Topic: How Does This Break The Rules?

Hello,

I was uploading art for the character Zhao from Zenless Zone Zero, but a janitor (specifically "Catt0s") deleted it for being a "Young human-like character in an explicit situation."

This is the art in question:
x.com/zhao_190/status/1984169131806232615
x.com/zhao_190/status/1984468890576175592

These are the deleted posts:
https://e621.net/posts/5999470
https://e621.net/posts/5999451

I personally don't understand what makes this art any different than any other Zhao post.

This specific art gives the character bigger breasts, the character has full-body fur, and she has chibi proportions if anything.

Please look at all the other art posts on Zhao and explain to me why these two apparently cross the line, so that I can avoid apparently breaking the rules again.

valdrich said:
Hello,

I was uploading art for the character Zhao from Zenless Zone Zero, but a janitor (specifically "Catt0s") deleted it for being a "Young human-like character in an explicit situation."

This is the art in question:
x.com/zhao_190/status/1984169131806232615
x.com/zhao_190/status/1984468890576175592

These are the deleted posts:
https://e621.net/posts/5999470
https://e621.net/posts/5999451

I personally don't understand what makes this art any different than any other Zhao post.

This specific art gives the character bigger breasts, the character has full-body fur, and she has chibi proportions if anything.

Please look at all the other art posts on Zhao and explain to me why these two apparently cross the line, so that I can avoid apparently breaking the rules again.

For the specific rule, please read our Uploading Guidelines, specifically the "Underage Human & Human-Like Characters" clause under Bad Things to Upload alongside the Humans and e621 section.

IMO, the character featured in this post looks "animal" enough to not be considered "human-like", since they have visible animal_ears, animal_tail, handpaws, hindpaws, and a fur_body.
However, the janitor in question may have their own reasons as to why this leans more towards "human-like" instead.

If you want to contest the deletion, do contact the janitor that deleted the post and state your reasons/counter-arguments politely.
If they deem that it was a mistake on their part, they may undo the deletion and reinstate your post.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For the specific rule, please read our Uploading Guidelines, specifically the "Underage Human & Human-Like Characters" clause under Bad Things to Upload alongside the Humans and e621 section.

IMO, the character featured in this post looks "animal" enough to not be considered "human-like", since they have visible animal_ears, animal_tail, handpaws, hindpaws, and a fur_body.
However, the janitor in question may have their own reasons as to why this leans more towards "human-like" instead.

If you want to contest the deletion, do contact the janitor that deleted the post and state your reasons/counter-arguments politely.
If they deem that it was a mistake on their part, they may undo the deletion and reinstate your post.

Yeah, I might just do that later. All they have to do is click on Zhao or even cub in general and you'll see posts that I'd argue are even more questionable. I understand the part of the rules that say no young human characters like Lolis or Shotas, but this on the furry cub side or short/chibi. Which are allowed on this site.

I'll be polite about it, but idk how someone can make a mistake like this when it's their job. I think there was bias involved in the decision regardless of the rules.

Thank you for your feedback.

valdrich said:
Yeah, I might just do that later. All they have to do is click on Zhao or even cub in general and you'll see posts that I'd argue are even more questionable. I understand the part of the rules that say no young human characters like Lolis or Shotas, but this on the furry cub side or short/chibi. Which are allowed on this site.

I'll be polite about it, but idk how someone can make a mistake like this when it's their job. I think there was bias involved in the decision regardless of the rules.

Thank you for your feedback.

