Nuisances(imo) in e621
You can upvote your own post yet you can't upvote your own comment, but you can downvote it.
In the forums, you can thumbs up, thumbs down, or meh face some posts.
NONE of the hyperlinks open a new tab.
When a comment is warned for being creepy etc. It is not deleted.
"Blacklist users" is not on by default.

Fixes to the Nuisances
Remove the ability to up/downvote any of your own posts/comments entirely.
change the meh face to a thumbs to the side.
Make certain hyperlinks open a new tab (eg. profile hyperlinks, profile picture hyperlinks tag hyperlinks etc.)
Either have "Blacklist users" on by default or delete warned messages.

If you have any you would like to point out, please do.
the more the merrier!

I think voting on your own forum posts is a good feature. You can vote the meh face on your own suggestion if you're not completely sure about it but still want to bring it up for discussion, or vote thumbs down if you've decided to abandon that idea.

funkyy said:
Nuisances(imo) in e621
You can upvote your own post yet you can't upvote your own comment, but you can downvote it.
In the forums, you can thumbs up, thumbs down, or meh face some posts.
NONE of the hyperlinks open a new tab.
When a comment is warned for being creepy etc. It is not deleted.
"Blacklist users" is not on by default.

Fixes to the Nuisances
Remove the ability to up/downvote any of your own posts/comments entirely.
change the meh face to a thumbs to the side.
Make certain hyperlinks open a new tab (eg. profile hyperlinks, profile picture hyperlinks tag hyperlinks etc.)
Either have "Blacklist users" on by default or delete warned messages.

If you have any you would like to point out, please do.
the more the merrier!

comments are never deleted, if an Admin thinks it's warranted they will sometimes hide the comment however.

funkyy said:
When a comment is warned for being creepy etc. It is not deleted.

I would argue that is a feature, how is anyone supposed to know what is considered creepy without examples.

picklestomp said:
how is anyone supposed to know what is considered creepy without examples.

I mean... common sense?
Explaining how much you want suck the subject of the drawing's ass in descreptive detail is probably not normal convo material.

picklestomp said:
I would argue that is a feature, how is anyone supposed to know what is considered creepy without examples.

If a person can't identify creepy without examples, then they're not grown up enough to be on this site.

funkyy said:
I mean... common sense?

ccoyote said:
If a person can't identify creepy without examples, then they're not grown up enough to be on this site.

Given that "creepy" is a subjective context-sensitive adjective, no, it's not always common sense or easily identifiable. Especially on a site that has a large amount of extremely fetishistic porn with people having a shared interest in said fetish and porn commenting on it, the line is not always obvious or clear. Providing an extreme example like "how much you want suck the subject of the drawing's ass in descreptive detail" doesn't negate the existence of less-obvious comments that are more questionable or come down to personal judgement.

(To note, I'm not saying the creepy comment rule shouldn't exist, or that there aren't comments that obviously cross the line on the rules, just that it's not always obvious if a given comment does or not.)

watsit said:
Given that "creepy" is a subjective context-sensitive adjective, no, it's not always common sense or easily identifiable.

It's been said over and over, if you wouldn't say it in a museum, don't say it here. That's the difference between an art archive and porn site.

There's a deeper subtext, though. Many of the people who bring up this argument aren't really misunderstanding what constitutes creepy. They just don't want to have to abide by the regulation and are trying to rationalize their juvenile behavior.

ccoyote said:
It's been said over and over, if you wouldn't say it in a museum, don't say it here.

