Post 5477826 Has Raven_Team_Leader Giving head to a human. But apparently she's not furry enough so the post was taken down>????

so we should delete all her solo tagged posts then or am I missing some form of logic here?
either enforce this or give a better takedown reason than what is listed..

"This post was deleted or flagged for the following reasons:
[DELETION] Irrelevant to site (Human only - animal-eared hood)"

-note:
in the video she clearly has a snout and no facial features to say she doesn't have a furry head. Her ears could also be real but the artist was more busy making furry porn to think "Not fluffy enough" on a non-human faced character.

I believe we should acknowledge the animal face and animal coded appearance on the character before we delete anything not fluffy enough on what I personally consider to be a non-human character.

Dm from the janitor who took down the post:

Azeez Veesk said:

The animal features of the face outweigh any claim that it's a human head.

What? "The animal features?" If you can't even name them, then are they really there? These were the only possible things on this post that could make it relevant, and I decided they were not enough. Why would my decision change just because someone asks? The appeal has no substance.

I do not wish to receive another response about this, so I will do all the work. The face is poorly detailed, which hurts approval chances a lot. For an animation of this length, that's pretty bad. That says the animator wasn't particularly concerned with drawing this character as a convincing animal. We have a flat v-shaped nose and a barely noticeable 3-shaped mouth. A lot of posts' relevancy hangs on a poorly drawn nose, and they are always some of the worst approvals. A little circle, or a dot, or here a v and "artist says this character is an animal" or "everyone knows what this is." This is not a serious effort and is treated as such. 3-shaped cat mouths are largely irrelevant as a style decision, corrupted by the many, many, many human anime waifus with cutesy cat smiles. These need to be better to convince me they are anatomy and not the same cutesy anime mouth. The details were not strong enough in this post.

I was asked to not respond so I will leave you all with this.
At the end of the day it isn't my decision, and this is the answer I received so it's what we get.

Going by delreason:*human*animal* -delreason:*young* looks like it’s Abadbird removing those raven_team_leader posts, and someone else’s poor quality paper drawings, beginning from 2 months ago.
There are likely more posts that are only flagged human-only without an attached reason.

Raven is weird because of the panda features of the mask, but I’d otherwise agree with the mask on it’s impossible to tell if they’re furry.

I think this was held up with the earlier rulings on FNAF Vanny not being allowed, too.

Personally suiting is still furry to me but it’s not my website.

aversioncapacitor' said:
Going by delreason:*human*animal* -delreason:*young* looks like it’s just Abadbird removing the raven_team_leader posts, and someone else’s poor quality paper drawings, beginning from 2 months ago.
There are likely more posts that are only flagged human-only without an attached reason.

Raven is weird because of the panda features of the mask, but I’d otherwise agree with the mask on it’s impossible to tell if they’re furry.

I think this was held up with the earlier rulings on FNAF Vanny not being allowed, too.

Personally suiting is still furry to me but it’s not my website.

Raven Team leader in a lot of art isn't wearing a suit, the actual in game skin had no head under the hood and therefore is closer to a living plush instead of a fursuiter. This lore needs to be acknowledged more before we delete posts for them being "human"

The deleted post shows no raven team leader skin or implication that they are human. so if we "tag as we see it" by the general rule of this site, it's an impossible suit and definitely a furry themed inhuman character.
- It just personally bothers me that a furry character that is not human is being tagged as human and Deleted for that reason, it sets a very bad standard for all other posts of this character where without any reason it can be deleted cause someone can't identify the difference between clearly human and furry.

azeez_veesk said:
Post 5477826 Has Raven_Team_Leader Giving head to a human. But apparently she's not furry enough so the post was taken down>????

If you want to contest a deletion, contact the person who deleted it and state your reasons respectfully.
If you are still not satisfied with their reasoning, you can approach the head admin @NotMeNotYou to escalate the issue.

so we should delete all her solo tagged posts then or am I missing some form of logic here?
either enforce this or give a better takedown reason than what is listed..

"This post was deleted or flagged for the following reasons:
[DELETION] Irrelevant to site (Human only - animal-eared hood)"

Take a long hard look at our Uploading Guidelines, especially the section on Humans and e621. I want to point your attention to:

• Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted.
• If it appears like a human it counts as a human, regardless of what in-universe lore specifies.
• The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human.
• Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc.), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc.
• This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine.
• A different skin color does not make a human relevant.
• Costumes, clothes, accessories, etc. do not make a human relevant.

