notmenotyou said:
As scaliespe said US law has a wrinkle in it that criminalizes porn made by minors, but generally doesn't specify that it only covers real life porn. As such it stands to reason any art they produce that fails the Miller Test might also fall under that and that's possibly a problem for us if we knowingly host pieces like that.
With that in mind the decision has been made a good while ago that we will remove content created by minors from the site. This wording "created by minors" is especially important, because it covers things made while underage in perpetuity.

If the law criminalizes porn made by minors, why does the rule apply to SFW images made by minors too?

kinkyglutamate said:
If the law criminalizes porn made by minors, why does the rule apply to SFW images made by minors too?

scaliespe said:
The reasoning for this policy is simply to avoid any potential legal gray areas as much as possible. This is a site with a lot of adult content, and minors and porn do not mix. Even if they are an adult now, we don’t want to potentially skirt any legal gray areas. Now, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I officially speak on behalf of Dragonfruit, but this is the reasoning for the policy to the best of my knowledge. Whether or not it is explicitly illegal to host content made by a once-minor is irrelevant. There are still laws in Arizona and the US in general around pornographic content involving minors that we would prefer to stay as far away from as possible. So, even if there are things that we would technically be allowed to host, we’re choosing not to because of that association. It may run up against legal gray areas that we don’t want to touch. Essentially, if it has anything to do with a minor (at the time of creation), we don’t want it. That way, we avoid potential legal issues entirely without having to get a lawyer to make sure we aren’t skirting any boundaries.

I just wanna say, I appreciate that these updates are written with clear, plain language, without any hard-to-understand legalese/jargon.

Just so that it does not get buried, the first two questions that I had asked in my first comment have yet to be addressed by the mod team. Clarification on the matter would be appreciated.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• 1) Under the new wording for 2.3 Note Abuse, "correcting spelling and grammatical mistakes in text" was given as an example for a valid note.

Is this an official stance from the mod team in regards to topic #39218? Will trivial note edits, such as correcting "dont" to "don't" or retyping entire dialogues due to it being in broken English, be considered acceptable and actively encouraged?

You may use notes to correct spelling and grammar mistakes that would otherwise be confusing or distracting. If it is truly trivial, like dont to don't, then it's not encouraged but still technically allowed within reason. The point of notes is to clarify meaning. The difference between your and you're (while annoying) will not change the meaning. The difference between "I have a few options for not drowning" and "I have few options for not drowning" has the opposite meaning, for example.

• 2) Under the new wording for 4.2 Extreme Activities or Content, specifically the line to "not discuss the details, morality, or attraction to such acts."

I understand that the previous wording pertains to discussions about real-life sexual interest or situations that involved children or animals.
However, the new wording now includes the addition of "towards any of the aforementioned subjects." I interpret this new change as in encompassing the subjects already mentioned, in addition to any discussion pertaining to animal genitalia and real-life violence.

Would comments on real-life animal sexual behaviour (e.g., topic #39554) or animal genitalia (e.g., topic #32465, topic #38404, topic #39307) be in violation of this rule?

If the conversation has relevance to tagging or the site, and is of a neutral tone, then it is allowed. We host a lot of animal content, so it's inevitable to have discussions about anatomy. This is fine. We just don't want people discussing their personal experiences or inner most desires. The first example is related to tagging and is fine. The other examples you posted seem more related to fictional, furry animal genitalia and not the hard references to real life animal bits we see in the comments. I would not encourage either, for creepy comments or for real life references.

Will I be able to appeal for the restoration of past deletions, due to "Excessive same base image set" when I had exceeded the allowed 4 variants?

(This was already answered by Song, yes)

kemonymous said:

I completely agree with AIDT's perspective on the use of annotations to correct spelling and grammatical mistakes in text. It's important to recognize that the primary goal of annotations on boorus like e621 is to enhance the overall user experience and understanding of the content.

When it comes to correcting minor errors in text, such as changing "dont" to "don't" or rephrasing sentences for better clarity, these annotations serve a valuable purpose. They make the content more accessible to a wider audience, including those who may not be proficient in English or who might struggle with interpreting broken English.

By actively encouraging such annotations, the mod team helps ensure that the content remains inclusive and comprehensible to a diverse range of users. It's about fostering a community that can appreciate and engage with the content without being hindered by language barriers or typos.

That's a lot of words, my dude. I agree, though. I'm going to leave out the second part of your response so my comment doesn't get hidden again.

I'm not too sure about machine translation though, unless stuff like chatGPT has made it a lot more reliable? I guess it's better than nothing, though.

aidt said:
That's a lot of words, my dude. I agree, though. I'm going to leave out the second part of your response so my comment doesn't get hidden again.

I'm not too sure about machine translation though, unless stuff like chatGPT has made it a lot more reliable? I guess it's better than nothing, though.

chat GPT is really what I use to help me write big english posts sorry if it is too much XωX

kinkyglutamate said:
If the law criminalizes porn made by minors, why does the rule apply to SFW images made by minors too?