Full furry underage characters are allowed, humanoid (partially human) are not
The janitor likely saw the fur as skin because it is very skin colored and would make them a humanoid

Assuming malice doesn't really help anyone, Janitors have 2500 posts to handle over across a few dozen people each day, they really don't have time to sit and inspect every little detail of a post

You haven't pointed out any specific posts for anyone to say why they are allowed, you've only gestured vaguely at other posts

donovan_dmc said:
Full furry underage characters are allowed, humanoid (partially human) are not
The janitor likely saw the fur as skin because it is very skin colored and would make them a humanoid

Assuming malice doesn't really help anyone, Janitors have 2500 posts to handle over across a few dozen people each day, they really don't have time to sit and inspect every little detail of a post

You haven't pointed out any specific posts for anyone to say why they are allowed, you've only gestured vaguely at other posts

Random question, How long is a typical work day of a janitor?
Reviewing at least 100 post a day can't be easy, Dood ╹ ╹)

thegreatwolfgang said:
IMO, the character featured in this post looks "animal" enough to not be considered "human-like", since they have visible animal_ears, animal_tail, handpaws, hindpaws, and a fur_body.
However, the janitor in question may have their own reasons as to why this leans more towards "human-like" instead.

However, the face looks bare-skinned human. The nose doesn't look like the usual animal nose Zhao is normally portrayed with and more like the almost noseless style of human face sometimes seen in Japanese anime and manga. There doesn't appear to be anything resembling a muzzle. Along with the bare-skinned look of the torso, she looks like a young kemonomimi to me, especially in relation to the non-chibi adult with her. Remember to think like an outsider who doesn't know or care about the lore nor has seen any other pictures of Zhao.

That said, I can't speak for Cattos. If you want to know his reasoning, you'll have to take TheGreatWolfgang's advice above. If you still feel dissatisfied with Catto's response, you can escalate to Lead Janitor Strikerman and then possibly on to an Admin.

notkastar said:
Random question, How long is a typical work day of a janitor?
Reviewing at least 100 post a day can't be easy, Dood ╹ ╹)

It depends on a Janitor's mood, habits, and schedule. Sometimes, on a really good day, we can sit down and spend an hour or two, maybe an evening if we're really lucky, banging away at the queue. Other days, it's like picking at one post here, a couple there, maybe another if we're not distracted by something else in the meantime. And then there're days when, for some reason, we just... can't.

After all, we're volunteers with no mandatory minimum time we have to work, so there's going to be a lot of variation even for one person. But I think we all try to do something on any particular day, even if it's only to decide the fate of just one post.

clawstripe said:
It depends on a Janitor's mood, habits, and schedule. Sometimes, on a really good day, we can sit down and spend an hour or two, maybe an evening if we're really lucky, banging away at the queue. Other days, it's like picking at one post here, a couple there, maybe another if we're not distracted by something else in the meantime. And then there're days when, for some reason, we just... can't.

After all, we're volunteers with no mandatory minimum time we have to work, so there's going to be a lot of variation even for one person. But I think we all try to do something on any particular day, even if it's only to decide the fate of just one post.

This inadvertently brings up a super interesting question I never thought about till now.
Can a Janitor get fired/demoted for inaction for too long? Say something came up, or in
an extremely casual case, they just didn't feel like it. Can a Janitor get fired from
the volunteer work for being lazy, Dood?

notkastar said:
This inadvertently brings up a super interesting question I never thought about till now.
Can a Janitor get fired/demoted for inaction for too long? Say something came up, or in
an extremely casual case, they just didn't feel like it. Can a Janitor get fired from
the volunteer work for being lazy, Dood?

Not for laziness, per say, but they can be removed from staff if they've been inactive onsite for quite a long while. We're talking about months of no contact and no activity, sometimes over a year. However, staffmembers usually explicitly step down before then so nobody is left dangling. Obviously, I'm not going to dish out the dirt about any specific situations. Rainbow Dash would have my hide if I did, no matter how tame and noncontroversial it might be.

clawstripe said:
Not for laziness, per say, but they can be removed from staff if they've been inactive onsite for quite a long while. We're talking about months of no contact and no activity, sometimes over a year. However, staffmembers usually explicitly step down before then so nobody is left dangling. Obviously, I'm not going to dish out the dirt about any specific situations. Rainbow Dash would have my hide if I did, no matter how tame and noncontroversial it might be.