As far as I can see for post #5477826:

• One could argue she looks more humanoid than anthro due to the way she is drawn here specifically.
• She looks human-skinned with purple and black skin colours, which contradict with the "different skin colour" part above.
• In addition, the animal hood is not relevant when considering their "furriness" as pointed out in the "costumes, clothes, accessories" part.
• The only thing you can argue about her being "furry" is her animal_nose and cat_smile.
• However, due to them being not really "visible" due to her character's design, you can't really make out what her face actually looks like (i.e., does she look human or feline?).

Taking all of that together, the janitor who deleted the post made a judgement.

As for why don't we just nuke the entirety of Raven_Team_Leader, you can see some of them having obvious drawn fur (which are associated with anthro animals) as opposed to pure skin-only (which are associated with human/humanoid characters, which are subject to the "no humans" rule).

You are more than welcome to make the argument that you also see other posts that look identical to this deleted post.
In which case, it will either persuade the janitor/admin to undo the deletion or cause said other posts to be deleted as well.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you want to contest a deletion, contact the person who deleted it and state your reasons respectfully.
If you are still not satisfied with their reasoning, you can approach the head admin @NotMeNotYou to escalate the issue.

Take a long hard look at our Uploading Guidelines, especially the section on Humans and e621. I want to point your attention to:

• A different skin color does not make a human relevant.
• Costumes, clothes, accessories, etc. do not make a human relevant.

As far as I can see for post #5477826:

• She looks human-skinned with purple and black skin colours, which contradict with Point #1 above.
• In addition, the animal hood is not relevant when considering their "furriness" as pointed out in Point #2.
• The only thing you can argue about her being "furry" is her animal_nose and cat_smile, but you can't really make out what her face actually looks like (i.e., does she look human or feline?) due to her character's design.

Taking all of that together, the janitor who deleted the post made a judgement.

As for why don't we just nuke the entirety of Raven_Team_Leader, you can see some of them having obvious drawn fur (which are associated with anthro animals) as opposed to pure skin-only (which are associated with human/humanoid characters, which are subject to the "no humans" rule).

You are more than welcome to make the argument that you also see other posts that look identical to this deleted post.
In which case, it will either persuade the janitor/admin to undo the deletion or cause said other posts to be deleted as well.

Raven doesn't have a human head and the hood has fur, she's a furry shadow creature with emoticons for a face, mimikyu the pokemon is technically a fursuiter yet we allow it because there are no visible human esc features?

I say we draw the line at Confirmed humans, because if an artist like edjit (who's art is often very smooth) were to draw raven team leader, it would be human for not showing "fluff" on a clearly uniquely designed furry character

• Also, skin is similar to how we draw fish and lizard sona's. I think we can allow furry looking characters even if they're smooth as long as you can say it's atleast a 2 on the 1-5 furry scale

- I refuse to agree to the notion that shadow creatures are banned because we can pretend that they have fully human faces when that face isn't visible.
-She also clearly has a visible bear snout in the video??? The shadow creature with the inhuman face is not something to ban as I think that's not a valid thing to cut out of furry content.

Please don't draw the line at "Skin" Being bad when we have fish sonas who have Skin. IT is about the inhuman elements. even if it's just cat ears and tail on anime girl like the mod who deleted the post has favorited!!
Is a one on the scale too low?? Please have a more firm definition of what makes a human character, human than an artist drawing smoother features over fluff (Don't get me wrong I love fluff) but I don't think that a lack of fluff makes me think "wow so human"

We can't see a face, if it's maybe furry, then keep the post up. You need to be sure and definite on this to avoid arbitrary decisions that are negative to what makes furry content furry
you can ban furrsuit content but if it is a fursuit being piloted by an inhuman such as mimikyu and has a snouted face (A furry feature) and no human facial features,, it's just not human.

azeez_veesk said:
Raven doesn't have a human head and the hood has fur, she's a furry shadow creature with emoticons for a face,

Going to point you back to the line, "If it appears like a human it counts as a human, regardless of what in-universe lore specifies."

Excluding her head, the rest of her body looks human/humanoid.
As said, her hood has no bearing on the "furriness" of the post, so we will act as if it is completely invisible and just focus on her face.

You can argue that her nose and mouth looks furry enough, but you'd have to tell that the janitor who deleted it and convince them instead of me.

mimikyu the pokemon is technically a fursuiter yet we allow it because there are no visible human esc features?

