Seeing as I seem to have had this problem recently, I would like to knwo why post #446190 was deleted. I understand it was deleted because it didn't meet "minimum quality standards". Was it because it was poorly drawn, or did it have visible compression artifacts? I have a different version, one I just completed (as good as I can get with my crappy art skills and an iPad) that I would like to upload.

No textures, no background, no shading, wobbly linework, ms paint fill effect. This is not critique, it's just what I'm seeing, and I'm guessing that's why it was deleted.

ippiki_ookami said:
No textures, no background, no shading, wobbly linework, ms paint fill effect. This is not critique, it's just what I'm seeing, and I'm guessing that's why it was deleted.

I suck at drawing anything, I guess I should just stop.

All of it done with a shitty, half broken stylus and a iPad. I'm not skilled at drawing anything.

That doesn't mean you should stop drawing. Just don't expect drawings of that quality to get approved here.

AmericanExistence said:
All of it done with a shitty, half broken stylus and a iPad. I'm not skilled at drawing anything.

I go by the 3 P's when I draw: Practice, patience, progress

Did you trace that from real porn?

ippiki_ookami said:
No textures, no background, no shading, wobbly linework, ms paint fill effect. This is not critique, it's just what I'm seeing, and I'm guessing that's why it was deleted.

Wait, isn't flagging for quality (bad quality) a big, like, REALLY REALLY BIG nono? Because i like to click on banned usernames, see why they got banned (yay internet hobbies!), and i tend to see a lot of " Flagging for 'bad quality' does not meet the Flagging Guidelines. Banned for X days/week(s)"
So why was that allowed? Also, i tend to see really bad blocking reasons, almost as bad as the infamous Mellis's "lobster ban". Like, seriously, you guys try to be funny on some, thats cool. But then some of you guys forget the golden rule of comedy.
RANDOM =/= FUNNY
So just saying "potato" wasn't even funny... probably just me on that... but either way, really bad banning reason...

Anyway, hope you guys get my point (eh, probably will)

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Wait, isn't flagging for quality (bad quality) a big, like, REALLY REALLY BIG nono? Because i like to click on banned usernames, see why they got banned (yay internet hobbies!), and i tend to see a lot of " Flagging for 'bad quality' does not meet the Flagging Guidelines. Banned for X days/week(s)"
So why was that allowed?

No one flagged it. It was deleted by an admin.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
RANDOM =/= FUNNY

As you were saying?

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Wait, isn't flagging for quality (bad quality) a big, like, REALLY REALLY BIG nono? Because i like to click on banned usernames, see why they got banned (yay internet hobbies!), and i tend to see a lot of " Flagging for 'bad quality' does not meet the Flagging Guidelines. Banned for X days/week(s)"
So why was that allowed? Also, i tend to see really bad blocking reasons, almost as bad as the infamous Mellis's "lobster ban". Like, seriously, you guys try to be funny on some, thats cool. But then some of you guys forget the golden rule of comedy.
RANDOM =/= FUNNY
So just saying "potato" wasn't even funny... probably just me on that... but either way, really bad banning reason...

Anyway, hope you guys get my point (eh, probably will)

No one's talking about flagging things. Don't know why you brought that up. And I have no idea what you mean by bad banning reason. No one has ever been banned for the reason "potato." Why are you even mentioning ban reasons? That has nothing to do with this topic.

SirAntagonist said:
As you were saying?

What? Wasn't meant to be funny. Just a " GOSH WOW!!" Comment.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
What? Wasn't meant to be funny. Just a " GOSH WOW!!" Comment.

I was talking about 4 different comments.

They all sound like they're desperately trying to be witty.

SirAntagonist said:
I was talking about 4 different comments.

They all sound like they're desperately trying to be witty.

I thought it was all one comment.

As this topic is about deleted posts, I'll just mention this here. With the help of http://iqdb.harry.lu/ I found that post #447489 was once uploaded to the site (post #116850) but it was taken down. Should it be flagged?

EsalRider said:
As this topic is about deleted posts, I'll just mention this here. With the help of http://iqdb.harry.lu/ I found that post #447489 was once uploaded to the site (post #116850) but it was taken down. Should it be flagged?

Yes. Previously deleted content is a legit reason to flag something. If you can find the takedown or notify an admin, it will be removed

EsalRider said:
As this topic is about deleted posts, I'll just mention this here. With the help of http://iqdb.harry.lu/ I found that post #447489 was once uploaded to the site (post #116850) but it was taken down. Should it be flagged?

Yes, these posts are supposed to get deleted as well, if you find something like that simply flag it for something like "Previously deleted in takedown <insert link here>" and then just link to either the post that was originally deleted or to the takedown, whatever link you have handy.