And it's been said over and over, that doesn't make sense to apply here. Most museums don't have the kind of content this site does, and there is no global standard for what's acceptable in a museum as each one will have its own rules (which themselves will be influenced by the culture a given museum works within, the owner's wishes, and its visitors). So it's a rather meaningless statement... the rules are to follow the rules, which is obvious. And this site's rules say the point is for people to "not express their personal fetishes/desires publicly. Users have the right, within realistic expectations, to browse comfortably", with the main examples of creepy comments being self-insertion or role-playing with the picture. As written, there's a fair bit of leeway in how to interpret this; should saying "That's hot." on a picture of a hyper herm spilling cum everywhere count as "expressing their personal fetishes", since it's telling people what they're into? What is the "realistic expectation" for comfortable browsing, given that loli bestiality snuff porn is perfectly acceptable to post? These can only be judged on a case-by-case basis, given what the admins deem to be acceptable for the site, which means it won't always be obvious what crosses the line.

ccoyote said:
There's a deeper subtext, though. Many of the people who bring up this argument aren't really misunderstanding what constitutes creepy. They just don't want to have to abide by the regulation and are trying to rationalize their juvenile behavior.

Many is not all, or necessarily most. So even if some use the argument dishonestly, if letting creepy comments stay works as a guide for what other people should not say, leading to fewer honest people unwittingly making creepy comments, that would be a positive thing, wouldn't it?

At best, you could argue that since creepy comments are left untouched, there's no easy way for people to know what broke the rules. However, if you want the admins to actively remove/hide posts that are considered creepy, there's the alternative that they could instead mark the comment with something like "user was warned/banned for this comment", so other people would know it crossed the line.

ccoyote said:
If a person can't identify creepy without examples, then they're not grown up enough to be on this site. | if you wouldn't say it in a museum, don't say it here.

Ah yes, because obviously every single person grows up the exact same way, with the exact same lessons, with the exact same experiences, and the exact same mental ability. And there are definitely no people on this planet of billions who poorly raise their children, or have different economical situations.
Not sure why an """"""art"""""""museum""""""" whose goal ought to be to share the arts with whomever seeks it out, should be unwilling to provide examples of poor behavior, and scoff at and kick out those who have no way to figure out the rules.

|

If creepy is so obvious then lets compare these two examples.

A) "now that's a cock I can bend over for"

B) "I need him inside me"

If the term creepy is based on common sense, which itself is based on the individual, then which one's are creepy? Is one more creepy than the other?
They are saying the same thing, so where's the difference?

watsit said:
mark the comment with "user was warned/banned for this comment", so other people would know it crossed the line.

Seconded.

A few other thoughts on OP;
Why should you make me blacklist users by default?
I don't see an option to "emote" or interact with a forum post outside of adding to the thread, do you mean to add that as a feature? Personally I like not being able to up/downvote thread posts, it makes them feel more civilized.
You can middle click on a link to automatically open a new tab for it. although I agree that having that occur by default would be a nice creature comfort.

And this is why I don't participate in these conversations. @Watsit, I appreciate where you're coming from and that you're speaking in good faith. @pickleStomp, your behavior is aggressive, childish, and unlikely to achieve anything you want.

Good day.

ccoyote said:
@pickleStomp, your behavior is aggressive, childish, and unlikely to achieve anything you want.

Good day.

That isn't an answer to my question.

Aggressive? A valid point. childish? That's funny, I haven't called you any names.
When you make a single sentence statement, based on reasoning you expect everyone to be aware of, don't cry foul when people like me take your statements and challenge them. Implying that anyone that can't understand what creepy is because "they wouldn't say it in a museum" is a child, is a far cry from a position of good faith. Then you continue by implying that most people that challenge your stated understanding of creepy is doing so maliciously.

I could apologize for not having the linguistic grace of a motherly school teacher, but this is the real world, and real people are rough and stubborn, just like both of us.
If you don't want sarcastic responses, don't interject with absolute statements based on poorly backed reasoning.

picklestomp said:
That isn't an answer to my question.

Aggressive? A valid point. childish? That's funny, I haven't called you any names.
When you make a single sentence statement, based on reasoning you expect everyone to be aware of, don't cry foul when people like me take your statements and challenge them. Implying that anyone that can't understand what creepy is because "they wouldn't say it in a museum" is a child, is a far cry from a position of good faith. Then you continue by implying that most people that challenge your stated understanding of creepy is doing so maliciously.