Just to clarify the intent behind what I said in my earlier comment, I was deliberately somewhat vague about the actual laws involved here (because I’m not a lawyer and I don’t want to risk saying anything incorrect), but it’s not entirely about the exact legality of it. I did say “Whether or not it is explicitly illegal to host content made by a once-minor is irrelevant.” By that I mean, we don’t do this strictly for the sake of following any particular law, but rather to avoid coming into contact with such laws as much as possible, especially when it comes to legally dubious areas. So while it might be perfectly legal for us to host strictly safe-for-work art made by a minor (and even this I don’t claim to be true, only a possibility - again, I’m not a lawyer), the legality of it might start to get particularly murky around the rating:questionable territory, and it’s just safer for us in general to put a blanket ban on all content that was made by a minor (if we are made aware of it) rather than allowing SFW content and trying to draw a line somewhere with regards to exactly how safe it has to be to stay. Besides, this effects such a small number of posts that it’s not really worth trying to carve out an exception for safe artwork, even if that is legally permissible. We’d rather just not have anything to do with minors here at all.

kinkyglutamate said:
If the law criminalizes porn made by minors, why does the rule apply to SFW images made by minors too?

We don't want to have to argue with people about edge cases for questionable or safe works, so it all gets the axe.

kemonymous said:
I was actually in the comment section when this discussion was happening, but I must admit that I don't fully understand all the details of what went down. I don't want to question the moderators or overstep any boundaries, but I think it's natural for the community to seek clarification on these matters, especially when they involve artwork being removed from the website.

Of course, I respect that this is a private website, and the staff can handle these matters in any way they see fit. It's their platform, and they have the authority to make decisions in the best interest of the community. However, a bit of clarification on the criteria or rules involved would still be appreciated by those of us who are curious and want to understand the processes better.

---

On an unrelated note, I'm curious about whether it's considered acceptable to utilize AI translation for the purpose of translating comics into English. With the remarkable accuracy that AI translation has achieved in recent years, it seems like a potentially viable option for addressing the vast number of long-forgotten non-English comics that exist. This could open up new opportunities for making previously inaccessible content more accessible to a broader audience.

No AI translations, those still aren't good enough to be an actual improvement over not having a translation at all.

As for the other part, that's not something that'll fit into any particular rule or process and is a deeply unique situation. The CoC covers that we have discretion to step outside of the rules in case it's required for the wellbeing of the site. It's not a decision we take lightly, but seemingly all few years someone comes along and does their absolute best to get us to throw them out proper.

notmenotyou said:
As for the other part, that's not something that'll fit into any particular rule or process and is a deeply unique situation. The CoC covers that we have discretion to step outside of the rules in case it's required for the wellbeing of the site. It's not a decision we take lightly, but seemingly all few years someone comes along and does their absolute best to get us to throw them out proper.

What'd they do? Also is it really necessary to keep hiding people's comments? If someone's making stuff up on an alt to start drama, just ban them and say that it's not true. Hiding 4+ messages from other uninvolved people makes the rest of the conversation hard to follow and probably looks shady to anyone that don't know what's going on.

rainbow_dash said:
...

Thank you for the clarification.

aidt said:
What'd they do? Also is it really necessary to keep hiding people's comments? If someone's making stuff up on an alt to start drama, just ban them and say that it's not true. Hiding 4+ messages from other uninvolved people makes the rest of the conversation hard to follow and probably looks shady to anyone that don't know what's going on.

The same they always do, post an unhinged rant against his favorite minority of the day, get disciplinary action (this time it was a permanent ban as per the norm), tell all their friends to start harassing us about it, fabricated "evidence" to slander us, send another unhinged rant as his form of appealing it, and at that point we just decided we no longer feel obligated to host them in any capacity. And as his fanbase is actively engaged in it they get the same treatment.
There was also a bunch of other crap they've done in the past that eventually led up to all of this, but you'll have to forgive me that I'm not going to summarize 5 years of past history here.
And from everyone that got hidden you're the only person that is reasonably uninvolved.

Apart from a few exceptions, every post should easily have 10 tags on upload.

The few exceptions are posts where not much is going on i.e: solid color background, only one character who doesn't do or say anything.

This should have been there since day one with how many posts that could have more general tags only have 5 to satisfy a minimum, this was annoying me for so long.

characters that are canonically non-binary for established characters should be listed as such regardless of genitalia in the same way that people tag "incest_(lore)" even when nothing in the picture shows that the characters are in fact siblings

this gets really funny with Hollow Knight art where people will tag that The Knight and Hornet are siblings, and therefore tag incest_lore, but not non-binary_lore even when they are equally as shown in the picture, because a lot of people on this website are transphobic PoS from a certain other site

I'm not entirely sure what the rule is with this, but "Tag what you see" with lore tags is dubious in general, and people putting stuff like incest_lore when there is no indication is just as valid as non-binary_lore with canonical characters

"Why don't you fix it?" I've tried, and several times the tag was changed afterwards. IMO the tag should be straight up locked for non-binary characters, because you cannot trust people on this website otherwise.

also a similar issue with transgender tags but that's already such a shitshow. Gender isn't sex. Deal with it and change how people are supposed to tag. Male doesn't mean you have a cock.

jolt2231 said:
characters that are canonically non-binary for established characters should be listed as such regardless of genitalia in the same way that people tag "incest_(lore)" even when nothing in the picture shows that the characters are in fact siblings

this is already more or less how nonbinary_(lore) functions. the only lore tags that don't work like this are the "correctional" lore tags for characters whose true gender or age conflicts with how they express or the visuals of an image.

jolt2231 said:
also a similar issue with transgender tags but that's already such a shitshow. Gender isn't sex. Deal with it and change how people are supposed to tag. Male doesn't mean you have a cock.

we don't tag gender identity or biological sex with the general gender tags, those are both things that are not really knowable knowledge of who a character is and/or the intention of the piece, and for that reason, both things are only able to be tagged via lore.

the general gender tags are for gender expresson, as general tags are only able to account for things that are visible in a post.

notmenotyou said:
@hjfduitloxtrds @wat8548 @watsit: As scaliespe said US law has a wrinkle in it that criminalizes porn made by minors, but generally doesn't specify that it only covers real life porn. As such it stands to reason any art they produce that fails the Miller Test might also fall under that and that's possibly a problem for us if we knowingly host pieces like that.
With that in mind the decision has been made a good while ago that we will remove content created by minors from the site. This wording "created by minors" is especially important, because it covers things made while underage in perpetuity.