Don't worry, Last thing on my mind would be asking for any specifics.
e621's internal politics isn't nearly as interesting as learning how
the system works on a fundamental level with so many on the staff being
volunteers. Dood.
╹‿╹)

Because, by all accounts, it doesn't make sense.
You'd think with online being online, there would be a lot more abuse of power,
or a break-down in communication with peeps not getting back to you for weeks,
or some other third thing. But things run smoothly, Post get approved in a
couple of days, which is pretty incredible given their work load, and things
seem nice for the most part. And I'm really curious about how that's even
possible, Dood!
;=‿=)-!

hi, first forum post here, but id like to ask something semi-related without putting myself front-and-center by making a whole discussion. But im just curious how young human-like characters in explicit situations was ever allowed on e6 in the first place? not from a archival perspective but from a legal one.

and yes i have viewed the original forum discussion on this topic when the purge happened, but im not satisifed with any of the answers there. like... people say one thing but from what ive researched people have gone to jail in the united states even for loli content.

although I suppose considering e6 hosted content like that for so long, and nobody has ever really seemed that alarmed about it, and its a well known porn website (amongst furries at least), I guess thats a sign that theres some sort of addendum or nuance?

I do wish I had it in my mind to ask this question before e6 did the purge, because now it seems irrelevant i guess, but this is a more comfortable space to ask this than lets say, reddit.

1. If you've done research on the matter that tells you otherwise, I'd recommend actually sharing it here so we can either alleviate potential misunderstandings or learn something ourselves.
2. The court of appeals is a thing; are you sure those cases weren't overturned?
3. Just to be certain, I'll specify that there's a colossal difference between CSAM & fictional loli; the former has never & will never be tolerated on this site, & not just due to legal mandates.

To cut to the heart of the matter, almost all laws banning pornographic content are on the grounds of "obscenity", which has been struck down time & time again by the Supreme Court (we'll have to see if that changes).

Furthermore, there's 2 types of laws regulating speech; content-neutral, & content-aware. Content-neutral laws face a fairly low bar to pass judicial review (rational-basis review iirc) because they aren't specifically censoring types of speech, only the presentation of it (e.g. you can protest on public grounds for whatever you want, but you need a license & to follow certain rules, etc.). Content-aware laws face an extremely high bar (strict scrutiny) that's almost impossible to overcome. It's not impossible, & there are laws which specifically criminalize speech (e.g. terroristic threats, some states have doxxing laws, swatting is illegal, etc.), but the vast majority are either swatted down in federal court or aren't directly criminalizing speech (e.g. for conspiracy charges, the agreement to commit a crime is an element, but you need an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to make it a crime, although it is also a crime for parties who made the agreement but didn't take an action in furtherance).

At the end of the day, if you have legal questions, a lawyer is a better person to ask than some random on the internet. Different states & countries have different laws, & your mileage may vary. We've talked to our lawyers, & they say we're in the clear at least legally to host that content, both now & then.

If you want a specific thing to point to.

gasinmad said:

and yes i have viewed the original forum discussion on this topic when the purge happened, but im not satisifed with any of the answers there. like... people say one thing but from what ive researched people have gone to jail in the united states even for loli content.

Are we talking purely from loli?

From everything I've seen regarding this kind of thing, especially in the US,it tends to be a person having actual CSAM and the drawn stuff is just used to tack on more charges.

I'm pretty confident they're conflating CSAM (actual explicit pictures of real life children, sometimes undergoing real life sexual assault) with loli (fictional pictures of fictional child/child-presenting characters). That being said, I'm pretty sure that loli is still not illegal, even as an enhancement charge; in those cases, I'd imagine the contribution of the fictional stuff is to indicate the criminal intent, that their interest specifically lies with minors. It can be used as supporting evidence for the charge, and it could be framed in a way to heighten the severity of a charge, but it's not a crime in and of itself.

aacafah said:
1. If you've done research on the matter that tells you otherwise, I'd recommend actually sharing it here so we can either alleviate potential misunderstandings or learn something ourselves.
2. The court of appeals is a thing; are you sure those cases weren't overturned?
3. Just to be certain, I'll specify that there's a colossal difference between CSAM & fictional loli; the former has never & will never be tolerated on this site, & not just due to legal mandates.

