What about cases that were dismissed after it was clear the charges constituted perjury?


wolfoftheair said:
I don't know specifically to which US/Arizona law you're referring to which causes your policies to now require that you close the accounts of anyone who discusses or has ever been convicted of a felony.

No laws require us directly to do that, this is more an meant to say that anything illegal under Arizona state law is off-limits. This is mainly aimed to ensure we have to deal less with police requests for data if push comes to shove. This has also happened before and will most likely happen again regardless.

wolfoftheair said:
Are you going to start requiring legal name, birthdate, and other information so that you can look up your users' conviction data to enforce this rule? Or are you going to accept allegations made by other site users? If the former, how are you planning on keeping the personally-identifible information private? If the latter, how can one prove the lack of such a conviction? What happens in the case where the user had a conviction for a felony but the conviction is later reduced to a misdemeanor, dismissed, or pardoned? What policies or procedures exist to prevent this from becoming a site-legitimized means of harassment?

Also, under which jurisdiction's laws would a felony have to be a felony to trigger the removal of the user account? The most restrictive laws that your site can reach? (Guess what, if you have any users from the Muslim nations of the Middle East, all your homosexual users would be felons in those places -- and thus all discussion of homosexual sex would likewise be felonious.) The jurisdiction(s) of your administrators and moderators? Which jurisdictions are those? The jurisdiction where your servers are located? Which jurisdiction is that? The jurisdiction where the user is located? You don't even know or track that (unless you do, in which case your privacy policy needs to be updated), so you can't even make judgments based on that.

Does the Arizona law purport to say that anything that's a felony in Arizona cannot be discussed on any computer system anywhere, even amongst users and a site which are all located completely outside of Arizona and for which none of the traffic touches Arizona? I am not a lawyer, but that appears to me to be gross legislative overreach, and amounts to lawfare (the attempt to impose political or legal change on other jurisdictions with no standing to make or enforce any laws upon or within).

Pointless slippery slope arguments. Our servers are based in Arizona, all traffic goes through Arizona, all data is saved and stored in Arizona. As such all local laws fully apply, regardless of where the user lives because everything that happens on e6 happens in Arizona.

Also, no. We're anonymous here and it will stay that way. We take privacy seriously and won't pry for any data (unless it's basic admin duty like checking for banned alternate accounts, vote cheating, or other things). However, the fandom is small and details leak through anyway. We will only act on those leaks or when people spill the beans themselves.
If someone wishes to incriminate someone else they will have to provide sufficient proof, and we are very skeptical.
There was also a situation earlier this year where a rather well known furry kidnapped an underage girl, he was banned pretty much instantly on all pages for that. As such this is neither a unique thing, nor are we the first to do this.

In essence, if someone says they like burning down houses, beating up people for fun, selling drugs, or likes having sexual relations with their pets they are out of here instantly. This is not aimed at creating witch hunts.
On the other hand, we have the right to remove anyone for any reason, this is just putting another one of those instances down into writing.

wolfoftheair said:
I respectfully request:
1) the "convicted felon" rule be struck because it's impossible to enforce with the data available to you.
2) the "discussion of felonious activity" clause be redrafted to more closely align with the actual mandates involved, combined with the realities that different jurisdictions define different things as felonies, that there is no way to identify which jurisdiction's laws the user is actually subject to, and that you are too small to have a legal staff with full knowledge of the entire world's felony codes.
3) you give users the necessary information to help them help you comply with the law, so that you don't apparently arbitrarily start lowering the banhammer.
4) that you cite the actual laws which you claim require you to change your policies to conform to them (such as the Arizona law you're alluding to).
5) that you consult with a lawyer to figure these things out.

1) people give us the data or it's public knowledge presented to us from another trustworthy source
2) All laws mentioned are local Arizona laws, since all actions happening on e621 go through there.
3) Might be worth to throw something about that into the TOS. Afaik it's still the old one from under Arcturus and horribly outdated, which is why it's my next big rewrite project.
4) No law requires those changes, we do them because we, as staff, see them as required.
5) see 4, this is not in relation to any laws


NotMeNotYou said:
Rather significant update: All records will now slowly "decay" in 6 month intervals. This means that any negative record old enough will become a neutral, and then eventually being deleted. So if you haven't broken the rules in a couple years you're actually now able to get back to a pristine account.

Actual text on the CoC:

This is not something that is performed by the page itself but instead must be done manually by a member of staff, so if you have old records that qualify please let one of us know and we'll clean them up for you.

Not sure how I've only just noticed this post, but...does this mean both of my negatives should qualify for removal?


Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??


stvndm14 said:
Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??

There's a separate section for that, "Sexual Orientation". It specifies behaviour that "Insultingly refer to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other members".

BlueDingo
Privileged
5 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

stvndm14 said:
Does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards sexual orientations??

A better question is, does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards caucasians? Countless people have been slapped for using black racial slurs but has anyone been slapped for using a white one?


BlueDingo said:
A better question is, does the racial hatred extend to hatred towards caucasians? Countless people have been slapped for using black racial slurs but has anyone been slapped for using a white one?

Yes.


So, just so we're all on the same page here.

The people who run this cartoon animal porn website believe it's required to ban people from participating in this cartoon animal porn website because those people did a bad thing in real life once. Letting people who used to do bad things in real life participate in this cartoon animal porn website gives this cartoon animal porn website a bad reputation and endangers the other people who participate in this cartoon animal porn website without doing bad things in real life.

Right?


Catachan said:
snip

Never accept a terrible scenario just because you already have a bad one.


Catachan said:
[text]

Honestly, that just reads like a word salad.


Hello yes I would like to lose my negative record


Sinking_Stone said:
Hello yes I would like to lose my negative record

It is done.


NotMeNotYou said:
Numbering a thread, IBTL, ITT, TL;DR, or any other fad statements

As always please let us know what you think about those changes, and if there is anything we should change or rework!

The only part I disagree with. A picture can paint a thousand words and doesn't imply spamming imo

If you write out a long wall of text on a public forum about why you're oh so sad or something, "tl;dr" is a short way to say "Dude, no one cares and that's huge. Stop embarrassing yourself". Similar to "k" implying absurdity in the OP or "IBTL" implying the thread goes against rules.

I don't see why tl;dr should be classified as trolling when "That's way too long to expect people to read it" is fine. These "fad statements" are just ways to quickly give opinion.


notawerewolf said:
The only part I disagree with. A picture can paint a thousand words and doesn't imply spamming imo

If you write out a long wall of text on a public forum about why you're oh so sad or something, "tl;dr" is a short way to say "Dude, no one cares and that's huge. Stop embarrassing yourself". Similar to "k" implying absurdity in the OP or "IBTL" implying the thread goes against rules.

I don't see why tl;dr should be classified as trolling when "That's way too long to expect people to read it" is fine. These "fad statements" are just ways to quickly give opinion.

Any of those statements offer nothing of value for any discussion they are used in. They are superfluous at best, and malignant at worst. Of course actually showing the courtesy of saying "This is far too long to read, could you please summarize it?" is more welcome than "I can't be arsed to read this crap". The tone makes the music and all that.

Besides that, this rule is purely aimed at repeat offenders. We're not going to slap someone for using it once for comedic purposes, but we absolutely will crack down on someone who is doing nothing but posting those things in threads.


NotMeNotYou said:
Any of those statements offer nothing of value for any discussion they are used in. They are superfluous at best, and malignant at worst. Of course actually showing the courtesy of saying "This is far too long to read, could you please summarize it?" is more welcome than "I can't be arsed to read this crap". The tone makes the music and all that.

Besides that, this rule is purely aimed at repeat offenders. We're not going to slap someone for using it once for comedic purposes, but we absolutely will crack down on someone who is doing nothing but posting those things in threads.

Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.


notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

Pretty sure Nimmy was saying that's what it reads as, which is not acceptable, whereas if you type out a sentence, you could easily word it nicely, ie "This is far too long, could you summarize it?"


notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

You know what would be a good alternative to posting those comments? Nothing. As in, the thing that is better is "nothing".


notawerewolf said:
Still, the point stands that "I can't be arsed to read this crap" would be acceptable whereas its abbreviation would not be. Either way, I'm sure you know better as a long-standing site moderator; just giving my feedback.

"I can't be arsed to read this crap" would absolutely not be acceptable.


kamimatsu said:
You know what would be a good alternative to posting those comments? Nothing. As in, the thing that is better is "nothing".

nah fam

NotMeNotYou said:
"I can't be arsed to read this crap" would absolutely not be acceptable.

what, really? good to know


I get the idea of not wanting links to bestiality but I'm legit curious why linking to animal mating stuff isn't allowed especially since you can even find that on youtube.


Hmm, odd, did not find anything in the changes about "increased art standards policy", based on which NotMeNotYou says I cannot submit my art here anymore. So what changed, then? Considering that I have been uploading here for 2 years and my stuff was posted by others here long before that?


