Hiya, How are you doing?
For me I can't say I'm all that fine myself like I usually am.

You see,
Not to long ago I posted this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45DK1H1ZSas
It feel in line with rules so didn't think it would be much of a problem to post it here since the guy was already tagged and already had a video here.
https://e621.net/post/show/51750/2007-amazing-animated-anthro-bad_posture-barefoot-

Though after posting it after it, A few hours later this happened.
https://e621.net/post/show/873069

"Screenshot" Now that's the part that get's me,
I could sorta get it if it said irreverent to site but Screenshot?
There weren't any watermakers that detracted from the video and it was over 200x200.
(What I looked up for reference for these sorta thing: https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:rules )

I've tried to get in contact with both the admin who took it down
and the next admin that came to mind to ask why but both gave me nothing in response.

So I decided to take this public,
Did I just miss the memo on this guy about not posting his videos like this or was there just something fundamentally wrong with my upload and doesn't have to with the video it's self?

Taking stuff public is always bound to cause drama. You got to keep in mind the moderators on E621 got lots of stuff to do, be it approving images, reviewing flags, takedown requests, or even real life stuff.
I'm not a moderator but I'd say it's safe to bet they always have the thing on their screen that says "You have new DMail!", so there's quite a bit for them to go through. Best thing to do is wait about a week for a reply.

If I had to take a guess, NMNY probably clicked the wrong delete reason preset, and you can't really change the delete reason without undeleting and redeleting which is a hassle so most of the time it's just shrugged off.
As for why it got deleted, variety of reasons: Could be screen capture software with bad watermark placement on it(EG: "Unregistered hypercam", "AVI2FLV DEMO VERSION", etc). Or it could just not be relevant enough(Don't ask me what counts as relevant, it varies from mod to mod). It'd been best to get the video directly from their DA page if possible(I can't see if you did since it's been deleted).

For the most part, just don't try to worry about it too much. If a mod deletes something they delete it for a reason, sometimes that reason may be vague or unknown, but it very likely was done for a valid reason. It's nothing against you or your post, it's just quality control/relevance filtering/etc.

Qmannn said:
Wait, how did you acquire the file? Did you download the highest quality version from YouTube or did you actually record the screen with screen capture software?

This is nice.

https://www.savedeo.com/

Qmannn said:
Wait, how did you acquire the file? Did you download the highest quality version from YouTube or did you actually record the screen with screen capture software?

I Downloaded a high quality file using "Freemake Video Downloader"
then converted it into a WEBM using "SUPER ©"
Getting the footage that sorta way is major pain imo

Chaser said:
Taking stuff public is always bound to cause drama. You got to keep in mind the moderators on E621 got lots of stuff to do, be it approving images, reviewing flags, takedown requests, or even real life stuff.
I'm not a moderator but I'd say it's safe to bet they always have the thing on their screen that says "You have new DMail!", so there's quite a bit for them to go through. Best thing to do is wait about a week for a reply.

If I had to take a guess, NMNY probably clicked the wrong delete reason preset, and you can't really change the delete reason without undeleting and redeleting which is a hassle so most of the time it's just shrugged off.
As for why it got deleted, variety of reasons: Could be screen capture software with bad watermark placement on it(EG: "Unregistered hypercam", "AVI2FLV DEMO VERSION", etc). Or it could just not be relevant enough(Don't ask me what counts as relevant, it varies from mod to mod). It'd been best to get the video directly from their DA page if possible(I can't see if you did since it's been deleted).

For the most part, just don't try to worry about it too much. If a mod deletes something they delete it for a reason, sometimes that reason may be vague or unknown, but it very likely was done for a valid reason. It's nothing against you or your post, it's just quality control/relevance filtering/etc.

I know this sorta thing tends to lead to drama but it really seem like the only way to get an answer seeing that I've already waited a couple of days and got zip from them. As for the quality goes, It was exactly like this but a bit better (Since it wasn't that long)
https://e621.net/post/show/837164/5_fingers-animated-anthro-bandage-barefoot-boots-b

And that just it when it comes to the mods, they make mistakes from time to time and that's not a bad thing. Their human after all not god but, I just wanted an explanation why this one video was taken down out of all the other I and other have done and for "Screenshot"

Notkastar said:
"Screenshot" Now that's the part that get's me,
I could sorta get it if it said irreverent to site but Screenshot?

