okay so like, cirno, touhou cirno, ice fairy motherfucker. she's allowed because she's a fairy, even if shes not "furryified", right? so if i post something containing her, it'll stay up because she's technically not a human, like hylians and stuff?

xx_cocklover69420_xx said:
okay so like, cirno, touhou cirno, ice fairy motherfucker. she's allowed because she's a fairy, even if shes not "furryified", right? so if i post something containing her, it'll stay up because she's technically not a human, like hylians and stuff?

Depends on the image, not the canon/lore

xx_cocklover69420_xx said:
okay so like, cirno, touhou cirno, ice fairy motherfucker. she's allowed because she's a fairy, even if shes not "furryified", right? so if i post something containing her, it'll stay up because she's technically not a human, like hylians and stuff?

Lore has zero weight in the discussion, we tag what we see.

While you may still tag them as being a fairy due to our loose interpretation of the tag, they are still subject to the no humans/humanoids-only rule.
Taken as a whole, if they look human and has no other redeemable quality that makes them furry-relevant, they are treated the same way as being human and deleted (see fairy delreason:*irrelevant*).

Looking at how Cirno is usually depicted in official media, I would not approve any posts that shows her just as such.
Simply having wings does not make her furry-relevant (otherwise we would accept all instances of Marval's Wasp), nor is having magical abilities (otherwise we would accept Doctor Strange as well in his human form).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Lore has zero weight in the discussion, we tag what we see.

While you may still tag them as being a fairy due to our loose interpretation of the tag, they are still subject to the no humans/humanoids-only rule.
Taken as a whole, if they look human and has no other redeemable quality that makes them furry-relevant, they are treated the same way as being human and deleted (see fairy delreason:*irrelevant*).

Looking at how Cirno is usually depicted in official media, I would not approve any posts that shows her just as such.
Simply having wings does not make her furry-relevant (otherwise we would accept all instances of Marval's Wasp), nor is having magical abilities (otherwise we would accept Doctor Strange as well in his human form).

Actually looking at this Cirno makes me think that she could be acceptable if the wings are depicted as being connected to her body as anatomy. But only barely, because if they look like floating icicles behind her back, then those don't look like wings and wouldn't count.

nin10dope said:
Actually looking at this Cirno makes me think that she could be acceptable if the wings are depicted as being connected to her body as anatomy. But only barely, because if they look like floating icicles behind her back, then those don't look like wings and wouldn't count.

Nah, connected or not, wings by themselves are not considered furry enough, especially when the character is human-like (e.g., post #5146492).
You can see more deleted examples in winged_humanoid delreason:*irrelevant*.

xx_cocklover69420_xx said:
okay so like, cirno, touhou cirno, ice fairy motherfucker. she's allowed because she's a fairy, even if shes not "furryified", right? so if i post something containing her, it'll stay up because she's technically not a human, like hylians and stuff?

Cirno is generally not furry and irrelevant to the site unless paired with another creature- and when depicted at her canon size and form would also not be allowed here in NSFW work due to the lolisho ban from July of last year. A furrified version would probably be OK. Maybe SFW art of her paired with, for example, Glaceon, would be OK too?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nah, connected or not, wings by themselves are not considered furry enough, especially when the character is human-like (e.g., post #5146492).

That doesn't seem right. Wings physically connected to someone's body, new purposefully added animal-based appendages, aren't furry enough, but hastily drawn slightly pointed ears are? Wings are much more of an apparent anatomical deviation from humans that have plenty of parallels in the animal kingdom. That's like saying a tail isn't considered furry enough but a slightly flat nose is. It feels completely backwards to me that posts like this are perfectly fine, while something like this is held under scrutiny.

yeah, i've literally just seen plain humans on here, ALONE, with one singular feature that makes them slightly different. yet i try to post something like that and i get murdered and i die and everythings dead and the world explodes

Wings, fangs, and other anatomical features totally distinct from any human get denied by some of the stricter janitors.

But even a single pixel of pointy ear? Accepted.

post #5182371

watsit said:
That doesn't seem right. Wings physically connected to someone's body, new purposefully added animal-based appendages, aren't furry enough, but hastily drawn slightly pointed ears are? Wings are much more of an apparent anatomical deviation from humans that have plenty of parallels in the animal kingdom. That's like saying a tail isn't considered furry enough but a slightly flat nose is. It feels completely backwards to me that posts like this are perfectly fine, while something like this is held under scrutiny.

That's how it is. As far as I can tell, pointy_ears is one of the explicit exceptions to making something furry-relevant.

I'm not sure how far arguments for and against this have been discussed among the staff team.
If you feel this is an overreach, I think raising the issue with the head admin would be justified.

oneohthrix said:
Wings, fangs, and other anatomical features totally distinct from any human get denied by some of the stricter janitors.