A lot of characters, especially those wearing long or concealing clothing, do get deleted because there isn't enough evidence to say that they are a "furry".

For mimikyu, their original form looks more like a (pardon me) short & deformed monster rather than a human (e.g., post #5070777).
Some other depictions ignore that it is a cloak that they wear and turn it into a physical part of their body, such as making the "head" part being actually their heads and essentially turning it into a regular "furry" (e.g., post #5077584).

You can argue for depictions such as post #5126306 that they are literally just a black humanoid wearing a smiley hood, and it would be cause for deletion.
However, don't actually flag that post since it contains other characters who are clearly "furry".

I say we draw the line at Confirmed humans, because if an artist like edjit (who's art is often very smooth) were to draw raven team leader, it would be human for not showing "fluff" on a clearly uniquely designed furry character

• Also, skin is similar to how we draw fish and lizard sona's. I think we can allow furry looking characters even if they're smooth as long as you can say it's atleast a 2 on the 1-5 furry scale

Irrelevant, we don't delete based on the "smoothless" of their skin. We look at other features that make them "furry".
Random monsters can have skin only, but we keep them because they look like monsters, as opposed to looking like humans with random skin colours.

Even if the artist you mentioned did draw it, it are just as likely to be deleted for looking too "human".
There needs to be something else visible on their design that would suggest otherwise, such as having a random fur_tuft on their otherwise "smooth" body.

azeez_veesk said:
Raven doesn't have a human head and the hood has fur, she's a furry shadow creature with emoticons for a face, mimikyu the pokemon is technically a fursuiter yet we allow it because there are no visible human esc features?

I say we draw the line at Confirmed humans, because if an artist like edjit (who's art is often very smooth) were to draw raven team leader, it would be human for not showing "fluff" on a clearly uniquely designed furry character

• Also, skin is similar to how we draw fish and lizard sona's. I think we can allow furry looking characters even if they're smooth as long as you can say it's atleast a 2 on the 1-5 furry scale

- I refuse to agree to the notion that shadow creatures are banned because we can pretend that they have fully human faces when that face isn't visible.
-She also clearly has a visible bear snout in the video??? The shadow creature with the inhuman face is not something to ban as I think that's not a valid thing to cut out of furry content.

Please don't draw the line at "Skin" Being bad when we have fish sonas who have Skin. IT is about the inhuman elements. even if it's just cat ears and tail on anime girl like the mod who deleted the post has favorited!!
Is a one on the scale too low?? Please have a more firm definition of what makes a human character, human than an artist drawing smoother features over fluff (Don't get me wrong I love fluff) but I don't think that a lack of fluff makes me think "wow so human"

We can't see a face, if it's maybe furry, then keep the post up. You need to be sure and definite on this to avoid arbitrary decisions that are negative to what makes furry content furry
you can ban furrsuit content but if it is a fursuit being piloted by an inhuman such as mimikyu and has a snouted face (A furry feature) and no human facial features,, it's just not human.

I want a clear rule to be set for Shadowy creatures with emoticon faces that are furry eg: :3 83 :7 <- Bird
if this non-human character is shown through the suit, it's furry. The creature can have skin **on** the suit or we just ban skin creatures or artists who don't draw "enough" fluff. The skin being a part of the suit is important to me because it's melded to the hood. A fluffy thing as the artist just prefers drawing even bunnies as having a more skin like texture. Pretending a furry with skin texture isn't furry is very limiting on a lot of smoother skin anthro artists such as burgerkiss and whispering4nothing. The heads have snots but otherwise plent of the eeveelutions have a human full-skin body but only an animalistic head? Is this not counter-intuitive to say
"As for why don't we just nuke the entirety of Raven_Team_Leader, you can see some of them having obvious drawn fur (which are associated with anthro animals) as opposed to pure skin-only (which are associated with human/humanoid characters, which are subject to the "no humans" rule)."

"Going to point you back to the line, "If it appears like a human it counts as a human, regardless of what in-universe lore specifies."

Excluding her head, the rest of her body looks human/humanoid.
As said, her hood has no bearing on the "furriness" of the post, so we will act as if it is completely invisible and just focus on her face.

You can argue that her nose and mouth looks furry enough, but you'd have to tell that the janitor who deleted it and convince them instead of me."

