Consistently missing the point, and I'm not really sure why this is the primary argument. What's so bad about calling a site by what it's obviously being used for? Are people really going around telling friends and family "bro I go on e621 but it's totally not for the porn, it's definitely not a furry porn website, yeah the front page might be plastered with 90% porn and yeah it might be owned by a company that makes animal dildos but— no you don't understand wait—" Seriously, who are we trying to convince? This argument is silly.

darryus said:
you say that but there's a lot more porn-focused websites than e6 and they have more or less totally non-cringe comment sections, and they don't even have rules against it. and in general I think that comments in the "god, I wish that were me" are generally unuseful to having comment sections that contain competent discussion and I think trying to discourage comments like that is almost universally good.

I'm not sure what websites you're referring to, but I'd imagine they have a lot less comments in general, considering e621 is the largest furry porn site... Idk, I don't really see the merit in the creepy comments rule as it stands. It's very subjective, maybe not as much now, but still. If people don't like a comment, they'll downvote it. If an 'inappropriate' comment is getting upvoted, then maybe what you consider appropriate shouldn't be forcibly applied to everyone else.

Look, I'm not entirely against the idea of quality control for comments. I get that there are some really unnecessarily descriptive and vulgar comments that get left. But as it stands, this rule is just too strict and arbitrary. A lot of the time, it's just people making funny jokes and getting a laugh out of others that stumble across it. Take these ones for example. Were they really worthy of a warning? 10 upvotes say otherwise. For mild stuff like these, why not just let people have their fun? If you don't like comments like that, just downvote them and move on.

Oh, the 'no roleplaying' rule also has similar issues of people getting warned for quotes that are quite obviously jokes and not them attempting to start a roleplay session, but that's an argument for another time.

fishyvap said:
At the rate of which people are being banned (about a dozen a day) and warned (dozens more a day), I fear this website will accidentally turn into a hugbox of the admin-selected elite (not intentionally, of course).

Maaaaaan, folks have been saying that e6 would turn into a hugbox longer than the age of my account (which is almost 10 years old, damn I feel old). The probability of that happening is highly unlikely.

fishyvap said:
I'm not sure what websites you're referring to, but I'd imagine they have a lot less comments in general, considering e621 is the largest furry porn site...

I'm talking mostly about E(x)Hentai, somewhat similar in function to e6 as it's also a website that archives art, the two versions of the website combined get 75% more traffic than e6.
maybe it's because the website is formatted differently, since the only comments that a user can make are on the entire set as opposed to being able to make comments on individual images it's harder to make the stereotypical porn site comments. maybe it's the diffrent focus of the site of site twards story-based media like doujins and webcomics rather than individual pieces. maybe it's the audience, furries are not really known for their tact, so... although weebs aren't really either, so I'm not sure it's that.
in any case that site generally has pretty decent comment sections, like at least YouTube tier, if not better.

fishyvap said:
e621 is the largest furry porn site...

yeah, it is. and to a lot of people e6 and furry are nigh on synonymous, and because of that we're kind of the de facto representative of the furry fandom as a whole; the kind of comments that we allow on our website is going to color the perception of a lot of people, especially since comments are some of the easiest things for people to take screenies of and post around.

Ad long as I can keep making my sarcastic and bad jokes the admins can Do whatever they want to keep themselves sane IMO.

But the next update should be an instaban for political debates in the comment sections haha, becuase that shit is more aggravating to wall of text read through than any amount of creepy comments made by my fellow furries. Especially since some comment sections turn into full on warzones, making it harder to enjoy the picture honestly.

coebalt said:
A lot of stuff.

So I know that I'm a bit late to this party, but after reading all of the back and forth, I've gotta say, this was one of the most interesting debates I've seen in quite a while.

Credit where credit is dew. While I don't agree with every argument you've made, you did make quite a few points that made me stop and think. And not just a simple "Oh, that neat." and move on, but real contemplation on why this site is the way it is, and if it were to change, would that make things better or worse.

I will also give credit, that despite the amount of push back and debating you've received from others, you maintained calm and professional. Instead of calling there mothers hamsters, you acknowledged there arguments, and rebutted with counter points of your own. It's genuinely refreshing seeing a civil debate on the internet where nether side devolve in to petty insults.

A particular highlight for me was when you suggested "what if there was a ban on cute comments."

And it would have been so easy to blindly dismiss this as "Phhh, a ban on cute comments? That would never happen." but to Watsit credit, he did attempted to make a reasonable counter argument.

For all of that, and everything mentioned above, you have my genuine respect.

hamsterboy said:
Lots of things.

<3

darryus said:
and to a lot of people e6 and furry are nigh on synonymous, and because of that we're kind of the de facto representative of the furry fandom as a whole; the kind of comments that we allow on our website is going to color the perception of a lot of people, especially since comments are some of the easiest things for people to take screenies of and post around.

You sure? I feel like FA is a more fitting choice for representation. But what do i know, i'm still a fledgling in this fandom honestly.

FA is probably a more balanced representative, but Darryus was (correctly IMO) concerned with 'what site people do in practice currently treat as representative'.
Your comment is ambiguous enough that I can't tell which meaning you intended.

I just find the mental gymnastics people(includong the site staff) do in order to say e6 isn't a porn site hilarious.

All in the name of defending a rule made to keep people from making comments that reflect the art they're viewing.

I get that artists have apparently withdrawn consent for their art being hosted here, but I seriously have to question the reality of the reasons they are giving us for said withdrawals. They want us to believe it's because these artists don't like the comments they're seeing on their art, which... Okay, sure, I have seen some comments that make even me question wtf the person was thinking when they typed it out.

But at the same time I can't help but wonder if it has less to do with the comments being made on the images(think about it, how many artists are coming to e6 just to check what people are saying on their posts?) and more to do with the actual content being hosted here?

We're *told* it's because of people making "creepy comments" but... Something tells me the truth probably has more to do with them not wanting their Art being hosted on the same site that allows Cub, Scat, Guro and other fetishes other art sites ban on principle.

Moreover, I would bet money that even if the comments *are* what made these artists withdraw their consent, it would likely involve commenters projecting such fetishes onto otherwise unrelated art, rather than someone looking at a dick and saying "oooh yeah I want that inside me" .

There are better ways to regulate the extreme comments that may actually trigger such retaliatory actions than deciding that no one gets to have fun in the comments section just because very particular types of comments are causing a problem.

coebalt said:
I just find the mental gymnastics people(includong the site staff) do in order to say e6 isn't a porn site hilarious.

To say nothing of how stubborn people can be to recognize there's more than porn here, and plenty of people aren't here for the porn. Nearly half the site isn't Explicit, and there's many Explicit posts that aren't porn (due to strict guidelines regarding genitalia, including x_anuses and tasteful_nudity that includes sheaths or barely_visible_pussys, along with blood and violence).

coebalt said:
All in the name of defending a rule made to keep people from making comments that reflect the art they're viewing.