That sucks but is understandable. I'm German, our child protection laws now make it so that you will go to jail for reporting someone for sending you child abuse material because there's no exception clause for possession (aka having it saved on a device). So people just delete it and don't report it. These laws are clearly the result of politicians wanting to raise their profile for being uncompromising when it comes to child abuse, not them actually caring about stopping abuse. Really frustrating. Thank you for clarifying.

My main question with this minor-aged artist takedown is if they are shown as underage when originally posted, what happens if they(original artist) just reupload the image when they are older? I mean its not as if they can't just say they just touched up the art as oppose to just reupload the original image. It just seems like more conditional_dnp but in reverse with artists.

Regarding the misgendering issue the main problem is trap-style, dual-genital, or artist_lore characters conflicting with the "tag what you see". For example if I'm looking for male/male I don't want to see a guy with transgender lore like post:4323803 or post:4316328 or posting stuff like post:4321804 which just has many conflicting tags

xipeho said:
That sucks but is understandable. I'm German, our child protection laws now make it so that you will go to jail for reporting someone for sending you child abuse material because there's no exception clause for possession (aka having it saved on a device). So people just delete it and don't report it. These laws are clearly the result of politicians wanting to raise their profile for being uncompromising when it comes to child abuse, not them actually caring about stopping abuse. Really frustrating. Thank you for clarifying.

It's even worse in the USA. Laws are only written to protect the interests of the lawmakers. They'd rather write laws create an illusion that they are helping the people, rather than laws that actually make sense. If a law is actually helpful in any way at all, it is simply an unintended side effect of the politicians lining their pockets or creating a good public image of themselves. That is why we have 1000-page laws full of meaningless jargon that are contradictory or purposely vague and unclear what the actual meaning is.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
It's even worse in the USA. Laws are only written to protect the interests of the lawmakers. They'd rather write laws create an illusion that they are helping the people, rather than laws that actually make sense. If a law is actually helpful in any way at all, it is simply an unintended side effect of the politicians lining their pockets or creating a good public image of themselves. That is why we have 1000-page laws full of meaningless jargon that are contradictory or purposely vague and unclear what the actual meaning is.

A classic example of this is how a minor can be tried in court as an adult for producing child pornography by taking a nude picture - of themselves.

foxthings said:
My main question with this minor-aged artist takedown is if they are shown as underage when originally posted, what happens if they(original artist) just reupload the image when they are older? I mean its not as if they can't just say they just touched up the art as oppose to just reupload the original image. It just seems like more conditional_dnp but in reverse with artists.

It would need to be fully original or it will get deleted again, derivatives of effectively illegal content still stays illegal. If they remake it from the ground up it'd be allowed.

foxthings said:
Regarding the misgendering issue the main problem is trap-style, dual-genital, or artist_lore characters conflicting with the "tag what you see". For example if I'm looking for male/male I don't want to see a guy with transgender lore like post:4323803 or post:4316328 or posting stuff like post:4321804 which just has many conflicting tags

If in doubt check the description or image and use whatever pronouns are used in there, if none are there use your best judgement. If you do get corrected by someone don't double down on being incorrect. The rule is specifically aimed at people trying to start a fight by misgendering on purpose, not by accident.

notmenotyou said:
It would need to be fully original or it will get deleted again, derivatives of effectively illegal content still stays illegal. If they remake it from the ground up it'd be allowed.

But earlier in the thread scaliespe said -
"Regarding the twokinds situation, posts that have been remade by the artist as an adult are fine. We only care if the finished product was made by a minor, but an artist fixing up their old work as an adult isn’t really a problem for us. At that point, it’s essentially just new artwork made by an adult."

Which seems to contradict what you just said - this didn't sound like it would have to be 100% new from-scratch, but is that in fact the rule/what you're saying?

emserdalf said:
But earlier in the thread scaliespe said -
"Regarding the twokinds situation, posts that have been remade by the artist as an adult are fine. We only care if the finished product was made by a minor, but an artist fixing up their old work as an adult isn’t really a problem for us. At that point, it’s essentially just new artwork made by an adult."

Which seems to contradict what you just said - this didn't sound like it would have to be 100% new from-scratch, but is that in fact the rule/what you're saying?

Fixing up in the sense of what Fischbach did, remaking it but keeping the story and everything else intact. Just fixing up some details in a piece is not going to suffice.

edit: Ignore original post, I was under a significant misconception when I posted it.

Cinder said:
If something like what you named becomes or causes an issue, we'll judge it based on other behavior that accompanied it.

Based mods.

Cinder said:
What we don't need is wacky fearmongering about what "could happen" around here.

My post wasn't directed at staff as a "what will you do if X unlikely thing happens", I wildly misread some of the posts on the first page of this thread and thought there was a more serious pronoun discussion, so I was genuinely asking people at what point they stop assuming good faith to get an idea of what their positions actually were.