I could apologize for not have the linguistic grace of a motherly school teacher, but this is the real world, and real people are rough and stubborn, just like both of us.
If you don't want sarcastic responses, don't interject with absolute statements based on poorly backed reasoning.

CCoyote does this in several threads, the best thing to do is ignore it. Lets just ignore aggression, move on and actually deal with the topic at hand.

That said

picklestomp said:

If creepy is so obvious then lets compare these two examples.

A) "now that's a cock I can bend over for"

B) "I need him inside me"

If the term creepy is based on common sense, which itself is based on the individual, then which one's are creepy? Is one more creepy than the other?
They are saying the same thing, so where's the difference?

Both of those are considered creepy and both comments would be against the rules.

And your entire argument falls apart because actual museums have rules and tons of signage to say what you cannot *do* in those places.

As to the OP, none of these except blacklist users is that big an issue. And that one's only an issue because that feature actually still works, it blocks out all their posts, but not their comments, unless this is on.

That... does need to be fixed.

demesejha said:
Both of those are considered creepy and both comments would be against the rules.

And your entire argument falls apart because actual museums have rules and tons of signage to say what you cannot *do* in those places.

And that's why just saying "creepy comments are against the rules" isn't very helpful without examples.

IMO, example A should get a pass, as I would argue that this statement has a layer of humor, and once humor is involved, all bets are off, because banning jokes and off color banter is a very dangerous and unhealthy precedent to set in virtually any setting. Granted, since this is an isolated statement, I can't for certain identify if there was an intent to be humorous. I would attempt to the examine the art that inspired the statement as well as other comments from the user before issuing any judgement. Maybe a friendly informal warning that he's skirting the line would be a positive action to take.

While I personally wouldn't have a problem with example B, I agree that it probably isn't adding anything of value, and issue a warning.

I'm not sure which argument I have that falls apart? Museums Should and do have rules, and my statements are meant to imply that the museum shouldn't make an effort to hide offenders. A fair comparison would be escorting an uncouth individual right out the front door, whereas hiding creepy comments would be like escorting him through the side passages and out into the back alley, avoiding patrons at all costs. Which sounds like a good idea, but Will fail to deter anyone of similar mindset from repeating his mistake, intentional or not.

picklestomp said:
Maybe a friendly informal warning that he's skirting the line would be a positive action to take.

That's essentially what a neutral record is. When you get such a record, you're told what you did wrong and pointed to where you did it (in case you weren't sure what exactly it was you said). A neutral record doesn't impact what you can do on or with the site in any way, it's just letting you know you did something wrong. After 6 months, if you haven't been a continuing problem, the neutral record is deleted.

picklestomp said:
...has a layer of humor, and once humor is involved, all bets are off, because banning jokes and off color banter is a very dangerous and unhealthy precedent to set in virtually any setting.

Yet, it appears that some just don't have a sense of humor.
Say, 2 people having a discussion about which type Pokemon were weak against other Pokemon types, someone jokes about how this convo is getting them hot and bothered. And that is crossing the line?
Granted, the wording might be different but the meaning/humor was the point.

It is a constant risk in humor that there will always, always be someone who doesn't find you funny. Thus, there's no humor for them. All bets are back on.

Humor is very audience dependent. If the audience doesn't find you funny, you don't rail on and on about how they're stupid and have no sense of humor, because neither is true except in a small minority of cases. You're using little more than cheap justification to salve a bruised ego. If there's anyone who lacks a sense of humor, it's not your audience; it's you.

Instead, you tailor your humor for your audience or find a more appropriate audience elsewhere. If your audience doesn't appreciate your humor because it's too creepy, you adapt the creepiness out of your jokes. If you can't or won't do that, then continuing to make creepy jokes where they're not wanted isn't humor. It's deliberate harassment.

People don't like your attempts at creepy humor on e621? Then e621 is the wrong venue for your commentary. Either temper your approach or be funny somewhere more accepting of it.

picklestomp said:
I could apologize for not having the linguistic grace of a motherly school teacher, but this is the real world, and real people are rough and stubborn, just like both of us.