You can make comments about the art, even crass/lewd comments on porn. You're just not allowed to role-play, or talk about your personal sexual history/fantasies.

coebalt said:
But at the same time I can't help but wonder if it has less to do with the comments being made on the images(think about it, how many artists are coming to e6 just to check what people are saying on their posts?) and more to do with the actual content being hosted here?

Given that there are artists that post their own art here (sometimes with CDNP status which states only they can upload), and there's even a helpful little page to see all the comments on their own uploads, there's definitely room to say artists stopped allowing their art here because they don't want to wade through those kinds of comments. Not to mention when the contents of the image may hold some personal meaning to an artist or character owner, seeing comments about how sexy they are can be fine while comments of strangers wanting to pin them down and rail them can make said artist/owner very uncomfortable.

coebalt said:
We're *told* it's because of people making "creepy comments" but... Something tells me the truth probably has more to do with them not wanting their Art being hosted on the same site that allows Cub, Scat, Guro and other fetishes other art sites ban on principle.

Artists have gone DNP because of that too, along with character owners taking down all art of their character, and they've had no problem saying it. Don't see why they'd need to lie and say it's about "creepy comments" if it's really because of the kind of stuff that's allowed. It's not like they'd face hordes of disapproving stares for saying they don't want their art on a site that deals with cub and scat porn.

coebalt said:
There are better ways to regulate the extreme comments that may actually trigger such retaliatory actions than deciding that no one gets to have fun in the comments section just because very particular types of comments are causing a problem.

Plenty of people get to have fun in the comments, not sure what you're talking about. People can have fun without talking about how they want breed fictional characters, or be some stranger's pet, or how much it reminds them of the time they got a boner at school.

benjiboyo said:
You sure? I feel like FA is a more fitting choice for representation. But what do i know, i'm still a fledgling in this fandom honestly.

I said "de facto representative", meaning it's true whether it was intended or by coincidence.

FA had held that position for a really long time, but over the last 3 years or so e621 has overtaken FA in monthly visits as well as it's prevalence in the wider internet. there's still people who'd argue FA is more important but that opinion is pretty quickly fading.

watsit said:

Plenty of people get to have fun in the comments, not sure what you're talking about. People can have fun without talking about how they want breed fictional characters, or be some stranger's pet, or how much it reminds them of the time they got a boner at school.

It's very rare that I see more than 5 comments on any particular image.

Let alone comments more that are more profound than "I liked this image :)"

Though I cant claim to have even viewed more than 0.05% of images on the site.

coebalt said:
It's very rare that I see more than 5 comments on any particular image.

Let alone comments more that are more profound than "I liked this image :)"

Though I cant claim to have even viewed more than 0.05% of images on the site.

If it's more then 5 half chance to not it's drama

coebalt said:
It's very rare that I see more than 5 comments on any particular image.

Let alone comments more that are more profound than "I liked this image :)"

Though I cant claim to have even viewed more than 0.05% of images on the site.

comments on safe posts, parts of larger series (especially the last page of a capter), animations, and story-based content all generally contain a higher volume of coherent comments, animations generally because of their sheer popularity leading to a higher volume of comments in general.

lol_comments has a fair few (non controversial) posts with people having fun in a way that cannot possibly be described as profound.

Having fun by posting -clever- comments may be less incentivized now that the comment search interface has changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current interface doesn't make it easy to see 'highest scored comments within X time period' ( last week, let's say.)

rowan_bojog said:
I would be ok with them being more lax- I would also be ok with them being more strict. What I don't like is how vague the rules are in this and in many other cases. As someone commented above, the line between OK and getting a record is razor-thin... even in the sample comments it's confusing how similar the examples are.

If the rules were 100% clear it would make mods' jobs easier, and give users a little more security that we won't receive a random bad record for something ambiguous.

Honestly its more non-existent than it is razor thin

ragnars_rock said:
But the next update should be an instaban for political debates in the comment sections haha, becuase that shit is more aggravating to wall of text read through than any amount of creepy comments made by my fellow furries. Especially since some comment sections turn into full on warzones, making it harder to enjoy the picture honestly.

Hoo, that’s like putting a “Do Not Press” sticker on a landmine. Given we already have political tags for political posts, that would end up with a whole wave of bans. I might hate the whole sections on “the merits of communism/fascism” or diatribes on “why cub should be illegal/legal”, but I’d rather have that than tiptoe around another ill-defined rule. Not to mention the people that would do it just to get a reaction…

thehuskyk9 said:
…longer than the age of my account (which is almost 10 years old, damn I feel old).

Don’t say that, my account’s just a bit older than yours, and I don’t even get the excuse of being former staff. 🫠

Some of this rule is very odd to me. I totally understand not bringing in new fetishes, going above the content level of the original artwork or talking about real-life activities. Those are very reasonable.

But not mentioning any explicit details or sexual fantasies? Apart from the somewhat arbitrary nature of what does and doesn't count, it seems unusual to me in context. Regardless of whether e621 is a porn site or not, a particular piece of artwork can be porn. Furthermore, that pornographic artwork usually represents the explicit sexual fantasies of either the artist or the commissioner. It seems very strange to be all in favour of hosting the explicit sexual fantasy but banning any comment which is also an explicit sexual fantasy. The difference between the comment and the artwork seems minimal.

I suppose one could argue that there's a difference because the picture is specifically what is being hosted while the discussion is extra or that artists don't want certain comments. That also feels odd. Isn't the point of making this art public and having a comment section for people to enjoy a shared interest? The people that draw, commission and enjoy the art are linked by having those same interests. Saying you can share the fantasy picture but not discuss your own fantasy seems a little like having a furry community where someone can share art of their fursona but banning anyone who comments to share their own fursona or express an interest in being the same sort of furry as the original poster.

darryus said:
I said "de facto representative", meaning it's true whether it was intended or by coincidence.

FA had held that position for a really long time, but over the last 3 years or so e621 has overtaken FA in monthly visits as well as it's prevalence in the wider internet. there's still people who'd argue FA is more important but that opinion is pretty quickly fading.

I saw another thread discussing traffic on both sites, seems like FAs getting more posts but less traffic. But i stand by FA being a better rep for the fact that it's more diverse in stuff it does. Also, i think the name itself is self explanitory for the general public, in comparison to the scientific name of MSG.

savageorange said:
FA is probably a more balanced representative, but Darryus was (correctly IMO) concerned with 'what site people do in practice currently treat as representative'.
Your comment is ambiguous enough that I can't tell which meaning you intended.

Darryus pointed out how we're the de facto rep for the fandom which i disagreed on since were just images and art. Now, i don't know the stats for both sites or the general public, but i feel from face value it'd be FA.

benjiboyo said:
I saw another thread discussing traffic on both sites, seems like FAs getting more posts but less traffic. But i stand by FA being a better rep for the fact that it's more diverse in stuff it does. Also, i think the name itself is self explanitory for the general public, in comparison to the scientific name of MSG.

