So, having tried to upload a pretty nice picture of great qulity, I find it was already here, but deleted for being "irrelevant". The picture was a humanized fluttershy, of which there are many undeleted images.

Am I alone in saying that this makes no sense? Not only are there many humanized mlp pics that are apparently acceptable, there are many human pictures in general as well. Theres an entire tag for "non-furry".

They may or may not get approved, that depends on the admin who gets to the picture first, basically one shouldn't upload humans if they don't want to see their post getting deleted.

Butterscotch said:
They may or may not get approved, that depends on the admin who gets to the picture first, basically you should not upload humans if you don't want to see them deleted.

I understand that. I'm saying that this sites owner seems to do a lot to maintain the site prides itself in being a top notch site. It doesn't make sense to delete without reason depending on the taste of the mod that finds it first.

There should be clear cut rules which say what is and isn't allowed.

Seeing as many humanized MLP is allowed, I think it oughta be in general.

I would say that this site is dedicated mainly to furry and furry-associated things, so following that, some things that could be used to determain whether an image should stay or go are:
-is it furry or furry-related? (I'd say humanized characters based on non-human characters should count)

-Is the quality at least arguably decent? (and if not does the quality add some other acceptable characteristic like humor?)

-Is the image generally found by the community to be likable or appreciated?

-Is there a good reason that it doesn't fit? (I'd say this is the most important one and reasons could include: Image is DNP, Image is a repost, etc)

Let's check out the rules shall we?

Off-topic images and any potential fallout from posting them are subject to the whims of the moderators. In other words, don't post non-furry art if you aren't okay with it being deleted.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Let's check out the rules shall we?

As I stated, I know the rules. Read the post or don't post, please. I'm saying that the rules should be less whimsical and more rule-like.

Peekaboo said:
You either have the current system, or you have a über-strict site where you follow the rules to the brink. I prefer this system.

if the rules were better defined, it wouldn't be an issue.

bella said:
if the rules were better defined, it wouldn't be an issue.

I think they're pretty defined, this is a furry archive (mainly), and there shouldn't be many human-only images. The rule already says that if X user has a problem with their human post getting deleted, then X user shouldn't upload them then.

Butterscotch said:
I think they're pretty defined, this is a furry archive (mainly), and there shouldn't be many human-only images. The rule already says that if X user has a problem with their human post getting deleted, then X user shouldn't upload them then.

I don't have a problem with it being "mainly" furry, but it is related material. I have an issue with the way it is handled. Its totally random. That's flat out stupid, why not just make the rules more defined? its not a difficult issue.

bella said:
... Read the post or don't post, please...

Rude.

Halite said:
Rude.

How is that rude? I would like for people to read the comments I've made to prevent redundancy.

Perhaps, but it's not up to you who can/can't post, and telling someone not to post, regardless of the reason why, is rude.

Halite said:
Perhaps, but it's not up to you who can/can't post, and telling someone not to post, regardless of the reason why, is rude.

Not really. I kindly asked them not to post if they do not wish to read my posts. It is rude to post without actually regarding what has been said, it makes for circular discussion that keeps going back to the same points. I said please and was kind, no insult was intended.

bella said:
Not really. I kindly asked them not to post if they do not wish to read my posts.

Well.... I don't really see what part of it was kind... even with the "please" it actually sounds rude, more like an order.

bella said:
Not really. I kindly asked them not to post if they do not wish to read my posts. It is rude to post without actually regarding what has been said, it makes for circular discussion that keeps going back to the same points. I said please and was kind, no insult was intended.

FYI dude, I did read it, and I replied.

bella said:
So, having tried to upload a pretty nice picture of great qulity, I find it was already here, but deleted for being "irrelevant". The picture was a humanized fluttershy, of which there are many undeleted images.