It's actually Screencap, meaning that the content is capped from somewhere in some form. I actually have zero clue about how screencaps are handled here as there's even screencap tag and nothing mentioned on dnp list. But I do understand that posting screenshots, gifs and such from commercially available material like cartoons and anime, even if they are freely available, isn't main focus of the site, may cause some issues with whoever created original thing and may cause flood of unnecessary content. Was actually amazed there was only three posts from that star fox zero film.

furballs_dc said:
This is nice.

https://www.savedeo.com/

That site doesn't seem to be able to combine audio into higher quality variations of video :p

Just tiny bit of information, youtube already saves all their videos in WebM VP9 format, so there's actually no need for converting and if you download from there, just download that stream. Most youtube ripping softwares suck by being too user friendly and only offer the MP4 variant of the video, sometimes not offering the DASH version either.
Just use Jdownloader for that. Helped one dude with telemonsters episodes earlier with setting up proxy and selecting stream.

I have followed youtubes own dramas for some time now and one of the reasons coming to mind is that the video is really fresh. At that point it still generates ad revenue for the artist who created it so ripping it and posting it here will decrease that revenue and if the video is awesome you do not want to do that. Facebook has actully been one big player in this as it's now the biggest site to basically steal content from youtube. At least that artist does seem to have patreon to help with that.

But that's just my view on matter. I did shuffle trough that post some time ago and I did notice wrong aspect ratio of 4:3 while original was 16:9. So it could've been that, it could've been that it was focused on humans at the beginning of the video (I'm pretty sure staff doesn't have time to do complete research on every post) or combination of all of the reasons and something else. But in the end only the person who removed the thing knows what he was thinking.

Mario69 said:
It's actually Screencap, meaning that the content is capped from somewhere in some form. I actually have zero clue about how screencaps are handled here as there's even screencap tag and nothing mentioned on dnp list. But I do understand that posting screenshots, gifs and such from commercially available material like cartoons and anime, even if they are freely available, isn't main focus of the site, may cause some issues with whoever created original thing and may cause flood of unnecessary content. Was actually amazed there was only three posts from that star fox zero film.

But that raises even more question,
If there's already a tag for it why remove it for being it?
and there are other videos labeled as such, Why remove this one in particular?

I could understand if this was from an anime or a cartoon but, it's not.
This was more along the lines of a a fan creation that isn't all
that much different from this.
https://e621.net/post/show/811605/animal_crossing-animated-anthro-arthropod-avian-bi
Which got approved.

Notkastar said:
But that raises even more question,
If there's already a tag for it why remove it for being it?
and there are other videos labeled as such, Why remove this one in particular?

No screencaps is a newish rule. Very old posts don't get removed for new rules.

Also There are some borderline good edits of screencaps that have been approved. They are kind of rare but they do exist.

parasprite said:
No screencaps is a newish rule. Very old posts don't get removed for new rules.

Also There are some borderline good edits of screencaps that have been approved. They are kind of rare but they do exist.

I would actually like to know what does this rule count? Not questioning the rule, pretty much common sense if you dig into it, just want to know what it covers as I sometimes upload content that is literally screencap. I didn't see any mention of it in avoid posting page or anywhere else and would like to know what is and isn't allowed.

Because these are pretty recent uploads and approved.
Recording from Unity engine game:
post #876996

Still image from official nintendo animated star fox video:
post #875608 post #875165 post #875443

Small looped gif from CardCaptor Sakura anime with balls edited in:
post #873712

Telemonsters episode, directly ripped from youtube via south korean proxy:
post #866503

parasprite said:
No screencaps is a newish rule. Very old posts don't get removed for new rules.

Also There are some borderline good edits of screencaps that have been approved. They are kind of rare but they do exist.

Oh, Guess that would explain it.
Thanks, All I was looking for was an explanation =)

Mario69 said:
would like to know what is and isn't allowed.

Same here, Maybe there's something I could do to the footage to make it passable.
(I've came this far, What's a few more extra minutes)

Mario69 said:
I would actually like to know what does this rule count? Not questioning the rule, pretty much common sense if you dig into it, just want to know what it covers as I sometimes upload content that is literally screencap. I didn't see any mention of it in avoid posting page or anywhere else and would like to know what is and isn't allowed.

The rule is mainly intended for stuff like this, TV cartoon rips, screenshots from second life/random flash files, etc. It was put in place to prevent people from spamming the page with low effort content (regardless of how well-done the art itself might be).