Not sure about how Darryus feels about this, but personally i cannot agree with reasoning that is based on the premise that the public has opinions which make rational sense.

I don't feel qualified to comment on which site actually represents 'furry' more in public opinion, but i do think that assessing it from the point of view of advertisement (who links to the site, in what context) makes more sense than expecting the public to accurately assess the objective features of the respective sites.

rakuen said:
But not mentioning any explicit details or sexual fantasies?

Explicit details are fine, sexual fantasies are not. "Chunie makes fucking sexy cocks", ok. "I want to suck on that cock all day", not ok.

rakuen said:
Regardless of whether e621 is a porn site or not, a particular piece of artwork can be porn. Furthermore, that pornographic artwork usually represents the explicit sexual fantasies of either the artist or the commissioner.

Not all porn is equal. And just because someone makes porn doesn't mean they want to hear all the thirsty comments of people fantasizing about the character. It'd be like a real life person making real life porn for people to enjoy, and getting comments from strangers saying they want to find them and fuck them. That would be pretty damn creepy, right? Considering some of the characters here can represent real people, or have close personal meaning to their creators, just because they may like having porn made of them doesn't mean they want to hear what strangers want to do to them. For some people, making porn can be a therapeutic way to deal with sexual trauma they've suffered, which unsolicited creepy comments can flare up that trauma.

You would have a better time arguing that artists/creators are sometimes fine with creepy comments, but e6 currently doesn't make exceptions like that, and there may be issues with doing so.

This is the kind of thing that turns websites into ghost towns but, hey, good luck with that!

savageorange said:
Not sure about how Darryus feels about this, but personally i cannot agree with reasoning that is based on the premise that the public has opinions which make rational sense.

I don't feel qualified to comment on which site actually represents 'furry' more in public opinion, but i do think that assessing it from the point of view of advertisement (who links to the site, in what context) makes more sense than expecting the public to accurately assess the objective features of the respective sites.

Ok, this discussion may be going on a direction too deep for my interest and liking. I'll just end it at, yeah, we of course don't know the truth of the matter, we're not omniscient, and data can't truly answer everything.

coebalt said:
I get that artists have apparently withdrawn consent for their art being hosted here, but I seriously have to question the reality of the reasons they are giving us for said withdrawals.

Any artist that is against specific content we host will more than likely be happy to tell us about trying to distance themselves from that content, case in point being people against cub are generally vocal about it. Denouncing cub would also directly garner them support from like minded people, which will look good as a publicly performed action.
But let us assume you're right and they're lying, what would they gain from doing so? Is there a demography of people out there that would appreciate that as a performative action? Would there be negative consequences for saying the truth?

I would argue there quite literally is no reason why they would be lying, in fact if they wanted to lie it would be much more beneficial to not say they don't want their works here because of anybody being a creep, and instead they'd just say they don't want their art here because of cub porn. This will instantly garner them bonus points with a pretty large group of people, and thus potentially grow their client list.

coebalt said:
We're *told* it's because of people making "creepy comments" but... Something tells me the truth probably has more to do with them not wanting their Art being hosted on the same site that allows Cub, Scat, Guro and other fetishes other art sites ban on principle.

Moreover, I would bet money that even if the comments *are* what made these artists withdraw their consent, it would likely involve commenters projecting such fetishes onto otherwise unrelated art, rather than someone looking at a dick and saying "oooh yeah I want that inside me" .

There are better ways to regulate the extreme comments that may actually trigger such retaliatory actions than deciding that no one gets to have fun in the comments section just because very particular types of comments are causing a problem.

Are you confident in the assessment it's the others with the metal gymnastics to justify their position? If you go on FA it's trivial to find artists, character owners, and commissioners that get porn of their characters but don't want creepy comments on any of their pages. Many draw porn for themselves / their partners and are willing to share the art, but want the characters not to be involved in anything they don't consent to, including people commenting how they'd like to perform sexual acts on them out of the blue. The whole "look but don't touch" mentality applies here in full force.
Keeping that small tidbit in mind let's move from FA, a place where people can curate the people able to interact on their own art directly, to e621 where it's a public place and the only moderation being possible is done by a small group of people sitting at the top. If someone featured in art sees a comment they deem inappropriate for any reason the only recourse they have is either report the comment and hope admins do something about it, or have their artwork deleted. They can't just block people and have them removed from their commissions for everyone.
Which brings us to the rules, as we want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible our rules are written to appeal to the lowest common denominator: Be courteous, look but don't touch, don't complain loudly, don't leave a mess.
Sure, you may want to write that you'd like to suck some character's cock, but is the owner of the character okay with that? How do you know whether they are or not, for that matter, how would we know? On FA that's pretty trivial, check the owner's profile and you'll likely find the answer there. On e621 in the best case scenario the answer is somewhere in the sources after only 2 clicks.

So, do we side with the people responsible for the artwork we host, or do we want to potentially alienate them? I'd argue asking people to keep their comments free of sexually explicit comments towards characters whose owners may or may not be okay with it is not too much too ask of the broader userbase.

notmenotyou said:

So, do we side with the people responsible for the artwork we host, or do we want to potentially alienate them? I'd argue asking people to keep their comments free of sexually explicit comments towards characters whose owners may or may not be okay with it is not too much too ask of the broader userbase.

I would argue that there is a clear need to find a middle ground, given the number of people that

1) don't understand the rule

2) get pinged because the rules are vague

3) don't like the rule

4) the downtick in activity on images since the rule's implementation/crackdown

I remember a time before I had an account, where images had large numbers of comments, both sexy and not. Broader conversations that grew from an initially provactive/sexy comment, detailed account of how the detail and skill in an image aroused feelings we're no longer allowed to discuss.

Now that can't happen.

I truly understand that such comments *can* be problematic to *some* people., but the restriction of a user's ability to express themselves is *also* problematic. There needs to be a balance.

Though I suppose by the logic that this site is primarily an "art archive", there would be more incentive to cater towards the artists. Which I have no good argument against.

coebalt said:
I would argue that there is a clear need to find a middle ground, given the number of people that

1) don't understand the rule

2) get pinged because the rules are vague

3) don't like the rule

4) the downtick in activity on images since the rule's implementation/crackdown

I remember a time before I had an account, where images had large numbers of comments, both sexy and not. Broader conversations that grew from an initially provactive/sexy comment, detailed account of how the detail and skill in an image aroused feelings we're no longer allowed to discuss.

Now that can't happen.

I truly understand that such comments *can* be problematic to *some* people., but the restriction of a user's ability to express themselves is *also* problematic. There needs to be a balance.

