leomole
Privileged
1 month ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless cat chair clothed clothing computer desk feline fur girly headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal reclining sitting smile socks solo tan_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 96
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

The new guidelines specify anatomical changes to make a human site-relevant. How about clearly fake animal ears? I think that was allowed under previous guidelines.

Animal body parts make humans site-relevant. How about nonhumans? Do horsecock tentacles count? Is a toaster with car ears relevant to the site?

Thanks for bearing with me exploring the minutiae.


leomole said:
How about clearly fake animal ears?

A human wearing costume items is still a human.

I don't get point of the other questions:

  • Non-humans are already allowed.
  • Tentacles are already allowed.
  • Animate_inanimate is already allowed.

What about humanized?
Canonically furry characters drawn as humans, either to show how they would look like as humans or just for the sake of it.

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/4120280/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/4120313/
(only the furry page is a part of the comic)

https://sakimichan.deviantart.com/art/Nick-n-Judy-637462608

I think it was looked down upon because MLP community abused the crap out of it, but that's a very specific case.
And lots of MLP art actually makes it through the rules with wings or hooves on humans.

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/21713525/

Either way, I think it should be mentioned in the guidelines.


It doesn't matter who the character is or what the character usually is. If it's a pure human in that particular image that image will be deleted. On the other hand if it's a human with hooves or wings it's no longer a pure human and will be allowed like all other humanoid/nekomimi.

Do remember that we treat all images in a vacuum (unless it's a comic or image sequence, those are judged as one for approval or deletion only) as such it absolutely doesn't matter what else there is outside of that image. If it's a pure human it will get deleted, if it's a humanoid with animal traits it will be approved.

leomole said:
The new guidelines specify anatomical changes to make a human site-relevant. How about clearly fake animal ears? I think that was allowed under previous guidelines.

Costumes haven't counted in the past two years, as such nothing changes. Non-humans are what's relevant and the section is supposed to make that clear. Animated objects (including cat-toasters or normal living toasters) are still relevant.


Then why was this declared irrelevant? It has a humanoid in the top right corner, a cat in the bottom left corner and an animated object at middle right, three things which are allowed.

leomole
Privileged
1 month ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless cat chair clothed clothing computer desk feline fur girly headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal reclining sitting smile socks solo tan_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 96
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

NotMeNotYou said:
Costumes haven't counted in the past two years

OK thanks.

Wodahseht said:
Animate_inanimate is already allowed.

I mean what if it's literally a toaster with cat ears. Does that make it animate? Because I assume no, it's an inanimate object that won't get approved even if it has cat ears and/or tail.

Also what makes these posts site-relevant? They look human only to me. I think post #1062754 has nonhuman genitalia but the others I don't understand.

Ruku
Member
1 month ago

leomole said:
OK thanks.

I mean what if it's literally a toaster with cat ears. Does that make it animate? Because I assume no, it's an inanimate object that won't get approved even if it has cat ears and/or tail.

Also what makes these posts site-relevant? They look human only to me. I think post #1062754 has nonhuman genitalia but the others I don't understand.

Not sure if that exsample would count since that just seems to be a regular toaster with fake cat ears put on with no life in it but a good fairly good exsample would be living_aircraft...also adding that animal features are not necessarily required, something like this would coant http://www.diszine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/The-Brave-Little-Toaster-300x239.jpg

Concerning that group of images, they kinda fall in the grey area of humanized anthros, in this case my little pony characters that in canon series have been depicted both feral,anthro and human...


Ruku said:
Concerning that group of images, they kinda fall in the grey area of humanized anthros, in this case my little pony characters that in canon series have been depicted both feral,anthro and human...

I would've thought they'd count as discoloured humans which isn't allowed (a different skin color does not make a human relevant), except for the charizard one which looks like a human in a costume. Also, wouldn't EG version of MLP characters fall into the discoloured human category since they are canonically human?

Ruku
Member
1 month ago

BlueDingo said:
I would've thought they'd count as discoloured humans which isn't allowed (a different skin color does not make a human relevant), except for the charizard one which looks like a human in a costume.

Not if they are from a series where they are naturally feral, then it counts as humanized but as said before my little pony has been human in canon on their most recent spin off so this franchise is rather tricky as is probly why no one bothered with those. Note that this is what I take the rules as, would still wait for staff to verify^^


leomole said:
I mean what if it's literally a toaster with cat ears. Does that make it animate? Because I assume no, it's an inanimate object that won't get approved even if it has cat ears and/or tail.

NotMeNotYou said:
[...]
Animated objects (including cat-toasters or normal living toasters) are still relevant.

If it's a literal toaster with cat ears taped to it or a cat-face drawn on it it's irrelevant. If it's a living toaster (as in Disney's Beauty and the Beast kind of living toaster) it's relevant.

leomole said:
Also what makes these posts site-relevant? They look human only to me. I think post #1062754 has nonhuman genitalia but the others I don't understand.

These shouldn't have been approved. They're brightly colored humans thus irrelevant.

leomole
Privileged
1 month ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless cat chair clothed clothing computer desk feline fur girly headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal reclining sitting smile socks solo tan_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 96
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

Thanks for clarifying, I understand it now.

NotMeNotYou said:
These shouldn't have been approved. They're brightly colored humans thus irrelevant.

Is there a way to flag these posts for deletion?


leomole said:
Is there a way to flag these posts for deletion?

NMNY already cleared those specific ones. But if you mean in general, I'd personally recommend first step being to send message to approver pointing out posts and why you think there was a mistake...we all make them, especially if in a rush or trying to clear out a lot of pending images. Just be polite, please?

Definitely shouldn't flag if reason isn't one of the listed reasons though...that just confuses things since janitor/admin reviewing is usually looking specifically for the issue flagged - and can end up with someone trying to point out a valid issue getting in trouble for misuse of site tools. :/


leomole said:
Is there a way to flag these posts for deletion?

You aren't allowed to flag for relevancy. As Wodahseht said, contact the janitor in question or alternatively any of the admins.

leomole
Privileged
1 month ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless cat chair clothed clothing computer desk feline fur girly headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal reclining sitting smile socks solo tan_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 96
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

Wodahseht said:
send message to approver pointing out posts and why you think there was a mistake

NotMeNotYou said:
contact the janitor in question or alternatively any of the admins.

Okay, mistakes are rare but now I know what to do, thanks.


And another update.

This time a section about ads has been added.

Advertisements:

Acceptable ads are those with artistic and entertainment value that far outweigh their nature to sell goods or services. Ads that only advertise goods and services are not acceptable and the uploader or artist will need to purchase advertisement space here instead.

  • YCH auctions, censored patreon images, or other censored paysite previews are almost always unacceptable, thus expect these to get deleted
    • advertising your patreon or paysite in form of a signature on any given image is perfectly fine
    • advertising your patreon or paysite in the description of art you have created / commissioned is also perfectly fine

This is still somewhat under construction, so if you have any feedback (especially on the wording) it'd be greatly appreciated.


NotMeNotYou said:
This is still somewhat under construction, so if you have any feedback (especially on the wording) it'd be greatly appreciated.

The new section for advertisements seems perfectly fine.

However, I believe that the overall guidelines could be more effective with visual examples of 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' images to help clarify the differences for new users. Including these examples on the uploading guidelines page itself may produce unnecessary clutter, a link to a wiki entry of "uploading guidelines: visual examples", or something similar, would be better.

On the topic of guidelines and the wiki, I think something should be do to make forum #169987 (currently linked in the howto:source page) easier to find. Even though I know about it, I often have trouble finding it. I think that adding a link to it in the uploading guidelines would also be very helpful.