Mario69 said:
I didn't see any mention of it in avoid posting page or anywhere else

It's in the Code of Conduct:

• Knowingly or repeatedly uploading screenshots, images under 200x200 pixels, images with artifacts or large watermarks, and/or non-artistic images (motivational posters, Second Life, memes, image macros, etc.)

parasprite said:

It's in the Code of Conduct:

Wait, Then this would fit given the criteria right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45DK1H1ZSas

The Video it's self was bigger then 200x200, No artifacts in sight,
No watermarks (That I could see anyway) and it's beaming artist quality.
I'm still not 100% sure what falls under "Screencap" since it sounds like it
apply to every video but, would that one be an exception?

parasprite said:
It was put in place to prevent people from spamming the page with low effort content (regardless of how well-done the art itself might be).

Why is doing that bad/unwanted/against the CoC?

titanmelon said:
Why is doing that bad/unwanted/against the CoC?

Because the main focus on the site is user generated content and being able to simply take screenshots of things and posting them like images (low effort) ruins the reason behind this site having such high quality content. A good example where this is has already gotten out of control is derpibooru, its exactly the reason why I don't go over there because a high number of its images are screencaps and then you get the screencap edits which add more useless content.

Its just a protection also for the site itself as for each image that is added into the database the more memory the site uses, quoting the message from Danbooru which e621's software is a fork of,

"For best performance, you will need at least 256MB of RAM for PostgreSQL and Rails. The memory requirement will grow as your database gets bigger."

From what I remember, Rule34 added a similar rule when someone uploaded screencaps of the Mass Effect sex scenes. Frame by frame. Thousands of posts.

Genjar said:
From what I remember, Rule34 added a similar rule when someone uploaded screencaps of the Mass Effect sex scenes. Frame by frame. Thousands of posts.

ugh, i can imagine the problems that may cause. i've seen people do that with cutscenes of some games over on gamefaqs. like, some people would take dozens, if not hundreds of screenshots of a single cutscene and upload them to the screenshots section for a game. different as the screenshot section IS used forscreenshots but this would count more as an image gallery than anything.

basically, so many pics of just ONE scene in something is little more than a colossal waste of space both visually and on a hard drive.

And now I don't know anymore =_=

post #878804

This was uploaded pretty recently and got approved.
With all due respect, How does this qualify given the new rule
and what does it have that the video doesn't?

Your upload was a random YouTube music video with some animals in it, that video contains furry characters.

However, I agree that YouTube videos are one of largest grey areas left concerning uploads, but I'm unsure how we're going to solve/clarify this just yet.

Personally I am very much against anything from YouTube that is "just" regular media with some animals thrown into it, as well as that I don't like people uploading series like those telemonsters for the same that I don't like that people upload Webcomics as both take away revenue from the artist(s).

Well, in my opinion, it would not be reasonable to have screenshots or etc., on this site. One of the good reasons is mentioned, a person can post a large portion of screenshots that have little differences, because of minuscule timeframe differences. But, now to my reason: If we define ourselfs as an artistic archive, then we shouldn't have a COMPANY's imagery here. Having concept art, line art, or etc., would be fine, it shows it was drawn by at least one person, but having an entire company to make art should not be allowed because they have dedicated teams, more resources, specific visions, etc., on their "art". So, they can mass-produce images that'd be called art, even if it is artistic, and put them out in bulk. My same disposition is applied to SFM images, I wouldn't call it out if you can put them out in bulk, regardless of effort.

Or in shorthand: I don't think screenshots/caps should be allowed because of an aforementioned reason, but also because the amount of effort between artists and company defines art for me. I don't believe an image is artistic if you constantly use it, over and over again, in bulk. Using models, drawing the same base image, or making edits en masse is not artistic, but I WILL say that the base position, model, or some edits would define itself as artistic because it does have effort put in it. I'll put it into an example and say having five seperate images, from seperate points of a series, feature a head-shot of the protagonist, facial features and all, be posted up here because the only difference is minor details and backgrounds, wouldn't be too nice (for lack of better word) to see; it'd just be clutter amongst the other images.

And if I were to say an ultimate verdict: unless you can show that an artist, or a group, drew what you posted if it is a screenshot, and not a company, said screenshot shouldn't be allowed. I thank you all, and have a marry Eurghday!