Though I suppose by the logic that this site is primarily an "art archive", there would be more incentive to cater towards the artists. Which I have no good argument against.

this isn't some kind of new rule, people have been getting records for creepy comments since 2010. been a thing on the website since before 90% of the current administration team even had accounts.

darryus said:
this isn't some kind of new rule, people have been getting records for creepy comments since 2010. been a thing on the website since before 90% of the current administration team even had accounts.

That's why I added the bit about the crackdown.

Used to see a *lot* more Sexy comments before the past few years.

Course, again, I can only base my statements based on what I have personally seen, which is of course the smallest portion of a percentage of what's there.

Why does this site even have a comments section?
Who are the comments even directed to?
Artists might see them, but why not go to the source for that?

I don't get it. outside of a humorous or even more rarely an insightful comment, what is the purpose of the comments section?

rakuen said:
I totally understand not bringing in new fetishes, going above the content level of the original artwork or talking about real-life activities. Those are very reasonable.

Actually, yeah, this would make perfect sense. I'd be 100% onboard with the rules being changed to this. It's concise and leaves little room for ambiguity or subjective reasoning. Simply don't talk about fetishes outside of what's tagged and don't inject yourself or real-life scenarios into it. That'd cover the majority of 'creepy comments' without arbitrarily banning people over mild, on-topic joke comments.

coebalt said:
Though I suppose by the logic that this site is primarily an "art archive", there would be more incentive to cater towards the artists. Which I have no good argument against.

This website has very little catering towards artists, though, compared to other sites like FA and Inkbunny. There are no artist pages or accounts and no way to directly manage your artwork (can't update an existing post with an edit, can't delete without submitting a ticket, etc.). Artists can't moderate the comments on their images and having staff moderate it for them doesn't really make it any more artist-friendly (some comments they don't like might not be against the rules, and vice-versa). Artists can't use their own tags and must instead follow strict guidelines, which is the primary reason that many artists have gone DNP (at least before 'lore tags' were added).

All-in-all, the only reason artists have to upload their work here is to hopefully siphon traffic to other websites, like FA or Patreon.

whyamihere0812 said:
Why does this site even have a comments section?
Who are the comments even directed to?
Artists might see them, but why not go to the source for that?

I don't get it. outside of a humorous or even more rarely an insightful comment, what is the purpose of the comments section?

What's the point of any comments section on any website? User engagement and socialization, generally. People like interacting with other people, especially over shared interests. That's the whole premise behind social media, after all. If you just wanted to contact the artist, you could do so directly through PMs or email or whatever.

whyamihere0812 said:
Why does this site even have a comments section?
Who are the comments even directed to?
Artists might see them, but why not go to the source for that?

I don't get it. outside of a humorous or even more rarely an insightful comment, what is the purpose of the comments section?

I think this is the right direction for this debate, because what the rules should be will ultimately depend on two factors:

1. What the purpose of the website is.
2. What the purpose of the comment section of the website is.

We've already established that the purpose of the website is to archive art. So, what is the actual purpose of the comment section?

Don't get me wrong, I like having the comment section and believe it serves the purpose of allowing discussion of each individual piece of art. However, that's my belief, and I'm wondering what the site's staff's belief is.. Because on the surface, it wouldn't seem to me that it would be the same.

In my view, discussion of personal fantasies that are similar to the art would make sense as part of the discussion, as well as discussion of real life activities... At least to a point. consider the following example:

Alice: The position that cat's in looks VERY uncomfortable.
Bob: It kinda is, but after a while you learn which muscles can be relaxed and it gets easier to stay like that for a while. Just not for too long.
Alice: Still, that's gonna make you sore the next morning.
Corey: I've always imagined it's the discomfort that makes it so hot. Like, you want to get out of that position, but you can't.

If I understand correctly, Alice is the only person in the above conversation who would not get a mark for having 'inappropriate/creepy comments', because Bob discusses real life experience with the given position and Corey discusses their enjoyment of a personal fantasy involving the given position. However, both are civilly discussing an aspect of the piece of art, and in my mind they're only bringing up fantasies and real life actions because of Alice's statement that, if it were real life, it would appear to be uncomfortable.

Since all three of them are discussing an aspect of the artwork, with one person (Alice) being neutral-to-critical about it and two others (Bob and Corey) being neutral-to-positive about it, I see no reason to discourage such comments.

If, however, the purpose of the comment section is not to discuss the artwork in general, but instead to discuss only the techniques used to create the art (and/or the skill of the artist, etc.), then I can see it being desirable to ban such comments - as they do not relate to paint strokes, digital art tools, colors, and the like. It could be argued that they do relate to anatomy, but then the comments would be most appropriate if they actually discussed the anatomy of bending one's self into the depicted pose, which none of them do (except arguably Alice's initial comment, which I intended to portray as showing incredulity/disbelief that such a pose was practical). If the comment section were to have such a purpose, it would actually make more sense to have even stricter rules than the site currently has.

Of course, under neither purpose is it ever appropriate to talk about raping real life people or animals, or any other sort of action. I see people making the point that people HAVE said things like that in the comments, and were appropriately banned/dealt with using the 'no creepy comments' rule. I also fully agree that comments should never exceed the rating of the image in question, nor discuss fetishes that aren't in the image itself. Those are rules that I think should be in place no matter what the purpose of the comments section actually is.

There were some other things I really wanted to say, but unfortunately I had to go AFK for several hours and now I just do not remember them whatsoever. I hate when that happens. It related to other points that have been made about comments that some people don't want to see, and that artists don't want to see, I think? I really don't know =x.x=

snowwolf said:
It wasn't me who determined them as creepy, but I"ll give this a shot.

Creepy generally means oversharing. Imagine you have a friend that you're pretty comfortable with. You're at a place with each other where you don't mind talking about what turns you on, but it gets weird when you start getting too personally detailed.

So.. for example...

I am breaking the creepy rule. *bwooop-bwoop*

Cool: "Man! That dick looks great! It almost looks like it's gonna start throbbing!"
Not Cool: "Man! I want that fucking dick in my mouth. I want to feel to it throbbing between my lips!"

as for Tiamat specifically...

None of those comments are TOO bad... I think the problem is more that they have made over 44,000 comments over the last 8 years. That's something like 15 comments a day. Every day. And a lot of them are... mildly creepy. Most are fine. Almost any of them would be just fine on their own--mostly-- but 15 comments a day ... is a lot of comments. if even jsut 1% of those posts are creepy, that's too many.

A lot of the comments are pick up lines, or fantasies, which isn't really cool.

focus on the art, or the quality or the art, not what you want to DO to the art, or the characters illustrated.