And real people are also capable of moderating their words according to situation and use them without creeping out other people. It is perfectly possible to make jokes and be humorous without being creepy, off-color, or blandly squeaky clean.

picklestomp said:
If creepy is so obvious then lets compare these two examples.

A) "now that's a cock I can bend over for"

B) "I need him inside me"

If the term creepy is based on common sense, which itself is based on the individual, then which one's are creepy? Is one more creepy than the other?
They are saying the same thing, so where's the difference?

There's no difference. They're both creepy.

clawstripe said:
Instead, you tailor your humor for your audience or find a more appropriate audience elsewhere. If your audience doesn't appreciate your humor because it's too creepy, you adapt the creepiness out of your jokes. If you can't or won't do that, then continuing to make creepy jokes where they're not wanted isn't humor. It's deliberate harassment.

To be fair, there's plenty of comments that users find funny (with a good number of upvotes), but they can still get hit as creepy. All it takes it one user to not appreciate the joke and report the comment, regardless of how many other users liked it. Not to argue whether they should be counted as creepy or not, but it doesn't have much to do with whether other people find it funny or not.

picklestomp said:
IMO, example A should get a pass

In your opinion it's Less creepy because... theres humor? I fail to see any humor in it. Because there is none. Its the same as the second thing, you literally said

picklestomp said:
They are saying the same thing, so where's the difference?

There isnt one.

What's said here says it all VV

clawstripe said:

Humor is very audience dependent. If the audience doesn't find you funny, you don't rail on and on about how they're stupid and have no sense of humor, because neither is true except in a small minority of cases. You're using little more than cheap justification to salve a bruised ego. If there's anyone who lacks a sense of humor, it's not your audience; it's you.

People don't like your attempts at creepy humor on e621? Then e621 is the wrong venue for your commentary. Either temper your approach or be funny somewhere more accepting of it.

I always find the Muesum Allegory faulty because the kind of people who break the creepy comment rule (and then complain about it) are the kind who likely would be willing say those kind of things in an art museum.

clawstripe said:
It is a constant risk in humor that there will always, always be someone who doesn't find you funny. Thus, there's no humor for them. All bets are back on.

Humor is very audience dependent. If the audience doesn't find you funny, you don't rail on and on about how they're stupid and have no sense of humor, because neither is true except in a small minority of cases. You're using little more than cheap justification to salve a bruised ego. If there's anyone who lacks a sense of humor, it's not your audience; it's you.

Instead, you tailor your humor for your audience or find a more appropriate audience elsewhere. If your audience doesn't appreciate your humor because it's too creepy, you adapt the creepiness out of your jokes. If you can't or won't do that, then continuing to make creepy jokes where they're not wanted isn't humor. It's deliberate harassment.

People don't like your attempts at creepy humor on e621? Then e621 is the wrong venue for your commentary. Either temper your approach or be funny somewhere more accepting of it.

And real people are also capable of moderating their words according to situation and use them without creeping out other people. It is perfectly possible to make jokes and be humorous without being creepy, off-color, or blandly squeaky clean.

There's no difference. They're both creepy.

Attacking comedy of any form is a Moral Failure; if you have even the slightest respect for Free Speech. So if the bets are on, then I want you punished the second you say something I don't like, regardless of why you said it. If I don't need to prove your intent before punishing you, then you are guilty until proven innocent, and good luck with reversing that.
My fault the audience didn't laugh? This is the internet. Great straw man, putting words in my mouth, and not challenging what I actually said.