---
Important question to ask yourselves: where do you personally draw the line between "neopronouns were a mistake" and "self-id means self-id"?

• "Real" pronouns: he, she, they, it
• Shi/hir has been around in the furry community for a while because of herm characters¹
• Common "normal" neopronouns: xe/xem, ze/zir, etc
• Unfamiliar (but pre-2000) neopronouns: thon, hu/hum, ve/ver, etc
• There's at least one artist on the DNP (FicusArt) whose pronouns are fae/faer
• Otherkin never left, they just rebranded to xenogender, have fun with bun/buns and kitten/kittenself
• You know how Flat Earth and "birds aren't real" were jokes that went out of control and now have actual believers, well clown/clownself is like that, the number of "sincere" clowns is low but never zero
• Emoji pronouns are slowly crawling out of gender Tiktok, one day you're going to see 🍓/🍓 in the wild
• You know some idiot is going to put some cringe on their profile like "I identify as a fucking problem", "dis/aster lebsian", or "my pronouns are fuck/you"
• Place bets until someone tries to "prove a point" and puts apa/che on their profile²

^{1: IIRC shi/hir is derived from the pre-2000 neopronoun ze/hir, by way of going through xe/hir and then changing pronunciation (letter X in English is a fucking mess), so it's technically a "normal" neopronoun
2: people already protest rule changes on through malicious compliance, why would this be any different different?}

potentialgoat said:
Important question to ask yourselves:

It's actually not important. As in, at all.

First of all, the number of people who use pronouns like the ones you so meticulously listed is incredibly low.
Moreover, I don't remember someone causing issues by insisting that their pronouns is "bun/bunself" or whatever.
But we do get people who deliberately insist on calling others by the incorrect pronouns as a way to get a rise out of them every now and then.

We are not the pronoun police, we are not going to make judgements on what is valid and what isn't.
If something like what you named becomes or causes an issue, we'll judge it based on other behavior that accompanied it.

What we don't need is wacky fearmongering about what "could happen" around here.

So looking over these changes to notes, on my drawing 4324056 the notes by nanobrush would be arbitrary? The user seemly used notes to point out details he thought others might not have noticed?

toxicfcknferret said:
So looking over these changes to notes, on my drawing 4324056 the notes by nanobrush would be arbitrary? The user seemly used notes to point out details he thought others might not have noticed?

Yeah that's not how notes are meant to be used, so it's good that you removed them.

notmenotyou said:
We don't want to have to argue with people about edge cases for questionable or safe works, so it all gets the axe.

cinder said:
Again, it's an incredibly fringe case. This part of the rule was barely even applied, I only remember a couple of cases where people got records for this stuff.

"The problem is exceedingly rare" and "we don't want to argue about specific cases" feel a little contradictory to me, but I don't think I care about 100 posts that will get removed over the next 5 years.

xipeho said:
That sucks but is understandable. I'm German, our child protection laws now make it so that you will go to jail for reporting someone for sending you child abuse material because there's no exception clause for possession (aka having it saved on a device). So people just delete it and don't report it. These laws are clearly the result of politicians wanting to raise their profile for being uncompromising when it comes to child abuse, not them actually caring about stopping abuse. Really frustrating. Thank you for clarifying.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
It's even worse in the USA. Laws are only written to protect the interests of the lawmakers. They'd rather write laws create an illusion that they are helping the people, rather than laws that actually make sense. If a law is actually helpful in any way at all, it is simply an unintended side effect of the politicians lining their pockets or creating a good public image of themselves. That is why we have 1000-page laws full of meaningless jargon that are contradictory or purposely vague and unclear what the actual meaning is.

A law written to punish the accuser sounds a lot like it's to protect the guilty. I'm cynical enough to think it's not always an accident. We have some like that in some US cities and states. I think it's pretty much everywhere with judges and police, TBH. I was going to write a bit of sarcastic humor but meh, didn't think it was actually that funny to make a The Prince reference about happy accidents.

toxicfcknferret said:
So looking over these changes to notes, on my drawing 4324056 the notes by nanobrush would be arbitrary? The user seemly used notes to point out details he thought others might not have noticed?

Yeah, already had this discussion with another who used descriptions for stuff that should be in comments. Move to comments and move on is basically the rule, in that case. In this one, it was odd to put notes for objects in the scene. It's usually used for translations or links to other posts (like if there's an image on a wall), or translation notes like phonetics/puns. I HAVE seen it used for scenes where there's 30 different characters and some are more obscure than others. Examples: post #1328162 post #1994097 post #1126474

It may have felt like people were rules lawyering, but the entire point was playing devil's advocate, because you KNOW that someone will come with those ideas in a more malicious way. Even better if it's unintentionally so. Good ol' Murphy's law.

kinkyglutamate said:
"The problem is exceedingly rare" and "we don't want to argue about specific cases" feel a little contradictory to me, but I don't think I care about 100 posts that will get removed over the next 5 years.

Sadly it's based on experience, some people are absolutely ridiculous in picking which pointless hill to die on.

alphamule said:
A law written to punish the accuser sounds a lot like it's to protect the guilty. I'm cynical enough to think it's not always an accident. We have some like that in some US cities and states. I think it's pretty much everywhere with judges and police, TBH. I was going to write a bit of sarcastic humor but meh, didn't think it was actually that funny to make a The Prince reference about happy accidents.