Bro, get rid of the head on literally most artists who draw women and they will stop being furry. The point is that it's a furry head and because there's no jaw-line you're saying it's human.. but there's no human head....

Sorry if you are confused or if I had given you that impression, we don't delete because we see skin only,
We delete if they look more human/humanoid rather than anthro or any other animal species.

On another note, and I'm repeating myself here, clothing and lore have completely no bearing on the discussion whatsover.
We tag based on what we see instead of tagging based on what we know (or what the lore says); this logic also applies to clothing.
If it looks more like a fake head/animal hood that could be taken off, then we treat it as any regular clothing that a human can wear.
If it looks more like it is physically part of the character's body and is not removable (e.g., animal_head), then we treat it differently.

thegreatwolfgang said:

Even if the artist you mentioned did draw it, it are just as likely to be deleted for looking too "human".
There needs to be something else visible on their design that would suggest otherwise, such as having a random fur_tuft on their otherwise "smooth" body.

The skin argument doesn't make sense when the head is clearly furry, the body isn't a suit. The artist put in the effort to make the snout 3d in this animation. So the art has a furry head, it's a bear head. If we just base it on no fluff then we get rid of post 2477436 because it looks like her tail is a plug and her ears are too fake. No fluff on her body and her head is barely furry. But we still count it because nobody is losing it over how very human looking whisperingfornothings characters are. But actively removing a post cause the 3d snout on a shadow creature isn't enough for it to be furry hits me the wrong way.

There's an animal face on this character. They express emotion with this animal face. Ears aren't needed if we have a real snout and Implied animal ears.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Sorry if you are confused or if I had given you that impression, we don't delete because we see skin only,
We delete if they look more human/humanoid rather than anthro or any other animal species.

Example

To clarify, posts like these with a visible full-body coat of fur make them look like an anthro bear. rather than a human/humanoid.
post #5435227 post #5435799

Even for posts that have mostly skin, a little bit of fur (such as those tufts on the shoulders) makes them look like a bear instead of a full-on human.
post #5455554 post #5408601

On the other hand, for posts that lack any distinguishing features that would make them look like a bear and instead making them look like a human, you would have a solid argument to use to defend against the deletion.
post #5407990

In the end, it would either lead to more similar-looking posts to be deleted or for the one post to be undeleted.

On another note, clothing and lore have completely no bearing on the discussion whatsover.
We tag based on what we see instead of tagging based on what we know (or what the lore says); this logic also applies to clothing.
If it looks more like a fake head/animal hood that could be taken off, then we treat it as any regular clothing that a human can wear.
If it looks more like it is physically part of the character's body and is not removable (e.g., animal_head), then we treat it differently.

Shoulder feathers that could possibly be worn are what you think justifies it, not the animal face?
Who's not to say the ears aren't actually poking through the hood? the lines around the base to the hood could be holes.

edit- I think we can forgive human appearance of body in anthro art as long as the head is furry, if you want a more fluffy body then use fur tags. Raven_team_leader is not human unless the artist shows them with a human face or human skin under a fursuit. Otherwise the suit is their body and this furry looking face is real.

azeez_veesk said:
Shoulder feathers that could possibly be worn are what you think justifies it, not the animal face?
Who's not to say the ears aren't actually poking through the hood? the lines around the base to the hood could be holes.

Again, present your argument to the janitor/mod who deleted your post. I am just giving you the potential logic behind why that post got deleted.

I do not have the power to undelete the post, so arguing with me would literally accomplish nothing.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Again, present your argument to the janitor/mod who deleted your post.
I am just giving you the potential reasoning on why that post got deleted.

I get that. But this is to be my public reasoning so more people consider the arguments surrounding this
I could've missed a post I otherwise like for it's furry character because someone incorrectly deemed it too human compared to other posts they turn a blind eye to according to their personal logic over general consensus.

Thank you for your time

I'm a little disheartened by the outcome that tells me When the artist draws a furry too "anime styled" with it's face it's Lazy and clearly an insult to call it furry content

azeez_veesk said:
I'm a little disheartened by the outcome that tells me When the artist draws a furry too "anime styled" with it's face it's Lazy and clearly an insult to call it furry content

If that's what you took from the whole discussion, I'd respectfully suggest that you are reading a meaning into things that just doesn't exist. In my opinion, you failed to engage with the reasoning presented to you, and your counterarguments seemed somewhat tangent Al to the points being made.