Am I alone in saying that this makes no sense? Not only are there many humanized mlp pics that are apparently acceptable, there are many human pictures in general as well. Theres an entire tag for "non-furry".

bella said:
I understand that. I'm saying that this sites owner seems to do a lot to maintain the site prides itself in being a top notch site. It doesn't make sense to delete without reason depending on the taste of the mod that finds it first.

There should be clear cut rules which say what is and isn't allowed.

Seeing as many humanized MLP is allowed, I think it oughta be in general.

I would say that this site is dedicated mainly to furry and furry-associated things, so following that, some things that could be used to determain whether an image should stay or go are:
-is it furry or furry-related? (I'd say humanized characters based on non-human characters should count)

-Is the quality at least arguably decent? (and if not does the quality add some other acceptable characteristic like humor?)

-Is the image generally found by the community to be likable or appreciated?

-Is there a good reason that it doesn't fit? (I'd say this is the most important one and reasons could include: Image is DNP, Image is a repost, etc)

Actually, you did not mention once that you knew the rules at all...

Butterscotch said:
They may or may not get approved, that depends on the admin who gets to the picture first, basically one shouldn't upload humans if they don't want to see their post getting deleted.

bella said:
I understand that.

Butterscotch said:
Well.... I don't really see what part of it was kind... even with the "please" it actually sounds rude, more like an order.

and this is getting a bit off topic (?) lol

It wasn't kind or rude, it was a neutral tone.

Anything on-topic to discuss?

bella said:
It wasn't kind or rude, it was a neutral tone.

Well you won't know because you're not on the receiving end of it

TheHuskyK9 said:
Well you won't know because you're not on the receiving end of it

If you took it as rude, it's because you have some reason to. Its perspective that creates the tone, I wrote it as neutral and reread it as the same, I see no problem.

bella said:
If you took it as rude, it's because you have some reason to. Its perspective that creates the tone, I wrote it as neutral and reread it as the same, I see no problem.

I took it as rude because it was downright rude, you see it as neutral because you think you're in the right and obviously don't give a fuck about the other user. It also seems that I'm not the only one that thinks that

Either we allow absolutely all human art, and risk the site becoming another diluted hentai-booru, none at all, and lose a lot of really great art, or a nice middle-grounds, and approve only what is of exceptional quality. I understand that some mods approve everything mlp-related, furry or not, but most of us don't.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I took it as rude because it was downright rude, you see it as neutral because you think you're in the right and obviously don't give a fuck about the other user.

Take it how you want, but I clearly stated in my second post (in response to them pointing out how things work here) so it seemed that you hadn't read the post. Anyways, anything more to say on the topic this thread is related to?

ippiki_ookami said:
Either we allow absolutely all human art, and risk the site becoming another diluted hentai-booru, none at all, and lose a lot of really great art, or a nice middle-grounds, and approve only what is of exceptional quality. I understand that some mods approve everything mlp-related, furry or not, but most of us don't.

Why not improve the way it works by making some standards for approval regarding humanized/nonfurry categories? A middle ground is good, but the current middleground is random and seemingly has little actual regulation and just kinda goes with the attending mod's mood at that particular time.

bella said:
Take it how you want, but I clearly stated in my second post (in response to them pointing out how things work here) so it seemed that you hadn't read the post. Anyways, anything more to say on the topic this thread is related to?

Nah, don't mind me

Mods could always like, vote on this kind of middle ground.
At least run it by someone maybe...
Also r00d

bella said:
Why not improve the way it works by making some standards for approval regarding humanized/nonfurry categories? A middle ground is good, but the current middleground is random and seemingly has little actual regulation and just kinda goes with the attending mod's mood at that particular time.

What are some standards that you would suggest?

Char said:
What are some standards that you would suggest?