The law in Germany was written while our christian parties held the majority in our parliament. Take that fun little bit of trivia as you will.

pseudosmuhthotohsin said:
TL;DR This post is about wanting optional displayed genders/pronouns on user bios, and to have it displayed in the users' header in the comments section.

What is the expected amount of work for someone to put in before commenting? I say this as someone who has been and continues to be afraid to comment based on how spontaneously bans seem to occur here, and not just on controversial topics.

Making an effort to have respect and courtesy is a given, even if it isn't always gotten. Is it reasonable to expect to look, for each account involved of a thread, for similar or matching profiles on this or other platforms as to identify them, and what information they prefer, before commenting? I think holding someone to that standard is unreasonable, but please state the expectation.

While "Purposeful misgendering is always against the rules", and it's nice to see it written so clearly, I've seen many users permabanned for what, on their records, is one infraction, and doesn't appear to be intentional. I don't have access to all the information on this site, nevermind others since that's also used to determine bans here, but what I do see repeated makes me afraid to post.

As someone with no gender, it's not obvious to me, ever. I known it's a fervent topic, and I WANT to be respectful and courteous without a rigorous opportunity cost. With this in mind, what's the lift and possibility of implementing an optional gender and/or pronouns field in users' bios, and letting it be displayed in comment headers after their name if populated? If feasible, I believe the 'obviousness' of it would be more obvious.

Nothing here is sarcasm, but said with respect. Thank you.

That seems to cause more trouble than it's worth. And why do we have to have this shibboleth?

alphamule said:
A law written to punish the accuser sounds a lot like it's to protect the guilty. I'm cynical enough to think it's not always an accident. We have some like that in some US cities and states. I think it's pretty much everywhere with judges and police, TBH. I was going to write a bit of sarcastic humor but meh, didn't think it was actually that funny to make a The Prince reference about happy accidents.

Yeah, already had this discussion with another who used descriptions for stuff that should be in comments. Move to comments and move on is basically the rule, in that case. In this one, it was odd to put notes for objects in the scene. It's usually used for translations or links to other posts (like if there's an image on a wall), or translation notes like phonetics/puns. I HAVE seen it used for scenes where there's 30 different characters and some are more obscure than others. Examples: post #1328162 post #1994097 post #1126474

It may have felt like people were rules lawyering, but the entire point was playing devil's advocate, because you KNOW that someone will come with those ideas in a more malicious way. Even better if it's unintentionally so. Good ol' Murphy's law.

Wait I'm not so sure didn't Ashcroft versus the Free Speech coalition. The USA wouldn't have the FBI report function on such content for anybody to use if it would have the reporter also be in jail. And none of this stuff should be child abuse anyway. After all the stuff posted on here is fiction and art. And not materials that involve the debauching of a minor.

notmenotyou said:
Sadly it's based on experience, some people are absolutely ridiculous in picking which pointless hill to die on.

The law in Germany was written while our christian parties held the majority in our parliament. Take that fun little bit of trivia as you will.

potentialgoat said:
edit: Ignore original post, I was under a significant misconception when I posted it.

Based mods.
My post wasn't directed at staff as a "what will you do if X unlikely thing happens", I wildly misread some of the posts on the first page of this thread and thought there was a more serious pronoun discussion, so I was genuinely asking people at what point they stop assuming good faith to get an idea of what their positions actually were.

---
Important question to ask yourselves: where do you personally draw the line between "neopronouns were a mistake" and "self-id means self-id"?

• "Real" pronouns: he, she, they, it
• Shi/hir has been around in the furry community for a while because of herm characters¹
• Common "normal" neopronouns: xe/xem, ze/zir, etc
• Unfamiliar (but pre-2000) neopronouns: thon, hu/hum, ve/ver, etc
• There's at least one artist on the DNP (FicusArt) whose pronouns are fae/faer
• Otherkin never left, they just rebranded to xenogender, have fun with bun/buns and kitten/kittenself
• You know how Flat Earth and "birds aren't real" were jokes that went out of control and now have actual believers, well clown/clownself is like that, the number of "sincere" clowns is low but never zero
• Emoji pronouns are slowly crawling out of gender Tiktok, one day you're going to see 🍓/🍓 in the wild
• You know some idiot is going to put some cringe on their profile like "I identify as a fucking problem", "dis/aster lebsian", or "my pronouns are fuck/you"
• Place bets until someone tries to "prove a point" and puts apa/che on their profile²

^{1: IIRC shi/hir is derived from the pre-2000 neopronoun ze/hir, by way of going through xe/hir and then changing pronunciation (letter X in English is a fucking mess), so it's technically a "normal" neopronoun
2: people already protest rule changes on through malicious compliance, why would this be any different different?}

Why is that cringe? Why call anything cringe? The whole calling of something to be cringe is not a point. What is it to you? And why do you have to pull a social construct and some weird language and saying it's pre-2000s Neo pronoun stuff? It sounds like some people are searching for legitimacy. If it's legitimate then it doesn't need defending. I don't know why everyone is so upset about some idea being mocked.

notmenotyou said:
Sadly it's based on experience, some people are absolutely ridiculous in picking which pointless hill to die on.

The law in Germany was written while our christian parties held the majority in our parliament. Take that fun little bit of trivia as you will.

Care to elaborate on the weird Hills to die on? I'm curious.

calydor said:
A classic example of this is how a minor can be tried in court as an adult for producing child pornography by taking a nude picture - of themselves.