Rage_Inducer said:
I get the idea of not wanting links to bestiality but I'm legit curious why linking to animal mating stuff isn't allowed especially since you can even find that on youtube.

to protect e621's reputation
while animal cocks being inserted into animal vaginas are not illegal (as opposed to when they're inserted into human vaginas)
people will still go "look, the furries get off on animal cocks"


SwiftNimblefoot said:
Hmm, odd, did not find anything in the changes about "increased art standards policy", based on which NotMeNotYou says I cannot submit my art here anymore. So what changed, then? Considering that I have been uploading here for 2 years and my stuff was posted by others here long before that?

Banish the thought, but maybe the quality of your current art decreased. This has been brought up for one artist before, cherished by Notme themself (poetically), so it shouldn't be without reason to say it can happen to anyone...

Check your old images to your new ones; I believe there was a list that me or another made about quality of an image, so also search for that.


Siral_Exan said:
Banish the thought, but maybe the quality of your current art decreased. This has been brought up for one artist before, cherished by Notme themself (poetically), so it shouldn't be without reason to say it can happen to anyone...

Check your old images to your new ones; I believe there was a list that me or another made about quality of an image, so also search for that.

If he said that, I would have been OK with that, but no, he simply told me my art "does not cut it anymore". Not my latest pic or anything, just in general. Honestly, I feel I improved over the years and mastered new techniques in Photoshop, not taken a step back. But all this talk about quality is rather subjective, I feel. You can easily find terrible art here with very little searching, but it got approved because the approver liked it for some reason. Others get rejected because say, the artist draws in a sketchy uninked style - I have seen a lot of great art barred for this reason.
But all this does not explain why after checking with the Admins 2 years ago, my art was deemed to be acceptable, and now suddenly (and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems) everything I post is deleted....


SwiftNimblefoot said:
(and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems)

Correlation =/= Causation. No need to make passive-aggressive accusations. Besides, it's Janitors who approve or reject posts. Did you honestly think every single post was decided by one person?

Also, sole admin? Really?


kamimatsu said:
Correlation =/= Causation. No need to make passive-aggressive accusations. Besides, it's Janitors who approve or reject posts. Did you honestly think every single post was decided by one person?

Also, sole admin? Really?

The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

BlueDingo
Privileged
4 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

SwiftNimblefoot said:
The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

Here's a list of admins.
Here's a list of janitors.


SwiftNimblefoot said:
The front page only has him as Admin. The "contact admin" link is his email address. And yes, he approves about 80% of all uploads it seems. Certainly was so for mine. I would contact the other admins, if they exist and I knew how to reach them... I never heard about this "Janitor" role, first time someone says it.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

This role's been in place as long as I've been around, And it's even listed in the rules/Wiki section of the site.


SwiftNimblefoot said:
If he said that, I would have been OK with that, but no, he simply told me my art "does not cut it anymore". Not my latest pic or anything, just in general. Honestly, I feel I improved over the years and mastered new techniques in Photoshop, not taken a step back. But all this talk about quality is rather subjective, I feel. You can easily find terrible art here with very little searching, but it got approved because the approver liked it for some reason. Others get rejected because say, the artist draws in a sketchy uninked style - I have seen a lot of great art barred for this reason.
But all this does not explain why after checking with the Admins 2 years ago, my art was deemed to be acceptable, and now suddenly (and coinciding with NotMeNotYou becoming the sole Admin, it seems) everything I post is deleted....

Your art is bad.

Your anatomy makes no sense most of the time (vulva on the stomach, deformed limbs, wrong proportions), your linework is shoddy, your coloring basic at best, and your shading might as well not be there at all.
Dave allowed your art to stay because it was literally the lowest quality he would allow on the page, and I heavily disagreed with his decision back then. I now hold Dave's position and I have no reason to let your art in anymore.

I am sorry to be so blunt but I've already explained my position to you back before Dave overturned my decision to delete your art. As such I simply don't see a reason to repeat what I've said back then in more words than absolutely necessary.

Edit: If you'd actually like some constructive criticism I can give you some. Draw from life, not from memory. Find a reference and compare your work to the reference(s). Especially your faces and hands need a lot of work still. Also look into using differently thick lines for your linework. Use the thickness to give different parts different weights. It looks very strange that fine fur has the same "weight" as heavy objects. Your coloring should follow the curve of bodies better. Your shading should also better follow established physics rules, as in highlights and direction of light need to be consistent at least.


Action figures are cheap, Plentiful and a great way to have readily-posable bodies, Both fantastic and mundane, From which to get ideas from.

Also a hell of a lot cheaper than those overrated wood mannequins.