I'm personally on the side that the character straddles a borderline, with individual depictions strongly influencing how 'furry' I'd perceive the character to be from picture to picture.

Again, I mean no insult by this, but I feel that the comment I'm replying to was a rather unpleasant mischaracterisation of those who's opinions run counter to your own.

quenir said:
If that's what you took from the whole discussion, I'd respectfully suggest that you are reading a meaning into things that just doesn't exist. In my opinion, you failed to engage with the reasoning presented to you, and your counterarguments seemed somewhat tangent Al to the points being made.

I'm personally on the side that the character straddles a borderline, with individual depictions strongly influencing how 'furry' I'd perceive the character to be from picture to picture.

Again, I mean no insult by this, but I feel that the comment I'm replying to was a rather unpleasant mischaracterisation of those who's opinions run counter to your own.

you're right on my counter arguments being not right, I was typing non-stop, editing in my tangential thoughts to posts before people could respond. Which made it alot harder to actually conversate.
My last comment was because I got offended by the way they said the face should've had more detail or given fur to what I already associate as a furry character.

it is ambiguous on the animal features being real. But to me I can see a furry face, snout and ears. and then it's called lazy and a product of a bad art trend that I personally like. But this art trend makes certain people associate it more with anime human than furry. Which to me feels wrong because anime gives human characters more animal like faces.

Simple animal face with possible fake ears being not furry feels like saying anime girls with cat ears and tail are using clips and plugs to keep them in place. You see what you want to with these details. I'll always see it as furry, some others will see it as anime styled human.

I wholeheartedly believe that the face is more important than the ears but it seems many have already disagreed. So I have to accept that simple Big ears make a furry and not the simple furry eyes nose and mouth.

I can't see the image in question, so I'm speaking generally, but I do think that animal noses are pretty solidly 'furry' otherwise you'd have issues with kemono art (which typically have flat faces) or characters like Roxanne from A Goofy Movie (her muzzle in profile is less pronounced than Elsa's from Frozen). You could maybe argue 'it could be makeup' but like, makeup and plastic surgery to create elf ears exists.

azeez_veesk said:
My last comment was because I got offended by the way they said the face should've had more detail or given fur to what I already associate as a furry character.

Just to clarify, I did not say that artists should draw the character with a more detailed face or to give them more fur.
I'm saying that it would be much easier to identify them as being "furry" if they had a very clearly visible face and/or fur texture on the body (e.g., post #5358231).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just to clarify, I did not say that artists should draw the character with a more detailed face or to give them more fur.
I'm saying that it would be much easier to identify them as being "furry" if they had a very clearly visible face and/or fur texture on the body (e.g., post #5358231).

that sounds very similar, it's also preferable to draw smooth when animating as fluff can be harder

If you want to solve this i would contact abadbird (the person that deleted your post) and respectfully ask for a second look of possibly undeleting your posts. if abadbird denys your request then the next step is to ask the main admin notmenotyou as he has the last say. if you dont get a responce then i would drop it. but gonna be honest. anything that gets deleted usually stays deleted. i used to do the same and ask but i find to be a tedious process and generally its just not worth it to bother the staff with petty appeal requests unless its extremely obvious that a mistake was made. look at the source video im not seeing anything that would make this count for here. it take a tail, animal feet or hands, fur, animal ears, snout of some sort to count for here. if its just a body color change its usually not enough for approval. some time it gets approved, some times it doesn't.

anyways im hope that helps.

Just accept the deletion. Check out post #5182371 to make you feel better (the pointy ears def not from Temu btw)

oneohthrix said:
Just accept the deletion. Check out post #5182371 to make you feel better (the pointy ears def not from Temu btw)

I have, thanks man.
It really is all in the ears.

azeez_veesk said:
I have, thanks man.
It really is all in the ears.

I just noticed that post was gone as well, here's a few things I can say: Unless some surgery was involved to merge genitals and fabric that isn't a suit, the face does have animal features as the nose and mouth are designed around a snout shape and are pushed away from the face, especially during the first scene, so that just seems like a poor excuse for removal, the "Animal ear hood" argument can be chalked up as the artist's design choice, though one ear is pierced so theres that to go on, and at no point do you see human skin or the body move like it's a fursuit.

Also, another one of the artists posts shows they draw Raven Team Leader as an anthro with fur tufts but considering it was an animation I'd forgive them for cutting back on some details.