Or even getting a picture they didn't ask for or want because some group text or someone from a friend. Penn and Teller had a whole episode on that

somerandomvoir said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been any talk about this yet.

werideatdawn said:
Speaking of the colored comic, is that still being discussed?
Considering that minors and their content legally can't be on the site, it affects all content since grandfathering them in isn't exactly an option.

It's already mentioned in the CoC that they'll be lenient when adding the minimum amount of tags on a post is a challenge. Take this post for instance and just try coming up with 10 tags.

Wait what does the prostatia Foundation have to say?

asimplevoice said:
That seems to cause more trouble than it's worth. And why do we have to have this shibboleth?

(several more times)

You do know that you can edit and hide comments, right? Just saying...

asimplevoice said:
Wait what does the prostatia Foundation have to say?

Why am I getting quoted in this? I don't even know what that foundation is.

notmenotyou said:

Posts and Tags

• Changed the requirement for minimum number of tags on upload from four to ten.

This is very welcome news and the only comment I have to add is consider moving it even higher

asimplevoice said:
Why is that cringe? Why call anything cringe? The whole calling of something to be cringe is not a point. What is it to you? And why do you have to pull a social construct and some weird language and saying it's pre-2000s Neo pronoun stuff? It sounds like some people are searching for legitimacy. If it's legitimate then it doesn't need defending. I don't know why everyone is so upset about some idea being mocked.

Good to hear that every religion isn't legitimate, and that furries aren't legitimate, and that the prefix for years, B.C isn't legitimate, and 4chan, and art, and queer people, I could go on if you'd like.

iamaverypotato said:
Good to hear that every religion isn't legitimate, and that furries aren't legitimate, and that the prefix for years, B.C isn't legitimate, and 4chan, and art, and queer people, I could go on if you'd like.

Enough of this. This thread is for discussion and feedback of the new rule changes. Not to pick fights with each other.

Sounds like this thread has run its course so I'll just throw in my thoughts.

cinder said:
We are not the pronoun police, we are not going to make judgements on what is valid and what isn't.
If something like what you named becomes or causes an issue, we'll judge it based on other behavior that accompanied it.

What we don't need is wacky fearmongering about what "could happen" around here.

I never liked this whole nonbinary gender thing, never have (at least since 2011) and probably never will. For everyone's sanity, I'd recommend treating it like politics and religion, IE, something that we don't touch. No one cares about what god I believe in or what politics I follow, and conversely which I think should be destroyed for all the suffering they've caused. No one cares that I'm a straight male because no one asked, and I didn't volunteer that information.

Having a field for this in peoples profiles and it being displayed in comments is just another invitation for conflict, as if all the problems with lore tags (at least that I've read in this thread so far) aren't enough.

Ah well, those are my thoughts, now I can close the news bulletin.

I feel like a 12 year old for laughing at how code of conduct is abbreviated to “coc”

craftykittydog said:
I feel like a 12 year old for laughing at how code of conduct is abbreviated to “coc”

Well, it's where you look to find out where you made a cockup

craftykittydog said:
I feel like a 12 year old for laughing at how code of conduct is abbreviated to “coc”

I still say there should be CNTs, too.

craftykittydog said:
I feel like a 12 year old for laughing at how code of conduct is abbreviated to “coc”

Wait until you find out our discussions around them are literally called CoCk

donovan_dmc said:
Wait until you find out our discussions around them are literally called CoCk

What does the K stand for?

wat8548 said:
What does the K stand for?

Nothing

wat8548 said:
What does the K stand for?

Kindness.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-the-fuck/ LOL, just had to look this up.

Claim: The word "fuck" derives from an acronymic phrase, either "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" or "Fornication Under Consent of the King."

There was also until creating kids, a GNUism and pun on forking. Equally nonsense as origin.

wat8548 said:
What does the K stand for?

Konversation

I personally think there should be a rule against uploading something and listing the source URL to link to an artist's userpage or gallery instead of the actual art. I often use the source link to show appreciation to the artist by navigating to the art and favoriting it on its platform, but when the source is a userpage I just don't bother. Nearly all of the times when I did bother trying to find art from a profile or gallery source it didn't even exist and just wasted a bunch of time.

If a userpage or gallery link is going to be listed as a source, a link to the actual submission should be present in the sources as well. If those links are the only ones listed as sources and the actual submission is not, and they're also linked on the artist's page, it's redundant so don't even bother. Someone will make the argument 'but it's the first thing in the gallery so using those as a source is valid'. To which I say if the artist is very active, a month from the time of upload it could be buried five pages deep nowhere in sight, be extremely difficult to find because the artist doesn't tag their art on other platforms which makes searching for it impossible, it could have been moved to their scraps or something, etc. And even if they're only mildly active, the submission in question is going to be pushed backwards in their gallery by newer art anyway. On FA in particular, when an artist deactivates their account, links to their gallery and userpage stop working but links to submissions continue to function correctly. In this case links to all of those submissions with only galleries as sources are dead all at once and, especially if the artist didn't use tags or a description as quite a few don't, you're not going to find submission links to replace them. Include links to submissions from the beginning and the only way they die is if the artist deletes the submission.

From a preservation standpoint, using a gallery and/or profile page as a source should require also linking directly to the submission in question, especially when the source is FA. That's just my opinion.

firestar said:
I personally think there should be a rule against uploading something and listing the source URL to link to an artist's userpage or gallery instead of the actual art. I often use the source link to show appreciation to the artist by navigating to the art and favoriting it on its platform, but when the source is a userpage I just don't bother. Nearly all of the times when I did bother trying to find art from a profile or gallery source it didn't even exist and just wasted a bunch of time.