NotMeNotYou said:
Your upload was a random YouTube music video with some animals in it, that video contains furry characters.

I don't understand what you mean,
The Dinos in the video were furries
(Drawing of Dancing Simi-Feral Scales if you wanna get technical)
If you ment characters in a series then that alienates about a good portion of art here
Also the same could be said about this

post #780957
Which you yourself approved

NotMeNotYou said:
However, I agree that YouTube videos are one of largest grey areas left concerning uploads, but I'm unsure how we're going to solve/clarify this just yet.

I can see that, Something with that large of a line of Gray take time to sorta out. I just saying does the video I pose really fall short given what's here already.

NotMeNotYou said:
Personally I am very much against anything from YouTube that is "just" regular media with some animals thrown into it, as well as that I don't like people uploading series like those telemonsters for the same that I don't like that people upload Webcomics as both take away revenue from the artist(s).

Doesn't that fall under a thing of personal preference then something that's explicitly a rule here?

Siral_Exan said:

And if I were to say an ultimate verdict: unless you can show that an artist, or a group, drew what you posted if it is a screenshot, and not a company, said screenshot shouldn't be allowed. I thank you all, and have a marry Eurghday!

*Clear Throat*
I'm not 100% if their apart of a company or not but, Even if they where I don't think it means you can't make an artistic statement =)

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit c

Edit:
C's debatable but still

NotMeNotYou said:
Your upload was a random YouTube music video with some animals in it, that video contains furry characters.

"Some animals"? jurassic_world is pretty damn popular in the furry fandom, though. That video definitely shouldn't have been deleted _if_ the upload was high-quality, considering dinosaurs and that movie in general are accepted here.

post #780957 was "a random Youtube music video" that I ripped from youtube and uploaded, so youtube videos obviously aren't against the rules in general. The only thing I can think of is that the uploaded WEBM file just wasn't high quality enough? Or there's just some kind of bias against funny non-sexual dino content.

Notkastar said:
*siral helps him clear his throat*

And, after clearing mine, I shall say: a lot of this site falls apon opinion. From certain rules to image quality, and there are deletions because of opinion-based quality. Screencaps fall under quality control, and thus an admin gets to judge. It sucks, you can see the effects of not having specifics on images, but ultimately it is to maintain the site's quality as a whole. We're not a dump site.

On the other, I can't speak for him

On my one, you can usually judge screencaps if it's on YouTube (as a source), comes from a game that features customization, thus giving "infinite" options, all that'd get a screenshot, or if it's an obvious edit/clean screenshot against the original image. In shorthand: we can tell if it's a Screencap that wouldn't belong here.

That's pretty much the last I can say off the top of my head, so take it away, next responder!

Kida said:
The only thing I can think of is that the uploaded WEBM file just wasn't high quality enough? Or there's just some kind of bias against funny non-sexual dino content.

Siral_Exan said:
And, after clearing mine, I shall say: a lot of this site falls apon opinion. From certain rules to image quality, and there are deletions because of opinion-based quality. Screencaps fall under quality control, and thus an admin gets to judge. It sucks, you can see the effects of not having specifics on images, but ultimately it is to maintain the site's quality as a whole. We're not a dump site.

On the other, I can't speak for him

On my one, you can usually judge screencaps if it's on YouTube (as a source), comes from a game that features customization, thus giving "infinite" options, all that'd get a screenshot, or if it's an obvious edit/clean screenshot against the original image. In shorthand: we can tell if it's a Screencap that wouldn't belong here.

That's pretty much the last I can say off the top of my head, so take it away, next responder!

Gladly =)
This was the video in question:
https://my.mixtape.moe/gekkan.WEBM

Yes I got it from youtube but I didn't use a screencap.
Trust me, Those things are a pain to use,
Twice as much if the video buffers at any point!

I downloaded using "Freemake Video Downloader"
on http://prntscr.com/awxv8v

The controverted it using "SUPER ©"
on http://prntscr.com/awxw5x

If I went for anything better quailty, I'd boost the chances of it messing up mid upload =P

Notkastar said:
Gladly =)
This was the video in question:
https://my.mixtape.moe/gekkan.WEBM

Yes i got it from youtube but I didn't use a screencap.
Trust me, Those things are a pain to use,
Twice as much if the video buffers at any point!