Precedence is definitely one that I would utilize, if there is similar art that has already been allowed or denied, then apply that going forward. I would still ameliorate it by the quality of art (and burn the cesspool underhive of E6 that is the really bad "art" that is only called art because it's ironic to call it such, and the memes.... but that's me :P), so that cases as the above pointed out by Ippiki don't continue to occur (some content being allowed because some approve all of a certain subset, vs. others who would disapprove of part or all of a certain subset) for EITHER side- more clearcut as to what is allowed and what is disallowed for everyone to see, so it's not just a crapshoot whether it gets approved or not based on which admin you get at the time of approval, and their mood at the time (Considering how much we emphasize the objective in most things, the fact that this has remained almost unilaterally subjective has always mystified me).

Another I would utilize is whether the subjects in the artwork are monstrous humanoids or not; for example while they look outwardly human, or mostly human, but are not, esp. if they exhibit non-human traits, they would be classified as a monster (Alucard from Hellsing would classify as this when in his base humanoid form, without any manifested powers). If something is too obscure that it wouldn't be common knowledge, then I wouldn't allow it, for example artwork showing off a character that is a shapeshifter, in human form, that only shows up in the background of a single comic panel of a webcomic, or something of the sort. This does dip a bit into the "original source information" and "common knowledge of mainstream" aspects, but I think it's a relatively fair rule.

Thirdly, if a character can be obviously recognized or is called out by the artist or character owner (and there is sufficient secondary evidence that the character exhibited in the artwork is usually an anthro or feral furry) as a character that is normally furry, then by the rule of relation it should be allowed. If the character is not well-known and an admin disapproves, then it should be up to the original poster to provide the evidence to the admin to show that it does qualify, rather than force admins to track down any evidence of the sort.

Lastly, a maintained list of which common humanized characters are allowed and which aren't, that admins and members both adhere to. Maybe start with a listing of all current characters that are humanized/nonfurry we have, and then vote on each character to see which should stay and which should go. Afterwards, concensus to remove or add characters to either list. Sort of like a DNP list, but more like a "vetted/nonvetted" list of accepted characters.

I know you're likely gonna shake your head at my suggestions, but, hey. They're just a starting point to work from, right?

123easy said:
.............big complicated system the poor mods don't have time for....................

In an ideal world, maybe. Otherwise meh. e6 is good because it's about tagging what you see. If Henry is a werewolf only at night, I'd much rather see him at night. If I see an image with only elves and dwarves and human-looking vampires (making the image qualify for the tag not_furry), I will tag thusly so the image goes away, and so others will notice the tag and also use it in future.

the status quo is fairly peachy

As long as LoL and WoW species (nightelves, trolls, etc, espscl f der peen showan) are tagged correctly I don't personally give two yiffs about whether they're uploaded. Good humanizations of previously-furry characters are the stuff of deviantart or ponychan or reddit.

I blacklist with lines like [human solo] and [not_furry -rating:safe], and [humanoid solo].

In the same way that uploading art without an artist's express permission is a (small) risk for a user account if the artist decides to ask for their works to be deleted (which could hurt the uploader's UL'd-deleted ratio considerably), the same applies to uploading things that aren't atall furry in that they can be deleted on a dime.

123easy said:
Precedence is definitely one that I would utilize, if there is similar art that has already been allowed or denied, then apply that going forward....

Dear god no.

123easy said:
Precedence is definitely one that I would utilize, if there is similar art that has already been allowed or denied, then apply that going forward.

Please I hope you're not being serious with this one. >.<

123easy said:
-bad ideas-
I know you're likely gonna shake your head at my suggestions, but, hey. They're just a starting point to work from, right?

If you know the admins and users are going to shake their heads at your terrible suggestion then dont make it. Also dont use "its a starting point" as an excuse for such a complex/poor/broken system. Starting points should be started on good ideas, not terrible ones.

I know a good starting point, how about the current rules?
We could probably start there.

Halite said:
I know a good starting point, how about the current rules?
We could probably start there.

This, best idea.

As I said in different thread if non-furry pic belongs to a pool then either whole pool should be deleted, or whole pool should be accepted. I don't want to have comic with few cut pages, because they were not furry.

Char said:
What are some standards that you would suggest?