If a userpage or gallery link is going to be listed as a source, a link to the actual submission should be present in the sources as well. If those links are the only ones listed as sources and the actual submission is not, and they're also linked on the artist's page, it's redundant so don't even bother. Someone will make the argument 'but it's the first thing in the gallery so using those as a source is valid'. To which I say if the artist is very active, a month from the time of upload it could be buried five pages deep nowhere in sight, be extremely difficult to find because the artist doesn't tag their art on other platforms which makes searching for it impossible, it could have been moved to their scraps or something, etc. And even if they're only mildly active, the submission in question is going to be pushed backwards in their gallery by newer art anyway. On FA in particular, when an artist deactivates their account, links to their gallery and userpage stop working but links to submissions continue to function correctly. In this case links to all of those submissions with only galleries as sources are dead all at once and, especially if the artist didn't use tags or a description as quite a few don't, you're not going to find submission links to replace them. Include links to submissions from the beginning and the only way they die is if the artist deletes the submission.

From a preservation standpoint, using a gallery and/or profile page as a source should require also linking directly to the submission in question, especially when the source is FA. That's just my opinion.

This is in the new rules actually. https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1638#tagging

• Links to the exact submission page where the artwork can be found should be prioritized. This is not the same as the direct image link, which isn’t helpful. Links to the artist's gallery pages should be added to their artist page.

rainbow_dash said:
This is in the new rules actually. https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1638#tagging

• Links to the exact submission page where the artwork can be found should be prioritized. This is not the same as the direct image link, which isn’t helpful. Links to the artist's gallery pages should be added to their artist page.

Yes I saw that, but it's not clear if that implies that gallery and artist pages shouldn't be listed as sources at all. I indirectly referenced that as that's where I learned that artists even had pages where links to their gallery and such were posted. But, to me at least, I don't know if that rule is saying to remove gallery links from source fields or leave them as long as links to the submission are prioritized. If it's the latter, then adding "... and not listed as a submission's source" to the end of it would make it concrete.

firestar said:
Yes I saw that, but it's not clear if that implies that gallery and artist pages shouldn't be listed as sources at all. I indirectly referenced that as that's where I learned that artists even had pages where links to their gallery and such were posted. But, to me at least, I don't know if that rule is saying to remove gallery links from source fields or leave them as long as links to the submission are prioritized. If it's the latter, then adding "... and not listed as a submission's source" to the end of it would make it concrete.

I mean, linking straight to the artist's gallery/userpage or their social media profile is kind of redundant if a link to the post page or permalink to a social media post is provided. those pages will have links back to their respective main page already, as well as a place that allows users to comment about a post to the actual artist, and potentially information useful for determining lore tags.

firestar said:
Yes I saw that, but it's not clear if that implies that gallery and artist pages shouldn't be listed as sources at all. I indirectly referenced that as that's where I learned that artists even had pages where links to their gallery and such were posted. But, to me at least, I don't know if that rule is saying to remove gallery links from source fields or leave them as long as links to the submission are prioritized. If it's the latter, then adding "... and not listed as a submission's source" to the end of it would make it concrete.

They should not be removed if the name is not present in the submission url
https://twitter.com/Whatever/status/1234 - https://twitter.com/Whatever not needed, should be removed if present
https://furafinity.net/view/1234 - https://furaffinity.net/user/Whatever if present should be left alone

It however should not be the only source

notmenotyou said:
Clarified that expressing or indicating any degree of attraction to real-life children or animals is against the rules.

Apologies if this has been asked and answered before, but does this rule apply to profile avatars?
For example, setting a post containing a flag or colors representing a community that falls under the discussion ban as one’s avatar?

clawdragons said:
As a result, it is clear what the intent of this rule is. The intent is to ban anyone from discussing attraction to animals in any sort of positive light, while allowing anyone who wishes to to discuss the subject in a negative light (as long as doing so doesn't violate other rules, such as refusal-to-blacklist or whatever else).

Based on my (admittedly not-very-thorough) skimming of the feedback log, that does appear to be how the rule is enforced, even if it’s not the explicit intent.
I understand the reasoning behind prohibiting discussion on this topic, but personally it’s a bit sickening to see people defending (without advocating for illegal behavior) those with attraction to animals be given permanent bans, while those calling for the mass killing of those with attraction to animals are given warnings and very light punishments at most. I hope I’m off-base on this and it’s not a consistent pattern.

acidph said:
Based on my (admittedly not-very-thorough) skimming of the feedback log, that does appear to be how the rule is enforced, even if it’s not the explicit intent.
I understand the reasoning behind prohibiting discussion on this topic, but personally it’s a bit sickening to see people defending (without advocating for illegal behavior) those with attraction to animals be given permanent bans, while those calling for the mass killing of those with attraction to animals are given warnings and very light punishments at most. I hope I’m off-base on this and it’s not a consistent pattern.

Anyone who makes death threats will receive severe punishment. We have no rules against what users can and can't use as an avatar, but accounts that do use zoophilia as the avatar also tend to break site rules via comments, and that is what we punish based on. No more, no less.

rainbow_dash said:
...

Thanks for the response and clarification.
I'll take your word that violent language, even toward disfavored groups, is taken seriously by moderators.

notmenotyou said:
We don't want to have to argue with people about edge cases for questionable or safe works, so it all gets the axe.