But even a single pixel of pointy ear? Accepted.

post #5182371

Making the same joke three times in a row is wild, especially after an admin told you to stop with this nonsense.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nah, connected or not, wings by themselves are not considered furry enough, especially when the character is human-like (e.g., post #5146492).
You can see more deleted examples in winged_humanoid delreason:*irrelevant*.

One of the deleted examples leads to the character flandre_scarlet which appear to have a number of posts where the wings would be the only deciding factor of being non-human. Also modifying your search term to cut out results that include things like pointy ears, tails, etc. yields plenty of examples (such as post #5529997 and post #5507950) where wings also appear to be the only deciding factor. So I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be.

sylenial said:
One of the deleted examples leads to the character flandre_scarlet which appear to have a number of posts where the wings would be the only deciding factor of being non-human. Also modifying your search term to cut out results that include things like pointy ears, tails, etc. yields plenty of examples (such as post #5529997 and post #5507950) where wings also appear to be the only deciding factor. So I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be.

Do note that the first post you mentioned was uploaded by a user with unlimited uploads, so no approver ever saw it

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nah, connected or not, wings by themselves are not considered furry enough, especially when the character is human-like (e.g., post #5146492).
You can see more deleted examples in winged_humanoid delreason:*irrelevant*.

It is.

1 If any sort of non-human traits are present, the character in question is no longer a pure human, but a humanoid for tagging purposes.

But something like fairy wings are definitely not a strong argument. But it's been made clear by (at least some) staff members that pointed_ears isn't an edge case but an example of the rule.
I'll also agree with the opinion that it's still not relevant, so it's probably still up to individual staff discretion

sylenial said:
One of the deleted examples leads to the character flandre_scarlet which appear to have a number of posts where the wings would be the only deciding factor of being non-human. Also modifying your search term to cut out results that include things like pointy ears, tails, etc. yields plenty of examples (such as post #5529997 and post #5507950) where wings also appear to be the only deciding factor. So I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be.

I feel just by looking at approved examples of flandre_scarlet, fangs also play a role in determining its relevance.
Though looking through flandre_scarlet delreason:*irrelevant* does also yield deleted results with clear fangs and wings as part of the focus, so I can't argue that there is an inconsistent enforcement of what can be relevant.

As for the two examples, the first post was not automatically approved without staff insight (as the poster had the "unrestricted uploads" permission, which bypasses the mod queue) while the second post looks like a good argument for wings being the only contributing factor.

In any case, if you see inconsistent enforcement such as this, you can bring it up as an argument to keep or reject existing posts with the same features.
What ends up happening is that either a whole bunch of posts get undeleted or deleted to make the approvals consistent.

I'm selfishly fine with either because that content isn't the focus. And like I kinda said in the beginning of this thread, some of the examples of wings look like floating icicles and I think they don't count as wings for the rule

nin10dope said:
It is.

Considered "a humanoid for tagging purposes" does not mean that humanoids are exempt from the enforcement of the no humans rule (see humanoid -human delreason:*irrelevant*).
For all intents and purposes, that's the way it is being done, for better or for worse.

There is also no specific list of what can be considered to be "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" and the janitors have been rejecting posts under the rule based on their own judgement.
Some may approve a single body part deviation as part of their approval criteria while others are more strict and consider the whole picture to see whether or not it is furry relevant.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Considered "a humanoid for tagging purposes" does not mean that humanoids are exempt from the enforcement of the no humans rule (see humanoid -human delreason:*irrelevant*).
For all intents and purposes, that's the way it is being done, for better or for worse.

There is also no specific list of what can be considered to be "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" and the janitors have been rejecting posts under the rule based on their own judgement.
Some may approve a single body part deviation as part of their approval criteria while others are more strict and consider the whole picture to see whether or not it is furry relevant.

Fair enough. I don't mean to imply that all staff should accept them on technicality, just that it has been said in clear terms before by some of them.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nah, connected or not, wings by themselves are not considered furry enough, especially when the character is human-like (e.g., post #5146492).
You can see more deleted examples in winged_humanoid delreason:*irrelevant*.

That’s not true.
post #4566162

All non-human anatomy is acceptable. The problem with post #5146492 is that the wings don’t appear to be visibly attached to the body. "Floating wings" are generally considered more in the realm of magic than anatomy, so not relevant.

spe said:
That’s not true.
post #4566162

All non-human anatomy is acceptable. The problem with post #5146492 is that the wings don’t appear to be visibly attached to the body. "Floating wings" are generally considered more in the realm of magic than anatomy, so not relevant.

okay this actually makes sense as to why cirno isnt allowed normally