well." If we purport that something has an anatomical feature of grotesque size, then it cannot possibly be drawn well. It can be an image that would be drawn well if not for the anatomical feature in question, but not one that is drawn well overall. I think this is something most people would agree to if the body part in question were necks, noses, or hands.
To sum up my views: I support the enforcement of the ToS. I would hope I'm wrong and people in positions of authority aren't abusing their position for the sake of what they find subjectively attractive, but I doubt it, and more care may need to be given to who gets what position. Just because some people try to get around it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Grotesque breast sizes do exist, even if you can find images the internet claims are exception to general anatomical rules. Finally, and least gigantic should be abandoned. I can see large being the tag for the upper limit of standard human anatomy and huge being larger than that, but short of grotesque.
Eld said:
If we purport that something has an anatomical feature of grotesque size, then it cannot possibly be drawn well.
Whether or not the content matter of the image is considered grotesque has no bearing on whether or not the image is drawn well. To suggest that one always rules out the other is rather poor logic imo.
Eld said:
I would hope I'm wrong and people in positions of authority aren't abusing their position for the sake of what they find subjectively attractive
That's exactly how it works, actually. The people in the mod queue judge images based on what they find subjectively attractive.
I don't think that causes ToS violations to be approved simply because they're drawn-well enough for someone to like them, though.
It's quite the opposite, actually: a post can be very well-drawn and not violate any rules whatsoever, but it'll still be deleted if nobody in the mod queue likes it.
Fred1515 said: That's exactly how it works, actually. The people in the mod queue judge images based on what they find subjectively attractive.
Yes and no. I mean, we are explicitly directed to "approve the images you like" but there's an understanding that, of course, our preferences should always be put through the filter of the TOS first.
Now, ideally this is done by only picking janitors/mods/admins who aren't into TOS-breaking material to begin with but no system is perfect.
NWF_Renim said:
Whether or not the content matter of the image is considered grotesque has no bearing on whether or not the image is drawn well. To suggest that one always rules out the other is rather poor logic imo.
I suppose I wasn't very clear. It was pretty late when I wrote that, after all. I wasn't referring to content matter being grotesque. I meant a person in the image being grotesquely disproportionate. Basically, can someone really be considered drawn well if her pelvis is drawn thinner than her head? (And she's not a chibi.) There can be instances where an image is just stylistic and so defies proportions but is drawn well. Personally, though, if I see an image of a woman who has breasts the size of her torso, I might think it would be well-drawn if not for her breasts, but I wouldn't be able to honestly say it was well-drawn overall, whether or not I personally found it appealing.
jxh2154 said:
Now, ideally this is done by only picking janitors/mods/admins who aren't into TOS-breaking material to begin with but no system is perfect.
I can't agree here, as I'm into one of the hotly-contested ToS-breaking areas myself. What is important is the eye for quality and the ability to sacrifice certain things sometimes to further the statutory goals, so to say. I don't care what you're into, as long as you don't bring in crap on your duty hours. It's not my business nor interest what you do off hours.
Eld said:
Basically, can someone really be considered drawn well if her pelvis is drawn thinner than her head? (And she's not a chibi.)
On the other hand consider Piccasso's sense of proportions (I guess what you are getting at as stylistic).
Quality and consequently the lack thereof is basically impossible to objectively define. On the other hand, barring some sort of amazing fine_art_parody, I don't think something of Piccassoesque proportions warrants exemption from the ToS.
Shinjidude said:
On the other hand consider Piccasso's sense of proportions (I guess what you are getting at as stylistic).
It's the difference between e. e. cummings playing with punctuation and some nitwit in university who still doesn't know what a comma's for. In writing, stylistic and grammatical conventions should only be broken if the writer has an artistic reason for doing so; I assume that something similar applies to visual art, "base titillation" not being a particularly good reason.
Well, IMO, the upper limit of what I'll generally accept is cattleya, and I'll only accept it on characters from shows, who are accepted on this site, who's boobs really are that big.
But if some artist *cough*mogudan*cough* goes and slaps those on some character who has C-cups, no f-in' way.
Fencedude said:
But if some artist *cough*mogudan*cough* goes and slaps those on some character who has C-cups, no f-in' way.
Why would it matter if they were drawn bigger than the size that they were originally meant to be? That's the beauty of fanart. You don't have to draw it exactly like the official art. You can convert it to your own style.
From what i've read, a good answer to the problem has already been stated. It's about the "eye of quality" needed when approving posts. You guys run a tight ship here, and that's a good thing. Personally i'm indifferent on these types of posts, even ones like post #501331. But if the rule is established in the Tos, then it has to be upheld. If not, then what's the point of even having the ToS?
I apologize for nearly starting a "what is art" discussion.
葉月 said:
I can't agree here, as I'm into one of the hotly-contested ToS-breaking areas myself. What is important is the eye for quality and the ability to sacrifice certain things sometimes to further the statutory goals, so to say. I don't care what you're into, as long as you don't bring in crap on your duty hours. It's not my business nor interest what you do off hours.
I agree. Whether you subjectively like something or not, you should be able to put your opinions aside and objectively decide whether or not it meets certain standards and act on that judgment. If it does, upload it. If it doesn't, feel free to download and/or bookmark it, but don't upload it.
Agreed on the fanart issue, but what makes it ok if the original design violates the ToS right from the start? There are some cattleya posts (like post #183140 or post #154201) that obviously fall into the "grotesque" section of the ToS.