I see the utter laziness of the moderators is making its way into the rules again.
"We can't be bothered to get off our ass and decide things on a case-by-case basis so all of it gets banned"

visionsinfire said:
I see the utter laziness of the moderators is making its way into the rules again.
"We can't be bothered to get off our ass and decide things on a case-by-case basis so all of it gets banned"

let's see you run a site lmao

knotty_curls said:
let's see you run a site lmao

You don't need to be a chef to know when something tastes like shit.
Nor do you need to be a site moderator to know when one is run by a bunch of lazy, overzealous and arrogant wastes of skin.

If you put as much time into being actually good moderators as you do making snarky replies to any criticism, maybe you wouldn't cop so much flak from everyone.

visionsinfire said:
You don't need to be a chef to know when something tastes like shit.
Nor do you need to be a site moderator to know when one is run by a bunch of lazy, overzealous and arrogant wastes of skin.

If you put as much time into being actually good moderators as you do making snarky replies to any criticism, maybe you wouldn't cop so much flak from everyone.

Could you at least provide some constructive criticism instead of just hurling insults around?
It's okay to dislike some of the rules, but have some respect for yourself and conduct yourself properly so people don't dismiss you instantly.

slyroon said:
Could you at least provide some constructive criticism instead of just hurling insults around?
It's okay to dislike some of the rules, but have some respect for yourself and conduct yourself properly so people don't dismiss you instantly.

I don't see much point in wasting my breath since you never seem to take criticism regardless of it's form but my criticism is as stated above:
Decide things on a case by case basis instead of taking the lazy way out and blanket banning the entire lot. Better yet, set up some simple filters to whitelist safe works created by an artist, regardless of when they were created.
I can't imagine it's that fucking hard.

visionsinfire said:
I don't see much point in wasting my breath since you never seem to take criticism regardless of it's form but my criticism is as stated above:
Decide things on a case by case basis instead of taking the lazy way out and blanket banning the entire lot. Better yet, set up some simple filters to whitelist safe works created by an artist, regardless of when they were created.
I can't imagine it's that fucking hard.

If you can provide us with information regarding the legality of hosting content on an 18+ website that is created by minors, then perhaps we could reconsider how we handle such content in the future. Currently, we want to avoid any potential legal action by prohibiting content created by individuals who were under 18 at the time, even if it is SFW content.

I understand that this may not be a satisfactory answer, but so far, only around 40 images rated safe have been deleted because of that rule. That may be 40 too many for you, but personally, I would rather have them deleted than risk the site.

slyroon said:
If you can provide us with information regarding the legality of hosting content on an 18+ website that is created by minors, then perhaps we could reconsider how we handle such content in the future. Currently, we want to avoid any potential legal action by prohibiting content created by individuals who were under 18 at the time, even if it is SFW content.

I understand that this may not be a satisfactory answer, but so far, only around 40 images rated safe have been deleted because of that rule. That may be 40 too many for you, but personally, I would rather have them deleted than risk the site.

I'm sorry, are you trying to say that images created by a minor are the equivalent to actual minors and are going to care about being hosted alongside 18+ content?
Jesus christ, you're not just incompetent, you're batshit insane.

As long as the content isn't uploaded by minors I do not see any reason why the age of the person who created it should matter.
And as far as I'm concerned this has even less relevance if the person who created it is no longer a minor.

Also, here's an amazing idea:
Ask an actual fucking lawyer about it instead of making ridiculous assumptions.

visionsinfire said:
I'm sorry, are you trying to say that images created by a minor are the equivalent to actual minors and are going to care about being hosted alongside 18+ content?
Jesus christ, you're not just incompetent, you're batshit insane.

As long as the content isn't uploaded by minors I do not see any reason why the age of the person who created it should matter.
And as far as I'm concerned this has even less relevance if the person who created it is no longer a minor.

Also, here's an amazing idea:
Ask an actual fucking lawyer about it instead of making ridiculous assumptions.

First of all, stop with the insults, it's childish and unnecessary. If you continue to use that kind of language, either I or someone else will issue you a record for your behavior.

Secondly, while you might not see a problem, we do. We can argue back and forth forever, but neither one of us has a definitive answer about the legality of the issue I mentioned. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we could host SFW content made when the artist was a minor, but we have to err on the side of caution. Laws can be interpreted in multiple ways, and with us operating in a gray zone amidst the current rise in anti-pornography laws in the US, we have to be more cautious to avoid any potential legal matters.

Though you could try to contact the owners of the site and see if they are willing to pay a lawyer's fee to settle the matter, I don't have a say in those matters.

visionsinfire said:
Also, here's an amazing idea:
Ask an actual fucking lawyer about it instead of making ridiculous assumptions.

Do you know they didn't?

NotMeNotYou said:
As scaliespe said US law has a wrinkle in it that criminalizes porn made by minors, but generally doesn't specify that it only covers real life porn. As such it stands to reason any art they produce that fails the Miller Test might also fall under that and that's possibly a problem for us if we knowingly host pieces like that.

A lawyer won't generally tell you "Yes" or "No", but will douse it with plenty of "maybe"s, "probably"s, "it depends", etc. It becomes a matter of risk and probability. And if law enforcement decides to take action to get the site shut down and bring people to court over that stuff being hosted here, I doubt you telling them "I do not see any reason why it should matter." is going to convince them to drop the case.