Wait y'all banned someone for being on e621 constantly because they made the occasional lewd comment on a site that's primarily aimed towards adult content? Feel like that's a missed opportunity to have a consistently active member of the staff team tbh. Especially since their comments don't seem creepy at all to me who's been secretly lurking through much of the edgier things for the last few years tbh.

rawry_steele said:
Wait y'all banned someone for being on e621 constantly because they made the occasional lewd comment on a site that's primarily aimed towards adult content? Feel like that's a missed opportunity to have a consistently active member of the staff team tbh. Especially since their comments don't seem creepy at all to me who's been secretly lurking through much of the edgier things for the last few years tbh.

comments don't really help the site in any meaningful way, though. we're not talking about someone that necessarily has a lot of tag edits, or helps users on the forum, or reporting posts, or clarifying wiki pages, or anything like that, we're just talking about someone who comments on posts a lot, not something that would prepare a person for the mountains upon mountains of tickets, or the sudden influx of angry/confused dmails, or the pending alias, implication, and BURs.

I mean, even when e6 did hire one of the most most dedicated users the site had ever seen she only lasted about 6 months before throwing in the towel and dissappearing from the community entirely. although, I can only speculate that was related to being an admin, and not some outside influence IRL. _{I hope she's doing okay wherever she is, I miss her being around.}

I doubt this will be seen, but I wanted to add my two cents. One very sensible suggestion I've seen a few times is to define inappropriate based on the rating and tags of the submission. Don't bring up fetishes in the comments of images that don't include those fetishes, don't make overtly sexual comments about images not marked explicit, etc. That way you can blacklist things you don't like, and comments that aren't blocked by your blacklist shouldn't end up containing thing you dislike enough to blacklist. I'm not the kind of person who thinks that personal freedoms trump all, and I agree that people should be able to browse without fear of stumbling into things that disgust them, but I do think that personal freedoms should only be restricted where not restricting them would infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, or would cause potential harm to someone.

Examples that will get you a record:
I came so hard
I wish I could get fucked like that
I wish that vaporeon would breed me
My boyfriend likes doing that to me!
I wish my girlfriend would be doing that for me
I want to lick those paws
Wish I could get filled like that

Examples that (most likely1) won’t get you a record:
God I wish that were me
I’m loving those tits
That is one hot / wet pussy
Pump that donut!

I Don't see any difference between the do and don't examples here. Personally, I don't mind nsfw commentary on nsfw artwork including my own. it's the correct place for a nsfw comment. The rule that sfw needs sfw comments are good. The rule for disallowing unrelated fetish comments requested in an art to "make it better" is good, but I really really see no difference in the do and don't of what is "too inappropriate" of a comment in the list above at all. None of the above in that list are any less sexually explicit of a desire written in text to me. I don't really think any on that list in the quote above need censoring on nsfw content.

ulu said:
I Don't see any difference between the do and don't examples here.

Lemme help:

I came so hard
I wish I could get fucked like that
I wish that vaporeon would breed me
My boyfriend likes doing that to me!
I wish my girlfriend would be doing that for me
I want to lick those paws
Wish I could get filled like that

The difference between the comments that will and won't get records is that those that will when the commenter is making themselves the center of attention rather than the image they're commenting on.

Also, it comes across like this:
post #44010

ulu said:
Examples that (most likely1) won’t get you a record:
God I wish that were me

I dunno, that specific one still puts you in the art, just to a lesser degree.

furrin_gok said:
I dunno, that specific one still puts you in the art, just to a lesser degree.

It's a meme. It's not on the same level.

...though repeating memes in comments is a different kind of annoying.

lonelylupine said:
It's a meme.

There's a reason it's become a meme. Because people keep saying it unironically. It being a meme doesn't stop it from meaning what it says. "It's just a joke bro" doesn't prevent you from getting in to trouble for breaking the rules, and doesn't stop a comment from saying what it says. As it is, people have gotten records for saying something completely equivalent, with the rules having no reason for how it could be interpreted differently.

ulu said:
I Don't see any difference between the do and don't examples here. Personally, I don't mind nsfw commentary on nsfw artwork including my own. it's the correct place for a nsfw comment. The rule that sfw needs sfw comments are good. The rule for disallowing unrelated fetish comments requested in an art to "make it better" is good, but I really really see no difference in the do and don't of what is "too inappropriate" of a comment in the list above at all. None of the above in that list are any less sexually explicit of a desire written in text to me. I don't really think any on that list in the quote above need censoring on nsfw content.

Been lurking for quite some time and I find that talking to the art will probably generate a record. I get it that some artists don't mind but other may mind. So its just better just to comment if the art is good or not(with some reasonable constrictive criticism).
Saying something is a hot pic or its good looking won't get you the creepy comment record.

I try and go by don't be That Guy rules ( if you played any table top game) and I think it works

I'd make comments more often, but the rules are still too strict, so I'm just going to keep being shy and posting as little as possible.
I'm just scared I'll offend someone.

I agree with the idea that "A comment's intensity should not exceed the image."

Is there any way to become a mod here? Just asking...

whamo said:
Is there any way to become a mod here? Just asking...

No, that's just something you have to be born as.

bitwolfy said:
No, that's just something you have to be born as.

I can remember the time when your name was white 🤔

dubsthefox said:
I can remember the time when your name was white 🤔

mods are mods before they get the color, the color is something they earn after they've passed all 64 trials that prove that they are actually a mod.

darryus said:
mods are mods before they get the color, the color is something they earn after they've passed all 64 trials that prove that they are actually a mod.

Mods get a role-affirming color change.

lonelylupine said:
mods are mods before they get the color, the color is something they earn after they've passed all 64 trials that prove that they are actually a mod.

lonelylupine said:
Mods get a role-affirming color change.

Ahh. Sorry. My bad ^^'
^{_{(please don't ban me, bitWolfy. I didn't want to question your power D:)}}

dubsthefox said:
I can remember the time when your name was white 🤔

That was probably just a bug =P
There were a few of those right after the new site launched.

dubsthefox said:
Ahh. Sorry. My bad ^^'
^{_{(please don't ban me, bitWolfy. I didn't want to question your power D:)}}

User has been banned for the contents of this message.

shingen said:
Finally. Calling them "creepy comments" was more inappropriate than most of those comments that people got records for.
I still would prefer if this rule was loosened/reworded, because it's just silly.

I'd say that seeing comments wishing to be a part of given scenario is very much a thing realistically expected from porn artwork. Like, we're nearly all here to browse pictures that show things we enjoy doing, or to find new ones to do. If people expressing that out loud makes you uncomfortable, you should probably take a break to figure out if you're mature enough to browse PORN.
What i would see instead, is a rule against pointless/irrelevant/spam comments.
If you have nothing more to say than "i like it" or "it's nice", use an upvote/favorite.
"i wish that was me"? Dude, we all do. Shush.
I also really don't like to see comments like "FIRST!", or "it's alive!" on pages of comics that were released not even a month since the last page.