From my previous post:

I would say that this site is dedicated mainly to furry and furry-associated things, so following that, some things that could be used to determain whether an image should stay or go are:
-is it furry or furry-related? (I'd say humanized characters based on non-human characters should count)

-Is the quality at least arguably decent and not just scribbles? (and if not does the quality add some other acceptable characteristic like humor?)

-Is the image generally found by the community to be likable or appreciated?

-Is there a good reason that it doesn't fit? (I'd say this is the most important one and reasons could include: Image is DNP, Image is a repost, etc)

-------------------------
Reasoning for non-furry could be things like:
-Post is part of a set (comic or something) and some posts are nonfurry with later portions being furry as part of transformation or similar circumstances.

-post of a character that is usually furry being represented as nonfurry (classic example being mlp and humanized mlp).

Continuing with these reasons, I feel that they are justified in that we have a very well developed search function :)
That being said, those that are looking for a particular character may or may not wish to see nonfurry included, for which there are tags to include or exclude in search or even to blacklist if wished.

With a search function as great as E621's, theres not really any reason not to include are that a good portion of people may want to see.

Conker said:
If you know the admins and users are going to shake their heads at your terrible suggestion then dont make it. Also dont use "its a starting point" as an excuse for such a complex/poor/broken system. Starting points should be started on good ideas, not terrible ones.

You are the worst scientist.

I actually started that discussion between us admins a couple weeks ago but that died pretty much the same day I brought it up.

Anyway, my stance on this is rather simple, anything that is directly furry related and artwork (drawings of any kind and 3D works) of a decent quality is allowed to stay, things that are directly furry related but no drawings/cgi (photographs of statues, plushies, fur suits and the likes) should be irrelevant.
Things that are only indirectly related to the furry fandom (human version of furry characters, 100% humanized mlp and brightly colored human-mlp) would then also be irrelevant, except if they are part of an otherwise furry related comic or pool of images.

Besides that, maybe another exception for funny, furry related gifs and the likes to further bolster the humor tag but most "funny" gifs of captioned dogs aren't exactly related to the site in my opinion.

Also, we do agree that comics should be completely on e621, if you find a comic where we deleted pages in the middle for whatever reason do report that to us, either the pool (if they are pooled) or the comic itself, that way we can restore the missing pages.

NotMeNotYou said:
I actually started that discussion between us admins a couple weeks ago but that died pretty much the same day I brought it up.

Anyway, my stance on this is rather simple, anything that is directly furry related and artwork (drawings of any kind and 3D works) of a decent quality is allowed to stay, things that are directly furry related but no drawings/cgi (photographs of statues, plushies, fur suits and the likes) should be irrelevant.
Things that are only indirectly related to the furry fandom (human version of furry characters, 100% humanized mlp and brightly colored human-mlp) would then also be irrelevant, except if they are part of an otherwise furry related comic or pool of images.

Besides that, maybe another exception for funny, furry related gifs and the likes to further bolster the humor tag but most "funny" gifs of captioned dogs aren't exactly related to the site in my opinion.

Also, we do agree that comics should be completely on e621, if you find a comic where we deleted pages in the middle for whatever reason do report that to us, either the pool (if they are pooled) or the comic itself, that way we can restore the missing pages.

Glad to hear you guys are discussing it. I don't understand why indirectly furry related stuff shouldn't be allowed; as stated, many people looking for furry might also want the non-furry versions. For those who don't, it would be pretty simple to search for pictures without non-furry characteristics with the lovely search system we have here. Its sort of like the "Don't like something? Black list it!" rule. It makes everyone happy, I personally don't see what the objections would be to that. Everybody wins.

bella said:
Glad to hear you guys are discussing it. I don't understand why indirectly furry related stuff shouldn't be allowed; as stated, many people looking for furry might also want the non-furry versions. For those who don't, it would be pretty simple to search for pictures without non-furry characteristics with the lovely search system we have here. Its sort of like the "Don't like something? Black list it!" rule. It makes everyone happy, I personally don't see what the objections would be to that. Everybody wins.