As far as the audience itself, this is an American website, it should be making a principled effort to abide by free speech; The greatest held rule of it's host country. E621 is not a formal event in which well spoken and cultured individuals are on a guest list to archive the arts, it's a Public porn site, blocked by almost every public school as such. You can whine and moan about how it isn't, but if it wasn't for porn, then this website would just be deviant art(blue edition), with severe restrictions on what level of explicit content is allowed. Don't act like embracing the reality of that is somehow a bad thing, unless you plan to get rid of the GORE RAPE FECES NECROPHILIA AND PEDOPHILIA equivalents and whatever else that actual worldly government entities don't approve of and harass the site over hosting. Preserving visual content is something in line with free speech, and should be a point of pride, regardless of "eww porn".

Since It's a Publicly accessible comment on a publicly accessible website, if someone finds it funny, and you don't, that doesn't mean that the failed comedic statement must then be harassed and forced to leave. It means that the joke wasn't to your tastes, or it requires inside knowledge, or you might need to use your imagination. in such case you are perfectly entitled to downvote it, or even block the commentor, if your so inclined. (I think Demesejha mentioned this actually needs be implemented, and I'm inclined to agree.)
When the "art" you might find on this website depicts a 6 foot tall hunk of an anthro horse with a 2 foot horsecock and balls that hang to the floor lying his package on the face of a drooling fox with heart eyes and a public comment underneath the work says "now that's a cock I can bend over for" and you find it impossible to see the humor there, then why would you be moderating on a website where Explicit images like this are common? If someone visits a website where unrealistic genitalia are the norm and half the creatures depicted can expel more fluids than the volume of their entire body can contain, you better fucking believe that most people wouldn't assume everyone on the site is a stick in the mud, that finds offense in things faster than the characters reach orgasm. The audience is VIEWERS OF PORN, ya know, that thing you aren't supposed to indulge in public, almost like its a taboo?

|

Ultimately, creepy is a subjective term, and becomes difficult to enforce when shades of grey appear, as often will when the majority of images are explicit in nature.
E621 disagrees with my opinions and has defined creepy to encompass both my personal examples, and is *slightly* less subjective than the word on its own, but that's not my concern in this thread.
My argument is that removing comments that were labeled creepy by staff would harm the ability for unaware patrons to understand what is punishable, increase bans or workload due to unintentional rule breaking, and harm the reputation of the site.
Your responses are addressing my direct challenging of the statements of ccoyote, who made brash blanket statements without providing any reasoning, while simultaneously dismissing those that hold different opinions(like myself) as "not grown up enough", implying that me or anyone else have no maturity if we interact with or view the world differently from him.
That challenge is meant to convey that you cannot be harsh and sporadic when issuing judgements against "creepy comments" without analyzing the context, inspiration, and intent of the statement. just punishing them instantly because because it's "creepy" and shouldn't be said in a "museum" doens't mean that anyone and everyone will understand why or have done so knowingly, because everyone is different, not just because they're not "grown up".
The examples I provided are not supposed to be black and white, they are shades of grey so similar and on the line of creepy to MY perspective (which is based on how I grew up, the lessons I learned, the experiences I've had, my mental structures, the actions and beliefs of my parents, etc etc etc) that it would require ME to take some time to analyze, observe the context, and consider who and why the person is that said it before issuing judgement. The resulting opinions of my personally provided examples cannot be identical between everyone, least of all me, as I have exceptional tolerance for obnoxious, uncouth, and "creepy" behavior compared to most, or at least it seems that way.

Of course, you can always label it as the product of a bruised ego without a second taken to think over it.

picklestomp said:
As far as the audience itself, this is an American website, it should be making an effort to abide by free speech; the FIRST law of the land.
[..]Public porn site
[..]Public comment on a Public website

Is this bait? I know it's easy to get caught up in abstractions with the ethereal nature of electronic communication but anything you type here is inscribed on what I'm assuming is private hardware. Being public-facing doesn't make it public.
I know I scoffed about at least one angle on the Museum Allegory but this is like if you walked into a publicly-accessible museum and started shouting Gamer Words™️, then complained about freedom of speech while you're being escorted out by security.