I downloaded using "Freemake Video Downloader"
on http://prntscr.com/awxv8v

The controverted it using "SUPER ©"
on http://prntscr.com/awxw5x

If I went for anything better quailty, I'd boost the chances of it messing up mid upload =P

That... actually looked completely relevant. Except for the little end bit about subscribing, should probably have cut that part out of it.

Furrin_Gok said:
That... actually looked completely relevant. Except for the little end bit about subscribing, should probably have cut that part out of it.

I could fix that in a flash since I've been editing for a while now but,
I have to give credit one way or another :P

Also thanks for the support =)

Eleix said:
Its just a protection also for the site itself as for each image that is added into the database the more memory the site uses, quoting the message from Danbooru which e621's software is a fork of,

"For best performance, you will need at least 256MB of RAM for PostgreSQL and Rails. The memory requirement will grow as your database gets bigger."

May be partially true, but memory usage by the DB is an utter non-issue to us.

NotMeNotYou said:
Your upload was a random YouTube music video with some animals in it, that video contains furry characters.

However, I agree that YouTube videos are one of largest grey areas left concerning uploads, but I'm unsure how we're going to solve/clarify this just yet.

Personally I am very much against anything from YouTube that is "just" regular media with some animals thrown into it, as well as that I don't like people uploading series like those telemonsters for the same that I don't like that people upload Webcomics as both take away revenue from the artist(s).

Well, at least most stuff on youtube are SFW, so it's not like there will be any kind of surge of content from there and majority of artists seem to use tumblr for videos (uuuggghhh.... fuck that site with video content). And those videos which are NSFW, they are usually put as hidden, so they do not even have ads and artist uploaded the stuff as they do not have experience with video formats and there's good change that the video will be taken down at some point of time when one user flags it.

With telemonsters we are talking about content that isn't available to watch without VPN though. And then there are some artists who post their stuff in multiple places, so ad revenue isn't so big deal, like keke and I'm pretty sure he doesn't make money with tumblr or facebook.

But other than that, like I said earlier, I do also agree on this as some animators do actually get revenue from those videos and ripping/sharing instead of linking is just bad practise then. Actually one of local sites does this, they have gallery section like normal, but then they have seperate site for youtube embeds and games, so they wouldn't bother the main gallery and youtube stuff would still be from youtube.

Notkastar said:
Gladly =)
This was the video in question:
https://my.mixtape.moe/gekkan.WEBM

Yes i got it from youtube but I didn't use a screencap.
Trust me, Those things are a pain to use,
Twice as much if the video buffers at any point!

I downloaded using "Freemake Video Downloader"
on http://prntscr.com/awxv8v

The controverted it using "SUPER ©"
on http://prntscr.com/awxw5x

If I went for anything better quailty, I'd boost the chances of it messing up mid upload =P

Just once again friendly reminder that youtube has all their content in webm already, so there's no need to convert it as long as right stream is selected. If you rip it in other format and then convert it, you'll either decrease quality or increase filesize and may accidently screw up something like aspect ratio on that sample, which are neither good things.

Freemakes software doesn't let you do that and forces h264 codec download.

Here's comparison of that converted webm and direct download. They use nearly same bitrate, but youtube one is actually 1080p in resolution. (Also it's 30 FPS, didn't show in mediainfo for some reason)
http://i.imgur.com/OSXTx3Q.png

Furrin_Gok said:
That... actually looked completely relevant. Except for the little end bit about subscribing, should probably have cut that part out of it.

NO! NOOOOO! NOPE!
That would be exact same practise if you would take some image and remove artists signature! At that point you would not only take artists youtube moneyz, but also cut out their credits!
Wasn't fan of that at all when somebody did it with post #781805

the posting rules of e621 are literally "if an admin likes it, it stays"

everything else, avoid_posting list aside, is just window dressing

Mario69 said:

Just once again friendly reminder that youtube has all their content in webm already, so there's no need to convert it as long as right stream is selected. If you rip it in other format and then convert it, you'll either decrease quality or increase filesize and may accidently screw up something like aspect ratio on that sample, which are neither good things.

Freemakes software doesn't let you do that and forces h264 codec download.