Simple, it's not furry, related or not, it would still be humans at the eyes of anyone.

Butterscotch said:
Simple, it's not furry, related or not, it would still be humans at the eyes of anyone.

Same is true of that of humans in comics. Theres an association that makes it relevant in both cases.

And your simple point addresses nothing; human or not, people looking at furry images may also desire related non-furry images.

Lets ask a constructive question: What is gained by allowing the images? What is lost by allowing the images?

A) People wishing to see a humanized image of something furry may simply do so.

B) Nothing. No one is put out by allowing these images; anyone not wishing to see can use "-humanized" or "-not_furry" and not be exposed to those things. Those really opposed can utilize the blacklist, same as those not wishing to see some other characteristic.

I tend to agree with NotMe on the if quacks like a duck rule. It's much easier to enforce than having a big discussion over the quality of your humanized sparkledog army.

bella said:
Lets ask a constructive question: What is gained by allowing the images? What is lost by allowing the images?

Gained by allowing non-furry: nothing of value, off-topic clutter and "advice animal" memes, bloating and spam-atizing of tags, potentially increased strain on server and db-resources

Lost by disallowing non-furry: nothing of value, off-topic clutter and "advice animal" memes, bloating and spam-atizing of tags, potentially increased strain on server and db-resources.

Bottom line: you may need to find another booru-ish site that is as good at tagging as we are, which is also as well-moderated as this one for your disgustingly icky fleshie-fetish.

ragswift said:
I tend to agree with NotMe on the if quacks like a duck rule. It's much easier to enforce than having a big discussion over the quality of your humanized sparkledog army.

Gained by allowing non-furry: nothing of value, off-topic clutter and "advice animal" memes, bloating and spam-atizing of tags, potentially increased strain on server and db-resources

Lost by disallowing non-furry: nothing of value, off-topic clutter and "advice animal" memes, bloating and spam-atizing of tags, potentially increased strain on server and db-resources.

Bottom line: you may need to find another booru-ish site that is as good at tagging as we are, which is also as well-moderated as this one for your disgustingly icky fleshie-fetish.

Be gone with you, death to humans, etc.

XD Is fleshie-secution a thing? I guess it is now.

Your arguments are nonsense; off-topic clutter is undefined and arguable, advice animals are not "non-furry" and are irrelevant to this,and the tags already exist for "non-furry" (which has 3463 pictures tagged) and "Humanized" (1867 pictures tagged).

The strain on the resources you're talking about are going to occur anyways, this is an image hosting site. The difference is encompassing all interests of the community or nit-picking. I doubt the influx of humanized pictures will be much more than the current inflow.

Bottom line: you may not share the same interests, but many here do and there is little reason not to reasonably make efforts to include them. They are related materials, not just random memes or something someone wants to add.

bella said:
there is little reason not to reasonably make efforts to include them.

We are making reasonable efforts to include them; that's why there are thousands on the site and not zero. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

ippiki_ookami said:
We are making reasonable efforts to include them; that's why there are thousands on the site and not zero. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Reason is the base word in reasonable and you guys lack a reason for deleting some and leaving others.

I'm not trying to bash, I'm trying to bring to light a flaw. Lacking some definition for what stays and goes is a flaw that should be addressed one way or the other.

bella said:
Glad to hear you guys are discussing it. I don't understand why indirectly furry related stuff shouldn't be allowed; as stated, many people looking for furry might also want the non-furry versions. For those who don't, it would be pretty simple to search for pictures without non-furry characteristics with the lovely search system we have here. Its sort of like the "Don't like something? Black list it!" rule. It makes everyone happy, I personally don't see what the objections would be to that. Everybody wins.

The problem is easily explained, where do we draw the line?