That's just not true.
Me, just like, i assume, most users of this site, have a very fluid interests ranging from safe to explicit, so we rarely browse stuff by the specific rating, and if some character is sexy, but clothed in a "safe" artwork, it's not hard to have some lewd thoughts anyway.
The existence of people writing those comments is a literal proof that there are ones out there who think this way, and i'm sure they don't mind each other.
However, i'm not against this rule overall - IMO it should just be rewritten, especially if we want to treat the "In the shortest way possible" seriously, to something like:
"People searching for artwork by a specific rating don't want to see content of rating exceeding it, and that includes other people's comments."

It just felt like they removed 2 rules to include a dozen more. I feel the artist should have a say on if creepy comments / inappropriate comments are allowed. Just another pain in the ass update if ya ask me, and in my opinion not for the better as the things they excluded are almost parallels to each other:
"I wish that vaporeon would breed me" - can obviously be a meme / joke, because there's so many jokes about eveleeutions breeding / dominating the viewer made by the artists. This one's literally an inside joke.
"I want to lick those paws" - This is more of an "no shit" than it is an actually writable offense. %95 of the fandom HAS a foot fetish.
"God I wish that were me" And "I wish I could get fucked like that" - are basically synonymous. There's so much wrong with this.
Yeah, how about the staff plays this game and %100s it like I did, then I MAY consider one rule an exception. But if you're not gonna do that, go outside and touch grass. If you get to make an arbitrary rule set that's honestly worse than what we had before, I think it's only fair the community gets to make one two.

tirsiak_ingolf said:
I feel the artist should have a say on if creepy comments / inappropriate comments are allowed.

Lots of artists do not upload here by themselves. And if there are exceptions, people will make creepy comments under allowed posts, others will see it, they'll think it is ok, and will make creepy comments under posts where it's not allowed. And then they get banned, and they will start arguing: "it is ok for others, bla bla." ^{_{(the arguing is already a thing and this would make it worse)}}

tirsiak_ingolf said:
...can obviously be a meme / joke ...stuff... This one's literally an inside joke

Jokes are not an exception because the admins can simply not know each meme/inside joke on the internet.

tirsiak_ingolf said:
"I wish that vaporeon would breed me" - can obviously be a meme / joke, because there's so many jokes about eveleeutions breeding / dominating the viewer made by the artists. This one's literally an inside joke.

that's not a joke, it's not even a reference. it'd be a _huge_ stretch to try to imply that's a reference to "hey guys...". even then, it being a meme dosn't make it any less inappropriate, if anything it just makes it more annoying.

tirsiak_ingolf said:
"I want to lick those paws" - This is more of an "no shit" than it is an actually writable offense. %95 of the fandom HAS a foot fetish.

I highly doubt that statistic, even if you're being hyperbolic, I don't think that foot fetishists are a even close to a majority, it seems like you're hardcore projecting on this. heck, other fetishes like incest, vore, and cub have more tagged posts, so it's not even the most popular fetish. but just because someone likes incest stories dosn't mean they want to see peeps posting shit like "man, I wish she was my sister, we'd fuck every day", it makes it weird.

_{P.S. the percent sign (%) goes after the number, generally only currency symbols ($, £, €, etc.) are placed before the number}

tirsiak_ingolf said:
I feel the artist should have a say on if creepy comments / inappropriate comments are allowed.

Then click through the source url and tell it to them directly, so you can find out for yourself.

tirsiak_ingolf said:
%95 of the fandom HAS a foot fetish.

Out of the 2.93m (as of this post) submissions on e6, only 343k submissions, or 11.7% of all submissions, use the feet tag.

It just looks like the fandom has a huge number of foot fetishists because foot fetishists have no chill.

notmenotyou said:
Do excuse the dust in here. The latest update is pretty straightforward, we renamed the rule to be a bit more objective and clarified more what exactly is inappropriate. In addition to that we've made a small help page to add some examples and explanations on what is and is not appropriate.

First of all the rule text:
And the help page:

e621:Inappropriate Comments

Link

In the interest of the success of the site we do not want people discussing their personal sexual encounters (past or present) or any explicitly detailed desires, fetishes, or fantasies. All users, artists, commissioners, the subjects of works of art, and other people browsing the website all have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse our website without seeing comments from our users that may make them uncomfortable.

Examples of inappropriate comments:

Comments that are overly focused on graphic /explicit details.

Don’t make up elaborate stories about what you wish would happen, or were to happen.

"Definitely going to need some happy aftercare time in a snug onesie and diaper. Don't forget to lock up the young kitten in a chastity with his mouth filled so he doesn't wake himself up from his nap in daddy's lap."
"Fine addition to my collection for erection."

Comments that detail your personal sexual experiences, fantasies or desires.

Any comment that describes your past real life experiences, roleplay encounters, or fap stories are going to be considered creepy by the broader userbase. Note that the comment doesn’t need to be long in order to share too much information.

Examples that will get you a record:

• I came so hard
• I wish I could get fucked like that
• I wish that vaporeon would breed me
• My boyfriend likes doing that to me!
• I wish my girlfriend would be doing that for me
• I want to lick those paws
• Wish I could get filled like that

Examples that (most likely¹) won’t get you a record:

• God I wish that were me
• I’m loving those tits
• That is one hot / wet pussy
• Pump that donut!

¹ Context is going to matter, see the two following sections for details

Comments that focus on a fetish on a picture that does not include that fetish.

Fairly self-explanatory, don’t bring any (controversial) fetish into an image that isn’t already featuring it, talking about how you’d wish any given image without X fetish should feature X fetish instead to make it “better” is always inherently creepy.

Fetishes falling under this category are the generally divisive ones like cub, watersports, scat, rape, humiliation of various kinds, and similar.

Comments that exceed the rating on the picture

In the shortest way possible, if something is rated safe nobody will want to hear about how you’d like to see the character getting lewded or fucked. Similarly goes for submissions rated questionable, nobody will want to know how you’d like them to get railed by a pack of 14 werewolves in the parking lot of an Arby’s if they’re only being suggestive or in the nude.

This is a very welcome change.

daxmarko said:
There's a proposal of (if not proposed yet) a system that will definitely take more effort to setup, but will satisfy both sides. You could have comments be marked as "creepy/raunchy" either by whoever posts them (can have an option of all of their comments be automatically marked as such) or by some algorithm.
Then any user can opt-in or opt-out in the settings page if they want those comments to be visible to them or not. Those off-put by such comments won't see them, and those who don't mind or even like to read them, will see the comments.
The rule of forbidding creepy/raunchy comments would only apply to those who do not properly mark their comments. I think we could all agree that they'll be in wrong for going around the system. Its similar to the blacklist rule.

You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth! I'm surprised seemingly no one else has mentioned this idea in here.(at least I haven't seen anyone else mention this)

My suggestion would be to have a box a commenter has to tick before they post their comment if their comment is sexual/inappropriate, and these comments would be hidden from people who don't want to see them yet still be visible to people who don't mind or actually do want to see them. I really feel like this would satisfy both sides of the argument.

At the very least it has to be worth trying right? If any staff read this, please tell me what you think. Is a system like that possible to implement? Do you think it would work?