It's not like the site's really even all that hard on creepy comments though. They have to get reported pretty soon after posting, so if you're on low-traffic posts it's relatively safe. If anything the creepy rule seems like it's just there to placate people who would otherwise make a lot of noise over the prevalence of creepy comments on high-traffic art. I'm sure you could get away with some real creepy comments on old early-'10s posts nobody visits anymore, as long as you're not breaking anything but the creepy comment rule.

funkyy said:
You can upvote your own post yet you can't upvote your own comment, but you can downvote it.

Odd... I didn't know about that, and so...

Remove the ability to up/downvote any of your own posts/comments entirely.

I agree on this one.

@MagnusEffect

If I was enter a free walk-in non-game related museum and was saying, not shouting, current year Gamer Words to myself in alongside other disapproving members of the public, while observing something I found to be relevant to gaming, I would not expect to be removed. i.e. I make crass ARK survival evolved jokes about the "bone zone" of the museum, and "which hole is best to tame the dino". while near the exhibit plaque describing mating behaviors.

I'm not certain what you mean? not trying to bait with anything, I suppose I probably sidetracked myself with the free speech angle, but to be fair, the whole thread got sidetracked.
the first step in attacking free speech is to attack comedy, was the concern I was trying to tie into my argument there.

yes the website is privately owned, but it still should make an effort to maintain the principles of it's country of origin, I wouldn't expect a Chinese site to allow uncouth comedy, but would for an American one. since E621 is publicly available to everyone and hosts explicit content, it should consider itself a public space that will experience spontaneous explicit user interaction, making an effort to keep punishments subdued yet consistent aught to be a goal due to that, I would hope those that moderate a site like this make an effort not to play hardball with the rules against those that are here to relax in good fun.

Again, Not arguing against punishing creepy comments, but that you cannot be harsh and sporadic when issuing judgements against the non clear cut ones. anarchy isn't the alternative anyone reasonable wants, But absolute control over it's patron's actions is even worse. If the intent was to make someone laugh, you might punish someone for trying to spread amusement, which is immoral according our culture, last I checked.

Placation is a modern fad that I detest, but cannot combat in any reasonable manner, as it's often implemented for benefit of the unreasonable. I'm not very familiar with actions the site commonly takes or how exactly it enforces it's rules, pretty much anything that doesn't end up with deleted posts I'm unaware of. I have read some of the rules, but I joined for one specific reason, related to just such a practice.
___
P.S.(Im awful with editing before posting and usually re-read my post for like an hour after I first submit, hard to proofread in the textbox, and I try to be very particular over which words I use. So apologies if my larger posts changes any specific words on you if you respond right away. these threads rarely move quick so I end up indulging my bad habit)

magnuseffect said: Is this bait?

That, and an attempt to sidetrack a topic about strange things about e621's functionality into (yet another) discussion about free speech. As if we haven't had enough of those.

I wonder how long will it take for this topic to devolve into people once again defending the rights of Nazis to express themselves.

You'd think someone grandstanding about the "FIRST law of the land" would have at least read its first five words. It says "Congress shall make no law," not "E621 shall make no rules."

bitwolfy said:
That, and an attempt to sidetrack a topic about strange things about e621's functionality into (yet another) discussion about free speech. As if we haven't had enough of those.

I wonder how long will it take for this topic to devolve into people once again defending the rights of Nazis to express themselves.

Ah yes My argument that removing comments that were labeled creepy by staff would harm the ability for unaware patrons to understand what is punishable, increase bans or workload due to unintentional rule breaking, and harm the reputation of the site.
Then defending said argument, using the principles I adhere to to guide my actions and beliefs.

clearly just an attempt to sidetrack the thread.

picklestomp said: clearly just an attempt to sidetrack the thread.

I mean... yes. That's literally what you are doing.
But sure, get back on your soapboax and keep preaching about them constitutional rights, I guess.

bitwolfy said:
I mean... yes. That's literally what you are doing.
But sure, get back on your soapboax and keep preaching about them constitutional rights, I guess.

Did you know that the concept of free speech is not limited to the first amendment of the United States constitution?