On what grounds would we delete a purely human character if we allow human versions of ponies for example? Do you want to tell person A "sorry, we don't allow your human because there is no furry-version of him"? What if somebody creates a furry version of every Naruto character? Suddenly we'd have to allow all Naruto art or we'd be hypocrites.

e621 is supposed to be a one-stop shop for all things furry art, you want furry art? We got it. You search for something specific? We got the best search system.

As long as this site is classified as furry then that is what our focus should be, I wouldn't mind a non-furry e621 but I really wouldn't like to see a drastic shift in the hosted content on here.
Rather a new, non-furry e621 sister based on the same software, heck, I'd probably even apply for mod/admin there as well.

With all that said, http://www.rule34.xxx does host literally everything and their tagging system is similar to ours, slightly different but similar, the only thing that really sucks is their advertising, hope you got adblock up and running.

NotMeNotYou said:
The problem is easily explained, where do we draw the line?

On what grounds would we delete a purely human character if we allow human versions of ponies for example? Do you want to tell person A "sorry, we don't allow your human because there is no furry-version of him"? What if somebody creates a furry version of every Naruto character? Suddenly we'd have to allow all Naruto art or we'd be hypocrites.

e621 is supposed to be a one-stop shop for all things furry art, you want furry art? We got it. You search for something specific? We got the best search system.

As long as this site is classified as furry then that is what our focus should be, I wouldn't mind a non-furry e621 but I really wouldn't like to see a drastic shift in the hosted content on here.
Rather a new, non-furry e621 sister based on the same software, heck, I'd probably even apply for mod/admin there as well.

With all that said, http://www.rule34.xxx does host literally everything and their tagging system is similar to ours, slightly different but similar, the only thing that really sucks is their advertising, hope you got adblock up and running.

As far as I can tell, we already do accept the "Naruto furry" scenario (See: https://e621.net/post/index/1/naruto%20human); If it has ears and a tail its likely to be accepted, even without they are here.

The line, in my opinion, would be a fairly distinct and clear furry association (maybe based on originally furry subjects). People come here for furry, some if they see non-furry versions of what are usually furry subjects and enjoy that, its encompassed.

All in all though, I'm guess i'm just a bit irked about the mismanagement of these types of images. Its annoying to try an upload something and have it rejected when other similar works (possibly of lesser quality) are accepted. This is a site dedicated to a higher quality, the strongly followed guidelines and rules for posting and what is accepted is what separates this from a lesser, but similar, image site.

EDIT: and if the possibility of a sister site is there, i think its a nice option too. just a bit inconvenient when looking for similar works (looking for a character and having to go to 2 places to find it all)

EDIT2: ippiki ookami, I do apologize for re-uploading the image. Was childish, but I kinda wanted to test the system, was hoping another mod with a differing opinion would see it and see how that works out. Again, was childish and silly.

NotMeNotYou said:
...things that are directly furry related but not drawings/cgi (photographs of statues, plushies, fur suits and the likes) should be irrelevant...

I certainly hope not. I like that plushies, statues, etc are on here in small amounts. Well, the handcrafted stuff more than any mass produced gibberish. While the artistic medium is very different, creating real world three dimensional sculptures of furry characters is still "furry art", isn't it? And someone who made a plushie of a furry character is just using sculpture via fabric and related materials. So, I don't see those as automatically being irrelevant to the site. Although, I'd understand limiting or picking only the creme of the crop since they aren't the site's main focus either.

furrypickle said:
I certainly hope not. I like that plushies, statues, etc are on here in small amounts. Well, the handcrafted stuff more than any mass produced gibberish. While the artistic medium is very different, creating real world three dimensional sculptures of furry characters is still "furry art", isn't it? And someone who made a plushie of a furry character is just using sculpture via fabric and related materials. So, I don't see those as automatically being irrelevant to the site. Although, I'd understand limiting or picking only the creme of the crop since they aren't the site's main focus either.

I agree. Its not like these things are in huge amounts, half the time when I'm skimming over, I miss most of it or just totally ignore it. Its not what I'm looking for, but its not bothering me.