Alright, I'm always on this site on a phone or something so this is literally the first time I've seen this. Glad I comment so infrequently that it hasn't come up anyways.

Frankly I just need to not get on this site while drunk, or if I do then literally unplug/disable my keyboard after I'm done searching. That's basically the only thing that's ever gotten me into actual warning trouble (very, very drunk that one time unfortunately). Also, this is not the place for dry humor apparently, because people think I'm serious. Because people actually do make serious comments like that here. I saw one the other day and I just knew that's what happened to my karma. So no more. Unless I mark it {/sarcasm}? Dunno probably should just shut up on anything above questionable rating. I've finally turned comment open on, its either that or wish the tags and comments were flipped.

Though I do have to gently prod the folks that say that this site isn't entirely a porn site... not complaining, I finally got good with my blacklist, but there are about zero rules for avatars on this site.

I'd probably use FA if tags could be suggested by users even. But at the moment this is the best tagged furry booru for single images I've seen. I'm certainly not trying to get banned. Glad for that, and don't agree with but understand the "tag what you see" as far as potentially trans characters. Being pan it's often hard for me to care about what shape the chest is, I just appreciate it artistically no matter what.

Ok I know I've not properly read the rules and been spoken to before, so I hid several of my old comments. Maybe out of politeness, but more out of shame.

I'm pretty sure this site is better off liability-wise if creepy comments remain at least limited. Seen some stuff that is definitely not okay to ever put out into the universe, even anonymous, especially on the non-explicit stuff! But anyways. Stay positve folks!

solid_steak61 said:
I'm surprised seemingly no one else has mentioned this idea in here.(at least I haven't seen anyone else mention this)

Yes, it has, and it didn't go over too well then, either.

clawstripe said:
Yes, it has, and it didn't go over too well then, either.

In retrospect there's clearly support for it being done now. To a mixed degree. The only pushback seems to come from the people who would never have the option enabled on their account settings anyways, and thus would never see those comments, outside of the occasional clueless moron being creepy in the safe space.

Besides which the topic you linked is only a year old.

dripen_arn said:
idk, i feel like i've seen users get marks for comments like that even with appropriate context (rip tiamat5)

regardless, that news notification got my hopes up that this was going to be more of a revision to make the rules on inappropriate comments a bit more lax than just rewording, but if those examples given for comments that won't get you banned really won't get you banned, then i've got no complaints

also:
i'm sorry, that one is just too funny to me

No seriously that comment would be legendary

aversioncapacitor' said:
In retrospect there's clearly support for it being done now. To a mixed degree. The only pushback seems to come from the people who would never have the option enabled on their account settings anyways, and thus would never see those comments, outside of the occasional clueless moron being creepy in the safe space.

Besides which the topic you linked is only a year old.

I don't really care about the opinions from the type of people who would yell "LET ME LICK YOUR FEET!" at the stripper in a club. Just because a venue specializes in sexual entertainment (which e6 doesn't, no matter how a tiny handful of people loudly insist otherwise,) doesn't mean your participation is automatically welcome. It's not an attractive behavior; most people don't like it.

This isn't hard to figure out.

Honestly, at this point, whining about the creepy comments rule should be a bannable offense, similar to how refusing to use a blacklist is bannable. If anything, it is more disruptive than the creepy comments themselves.

lonelylupine said:
no matter how a tiny handful of people loudly insist otherwise

Is it REALLY a tiny handful? I'm pretty sure the thought is held by a majority, and i don't mean outside the furry fandom. I've legitimately begun to treat this as what it is, an archive, but i'm pretty sure that sentiment is the minority.

lonelylupine said:
Just because a venue specializes in sexual entertainment (which e6 doesn't, no matter how a tiny handful of people loudly insist otherwise,) doesn't mean your participation is automatically welcome

Look, I misunderstood when I first got here fresh from braindeath zone rule34, but I am 100% behind the creepy comments rule now. I am glad that there's a large tag editing community here so that blacklists work. I do use e621 occasionally for safe and questionable rated stuff. But uhhm. Doesn't specialize in adult entertainment...? That... seems a bit generous there. Possibly delusional. Probably outright hyperbole.

In 6 months 750 pages of rating:safe and rating:questionable were uploaded each. Rating:explicit took 2 months for those 750 pages to fill. Even if you think about untagged posts and add the two together thats still not half. Idk if there is a better count of posts per rating but seems pretty clear about flow rate at least.

If there are avatar rules on this site I have yet to see them? Other than the generalized "illegal=banned and police notified." I did actively look for some...

You could theoretically use your blacklist to list rating:explicit but you do have to sign in to get that... So it rather seems that... it is? Specialized for that? Not a bad thing, just maybe a case of taking the web traffic you can get.

Creepy comments entirely notwithstanding, very ok with that! If you can't comment on art, either critique or praise, without going into detail on what you did with their artwork physically or mentally. They didn't need to hear it! They can very clearly see upvotes downvotes and favorites. And they can hear it elsewhere just fine.

Just don't call it NOT a porn site, it kinda is. But it dont have to be a poppup town, tag mess, literally cant be bothered to have a comment report button rule34. That is called profiteering and a virus waiting to happen....

biblioholic93 said: . . .

About 60% of posts on the site have the explicit rating.
Mind you, https://e926.net/ is very much a thing, and people do use it.
There are hundreds of thousands of non-explicit images and videos here that get likes, favorites, and comments.

All in all, it does not terribly matter if you personally consider e621 to be a porn site or not.
It starts becoming a problem when people use "it's just a pornsite" as an excuse for why there shouldn't be certain rules – in regards to both what you are not allowed to say, and what you are not allowed to upload.

It may be because I am skimming, but I haven't noticed much mention of the biggest reason for me agreeing with this rule: You can't tag comments.

I mean okay biblioholic93 above certainly came close, but I can't find explicit awareness of this issue. I come to an image knowing that I have been forewarned, and on my head be it for looking anyway. The same cannot be said of the comments. Institute a blacklistable tag system for comments and then maybe I'll call a rule against comments like the ones being discussed inappropriate.

Also, Freedom of Speech and Expression? Come on. Absolutely laudable and essential though those are they do not oblige other people to provide you with a platform, or indeed, force them to experience you exercising that freedom.

reson said:
Institute a blacklistable tag system for comments and then maybe I'll call a rule against comments like the ones being discussed inappropriate.

How would that work? I feel like "tagging comments" is a very unnecessary feature. If i could spitball a compromie i suppose, i think the more accurate thing would be something like, a blacklist for certain words/phrases, like in other social media site. HOWEVER, that system is not only extremely flawed and filled with crakcs, but also probably difficult to use to the average user.

benjiboyo said:
How would that work? I feel like "tagging comments" is a very unnecessary feature. If i could spitball a compromie i suppose, i think the more accurate thing would be something like, a blacklist for certain words/phrases, like in other social media site. HOWEVER, that system is not only extremely flawed and filled with crakcs, but also probably difficult to use to the average user.

