Can post #457226 be reconsidered? The image is by junkparts and I don't see anything wrong with the image.
Updated
Posted under General
This topic has been locked.
Can post #457226 be reconsidered? The image is by junkparts and I don't see anything wrong with the image.
Updated
I don't know if there's something wrong with these posts that kept them from being approved for three days, but I think the following should be reconsidered because of their artists:
post #458146 (by nu_ru_ha_chi)
post #458136 (by sasaka_yayoi)
post #458071 (by kareha_aki, although I have doubts on this one because of the drawing style)
Updated
nanami said:
post #458071 (by kareha_aki, although I have doubts on this one because of the drawing style)
the style isn't really the problem, mainly those long arms coming out of the bottom bug me...
it was already approved by someone but post #457226 looks like it was edited or something...she looks like she was cut and pasted right onto that background.
Tolone said:
post #458070
Ugly and not really well-drawn. I'd have preferred if it stayed unapproved.
nanami said:
I don't know if there's something wrong with these posts that kept them from being approved for three days, but I think the following should be reconsidered because of their artists:
I do look at artist's other works to decide in borderline cases, but in general "should be reconsidered because of their artists" is not a sound argument. If the pic is crap, it's crap, no matter who drew it.
post #458071 (by kareha_aki, although I have doubts on this one because of the drawing style)
Has this guy ever heard about perspective? Or seen non-atrophied limbs for that matter?
葉月 said: Has this guy ever heard about perspective? Or seen non-atrophied limbs for that matter?
Seems fairly obvious it's an intentional style, and that he is decidedly not trying to depict realistic limbs and perfect perspective. Lately I definitely feel like danbooru is becoming a place where the acceptable range of artistic styles has narrowed considerably. A lot of styles that eschew realism (but are consistent and seem reasonably technically sound) are being lumped into "poorly drawn". Sometimes this is appropriate, definitely, and we can't just turn into a free for all with "it's an artistic decision!" trumping quality moderation. But I'm starting to get uncomfortable with what sort of standards we're supposed to be applying.
I didn't approve that particular picture either, but most of the rest of his art is quite nice. And even that one isn't that bad, if you don't mind the unrealistic, loose style. Which is of course subjective, but we both know that's the nature of moderation.
jxh2154 said:
Seems fairly obvious it's an intentional style, and that he is decidedly not trying to depict realistic limbs and perfect perspective. Lately I definitely feel like danbooru is becoming a place where the acceptable range of artistic styles has narrowed considerably. A lot of styles that eschew realism (but are consistent and seem reasonably technically sound) are being lumped into "poorly drawn". Sometimes this is appropriate, definitely, and we can't just turn into a free for all with "it's an artistic decision!" trumping quality moderation. But I'm starting to get uncomfortable with what sort of standards we're supposed to be applying.
I'm perfectly fine with highly stylised drawing. It's just that I don't like this picture and don't consider it well-drawn. Artistic style is, say, post #458018. The above is simply not very good. Especially with the creepy tentacle hands.
葉月 said: I'm perfectly fine with highly stylised drawing. It's just that I don't like this picture and don't consider it well-drawn. Artistic style is, say, post #458018. The above is simply not very good. Especially with the creepy tentacle hands.
Gotta go with Fence here. I would approve the other image long long before the one you linked.
葉月 said:
post #458018
Care to explain how this is redeemable, let alone good? When I first saw it I instantly voted it down. I sometimes dither on borderline, but bland explicit posts or popular series uploaded for the series' sake, but this was an instant and strong "no" from me.
Updated
post #458018
Just delete it since everyone is baawwwing over it. I don't have a problem if an image I post gets deleted for being "Bad" but when people put up a fuss, that's a different story. Especially when Danbooru has a (excuse the bad language) SHITLOAD of shit that no one has bothered to delete.
Mods and Janitors have been recently getting anal over normal images (not that it's a bad thing) but they need to focus on all the shit hentai on here like spider/insect sex, scat, Krutta Shit Fan, Meguru can't draw Fukuzou, and Futanari with really bad anatomy as examples.
Moving on...
Can the following be reconsidered?
post #458588 (by oisin)
post #458574 (it may be pixel art, but I don't think there's anything else wrong with it)
post #458317 (by sora_to_umi, although I'm doubting about this one because of the sleeves, which may be the reason it was left unapproved)
EDIT: I've seen the picture mentioned by Xephina, and honestly, I agree with most of the people here.
Updated
Shinjidude said:
Care to explain how this is redeemable, let alone good?
It's hilariously stupid in a deliberate way. And drawn *exactly* in the way necessary to reflect that. Besides, it's a welcome deviation from the endless stream of bland moe, about which jxh2154 was complaining too.
Muey said:
jesus fuck what
And I thought I had you rather well pegged, or something.
Sorry. I have a weak spot for absurd humour.
nanami said:
post #458317 (by sora_to_umi, although I'm doubting about this one because of the sleeves, which may be the reason it was left unapproved)
The sleaves? I didn't approve it because someone grafted Prier's thighs onto Yui.
Can post #458984 be reconsidered? The image is by kishi_nisen and it was made a parent post because it is the larger, textless version of post #130900.
Also, I know game CGs are frowned upon by some, but can the following still be considered? Or are they simply uninteresting?
post #458581
post #441949
Updated