Here's comparison of that converted webm and direct download. They use nearly same bitrate, but youtube one is actually 1080p in resolution. (Also it's 30 FPS, didn't show in mediainfo for some reason)
http://i.imgur.com/OSXTx3Q.png

Yup, You still got me beat in logistics of this kinda stuff though I really do think a smaller Frame size of 640x480 or 4:3 is the way to go. Is all nice and good to keep it's size as the way it is but, with 4:3 they could see the whole picture without having to zoom out or hitting download to see the entire picture. Also shown side to side with my video it's smaller meaning more people or someone with a bad connection would have a better chance at loading it (Please correct me if I'm wrong about the loading, That's just my guess at what could happen lol n_n;)

null0010 said:
the posting rules of e621 are literally "if an admin likes it, it stays"

everything else, avoid_posting list aside, is just window dressing

That's what I'm starting to think too =P

and comments like this:

NotMeNotYou said:
Your upload was a random YouTube music video with some animals in it, that video contains furry characters.

However, I agree that YouTube videos are one of largest grey areas left concerning uploads, but I'm unsure how we're going to solve/clarify this just yet.

Personally I am very much against anything from YouTube that is "just" regular media with some animals thrown into it, as well as that I don't like people uploading series like those telemonsters for the same that I don't like that people upload Webcomics as both take away revenue from the artist(s).

From the admin aren't helping,
Guess I could give it another shot and see if another admin could give it a second option but even that's in the air given the "New Rules" :P

Notkastar said:
Yup, You still got me beat in logistics of this kinda stuff though I really do think a smaller Frame size of 640x480 or 4:3 is the way to go. Is all nice and good to keep it's size as the way it is but, with 4:3 they could see the whole picture without having to zoom out or hitting download to see the entire picture. Also shown side to side with my video it's smaller meaning more people or someone with a bad connection would have a better chance at loading it (Please correct me if I'm wrong about the loading, That's just my guess at what could happen lol n_n;)

This is actually another problem when posting high quality video here. Site still doesn't scale videos at all, maybe at some point as it should be as easy as it is with images and it may not be the highest priority. That's also another thing, you should always post as high quality version as you can to here, I get the idea behind posting versions that are easier to view for bigger audience but this isn't youtube.

But first things first, if video is 16:9, you do NOT in any scenario just simply squeeze it to 4:3, never. Ever. You do not take portrait images, open them in paint, squeeze their height and upload here either. You are deforming artists original work, presenting it in false state. If you need lower resolution, only touch the resolution, not aspect ratio.
And lowering resolution doesn't mean it would load better with people with bad connection or mobile data caps and such. With that only thing that matters is filesize and bitrate is the thing that effects that. As you can see in my screenshot, bitrate is pretty similar and there's not much difference in filesize. That means those videos would load nearly identical to someone with bad connection as it buffers and doesn't load instantly.

I would actually like some guidelines for videos, similar to what images already have because of these exact reasons u_u

So at this point we have talked ripping animators fresh work which they are still making some money back and posting it here deformed and without credits. I'm fully againts this!

Notkastar said:

From the admin aren't helping,
Guess I could give it another shot and see if another admin could give it a second option but even that's in the air given the "New Rules" :P

Uploading previously deleted content is against the rules, trying to circumvent a ruling of the Lead Administrator is just in general a bad idea because I outrank everybody else.

Notkastar said:
I don't understand what you mean,
The Dinos in the video were furries
(Drawing of Dancing Simi-Feral Scales if you wanna get technical)
If you ment characters in a series then that alienates about a good portion of art here
Also the same could be said about this

post #780957
Which you yourself approved

Cartoon animals with hats vs animal people.

Notkastar said:
I can see that, Something with that large of a line of Gray take time to sorta out. I just saying does the video I pose really fall short given what's here already.

It falls short of it in my opinion, and since we have no clear guidelines personal opinion is all we have. Which is why I would like to get some real guidelines in place so nobody has to judge on personal preference at all.

Notkastar said:
Doesn't that fall under a thing of personal preference then something that's explicitly a rule here?

There is no explicit rule for YouTube content, that is my entire point. If the eventual guidelines would make your dancing raptor video acceptable content I'll restore it, until then it will stay deleted.

*Shrug*
Fair Enough,

Though I really don't like the current way this new rule is being enforcing.
It does sound like a work and progress to really set the guild-lines here so I guess the only real productive thing I could do outside talking about it would just be to wait and ask for a second opinion ones there's more of an outline to work with.

Also,
It was a really good thing that I decided to sleep on it before doing anything rash. That could have ended up terrible for me other wise lol
(Talk about dodging a bullet =)