That's my point, it wouldn't work; the idea of a comment tagging system is absurd. My point is the 'you knew what you were getting into when you clicked' mindset does not and cannot apply here.

I don't think it's an unfair argument to say that people who want to expose others to stuff would have blacklistable tags if it were a submission, might perhaps be best served posting their thoughts as a tag-able submission - be it here or somewhere more compatible with text. There's even a line of reasoning that could argue, in however roundabout a way, that to do otherwise is circumventing tagging their creations the way everyone else is obliged to.

reson said:
That's my point, it wouldn't work; the idea of a comment tagging system is absurd. My point is the 'you knew what you were getting into when you clicked' mindset does not and cannot apply here.

Oh whoop, looks like I skimmed some things too, w.

As far as "you cant tag or blacklist comments," you can already collapse comments by default in the settings, though its not the easiest setting to find, and equally if you get the urge you can still very well un-collapse them. Avatars that have tags in your blacklist show as blacklisted images and comment downvotes-to-hide threshold is customizable. I think avatars have to be official uploads to e621 and thus have to have our tags. All well and good. IF you want to avoid it, there are multiple ways to approach it. I don't think ignoring comments entirely for the bad eggs is really the way to go though. Report button works fine though, mods and admins are human too. And being outnumbered is like, in their job description.

However, I agree that even whether or not this is more or less a porn site than not, the arguments that add "JUST a porn site" are disingenuous and a loud minority. I am gonna pinpoint the explicit or level-of-extremity avatars non-judgement though, as to a specific problem that engenders that response. Of course I completely understand why it isn't ruled and moderated, busy enough, but... it remains as the logical outgrowth of the current rules. Whether or not an account follows commenting guidelines to the letter, they can still have a hard vore picture as an avatar or something that might, beyond the text alone, add innuendo to tame word choice. Other innuendos can be given with multiple other accounts with different avatars, tho I am pretty sure sockpuppets for sockpuppeting sake aren't 100% acceptable.

I guess the next issue is that, though you have to have an account to comment, you must also have an account signed in to blacklist things, and explicit results are listed even after properly tagged, when not signed in. I haven't checked recently, but when I signed up there was only 1 default blacklist. There probably should be more... necrophilia for one. Though cannot verify if that remains the case.

Maybe comments should be collapsed for anon too. But avatar rules remain a key issue in my mind.

Don't bother with the freedom of speech and expressions crowd. They're anarchist zealots who have no idea what that actually means in legal terms, and that that freedom extends 2 ways, user and platform. Tell them they're lucky esix takes a stand for and is unashamed of our precious, precious twinks in gym shorts, and by the same freedom of expression principle they can delete whatever they want on their OWN SERVERS. To EXPRESS what happens to their PROPERTY. If you force them to platform certain words you are as effectively gagging and censoring them as the other way around. (Real tempting to mention what term was originally for libertarians... an L and T... )

The ads IMO are a more explicit communication of 'this is a porn site' than avatars, since there are few enough unique ads and little enough turnover that the 'not enough time to moderate it' argument can't be applied. I appreciate that mods may not have much control over them in practice, but that doesn't change the associations they are invoking.

"Creepy" is entirely subjective. This is nothing but sophistic tone policing.

warriorboykilian said:
"Creepy" is entirely subjective. This is nothing but sophistic tone policing.

That's why it's called inappropriate now?

savageorange said:
The ads IMO are a more explicit communication of 'this is a porn site' than avatars, since there are few enough unique ads and little enough turnover that the 'not enough time to moderate it' argument can't be applied. I appreciate that mods may not have much control over them in practice, but that doesn't change the associations they are invoking.

...you know what? This.

dripen_arn said:
idk, i feel like i've seen users get marks for comments like that even with appropriate context (rip tiamat5)

regardless, that news notification got my hopes up that this was going to be more of a revision to make the rules on inappropriate comments a bit more lax than just rewording, but if those examples given for comments that won't get you banned really won't get you banned, then i've got no complaints

also:
i'm sorry, that one is just too funny to me

i have said less creepy things and gotten marks

savageorange said:
The ads IMO are a more explicit communication of 'this is a porn site' than avatars, since there are few enough unique ads and little enough turnover that the 'not enough time to moderate it' argument can't be applied. I appreciate that mods may not have much control over them in practice, but that doesn't change the associations they are invoking.

not so sure about this. sites where you can pirate shows--anime, more often than not--may also have explicit advertisements in the margins, but that doesn't mean the sites themselves are porn sites. of course, the situation is different with e621 hosting more pornographic content than the average anime site (maybe?) but i'm trying to suggest that maybe a site isn't defined absolutely by the ads it hosts

garfieldfromgarfield said:
not so sure about this. sites where you can pirate shows--anime, more often than not--may also have explicit advertisements in the margins, but that doesn't mean the sites themselves are porn sites. of course, the situation is different with e621 hosting more pornographic content than the average anime site (maybe?) but i'm trying to suggest that maybe a site isn't defined absolutely by the ads it hosts

At no time did I suggest such a thing, nor do I think absolute definitions are even relevant to 99% of discussions. 'conclusively a porn site therefore no comment standards should apply' is a foolish claim, but so is 'definitely not porn site' and 'archive site therefore not porn site'.

It doesn't matter in any case, whether people here in this thread, or mods, think e621 is objectively 'enough like a porn site that it "is" a porn site' or not. People who actually post in discussions are a minority. It's fundamentally a question of PR / aesthetics, ie. do the majority of people who use e621 think that it is a porn site, in a way that impacts their usage of the site, and if so, can anything be adjusted that will cause less people to get that impression?

This is also in part why I regard the description in the 'about' page as more or less irrelevant to this issue; it's not realistic to think that a large proportion of people will actually form their impression of the site by reading the about page. Or that the technical description is even relevant to the average site user.

Well, rant over I guess.

savageorange said:
At no time did I suggest such a thing, nor do I think absolute definitions are even relevant to 99% of discussions. 'conclusively a porn site therefore no comment standards should apply' is a foolish claim, but so is 'definitely not porn site' and 'archive site therefore not porn site'.

It doesn't matter in any case, whether people here in this thread, or mods, think e621 is objectively 'enough like a porn site that it "is" a porn site' or not. People who actually post in discussions are a minority. It's fundamentally a question of PR / aesthetics, ie. do the majority of people who use e621 think that it is a porn site, in a way that impacts their usage of the site, and if so, can anything be adjusted that will cause less people to get that impression?

This is also in part why I regard the description in the 'about' page as more or less irrelevant to this issue; it's not realistic to think that a large proportion of people will actually form their impression of the site by reading the about page. Or that the technical description is even relevant to the average site user.

Well, rant over I guess.

sorry, wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. i apologize if i came off as being incendiary