1. sure, heres one case I found, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-8th-circuit/2039068.html#:~:text=Buie%20appeals%20his%20conviction%2C%20arguing,judgment%20of%20the%20district%20court
Now, granted it was printed images, and the guy was already on parole give the description of what actually happened and the events that transpired. but it does state that they were "detailed, full color drawings" The dude got over a decade in prison, which im sure was elevated due to him being already on parole. So yes, there is a slight caveat there that I didnt notice the first or even second time reading through, so I suppose apology is in order.

Heres a second case I found, although again, guy was already on parole, but I think its still worth noting that he was found guilty under a specific charge of an "obscene visual depiction - including a drawing or cartoon under violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1), (d)(4)."
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/116552061.html

And also its worth taking a look at 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1), (d)(4) itself.
specifically this section popped out at me: (c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.--It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1), (d)(4), to me, seems to contradict what everyone on the original forum post were saying, such as the "indistinguishable" clause, and the CPPA (which some people were saying replaced the PROTECT acts constitutional vagueness but the CPPA predates the PROTECT act so... dunno what im missing there.)

2. The court of appeals at least did not appeal the first case I mentioned (the Buie case), they kept the ruling. And even if it wasnt the case, why go through the unpleasantness of even being suspected of breaking the law, especially if you are poor. In alot of these backwoods places they will just throw the book at you sometimes.

3. Oh yeah for sure. No question there.

Response to everyone:

I suppose her fur can be mistaken in the picture. But I still think it's clear to see that it's all fur. That along with her other proportions like her feet, ears, nose, hands, the tuffs of her fur poking out, the chibi features, etc, still make it clear that she's not human. The rules say that if the character has very minor animal features, it's not allowed, and all the things I just listed off are not minor. I don't think this is a situation where an anime human only has ears and a tail.

I think it would be strange to base it on the fur color alone, because are we going to lock onto any character that has tan or brown fur now? And I think the muzzle thing would be a weird perspective nitpick if that was the case. I disagree with the nose opinion. It looks like a bunny nose to me. And if you look closely, you can see a crease on the top of her mouth showing that it's a bunny mouth.

I also said nothing about lore being relevant, because that doesn't matter when it comes to what the thing looks like, and it doesn't matter to the "tag what you see" rules this site goes by anyways.

I didn't use a specific pic to compare it to because I didn't think it would be necessary. It's not hard to type in Zhao and see for yourself. But ok, here are recent examples that were approved.
https://e621.net/posts/6000848?q=zhao
https://e621.net/posts/5936215?q=zhao
https://e621.net/posts/5999134?q=zhao
https://e621.net/posts/5991461?q=zhao

I would say these posts have the same type of muzzle and fur color situation. Or if not it could potentially be viewed that way, like what's happening here.

I think it's not hard to see this case as being an unnecessary flag take-down. Maybe that part of the rules should be expanded upon more rather than pretty much only broadly stating if it "looks like a human" if stuff like the fur and muzzle can apparently become a subjective issue. Especially when there are a lot of other similar art that did get approved. I'll let this off as being a mistake, because I guess I can see the issue if you're a moderator taking quick glances at art and judging them on the spot.

I apologize if I came off as negative, but it felt like I was accused and had flags put on my profile for breaking the rules when I know what the rules are regarding this subject. To me, it is very clear that this is a furry character, and I didn't understand how it could be seen otherwise when you look at the picture. I think there should be a guideline to go by for this stuff for both users and janitors to read if these things can be an issue to begin with.

Thank you for your responses. I'll post an update when the janitor in question responds to me.

aacafah said:
1. If you've done research on the matter that tells you otherwise, I'd recommend actually sharing it here so we can either alleviate potential misunderstandings or learn something ourselves.
2. The court of appeals is a thing; are you sure those cases weren't overturned?
3. Just to be certain, I'll specify that there's a colossal difference between CSAM & fictional loli; the former has never & will never be tolerated on this site, & not just due to legal mandates.

To cut to the heart of the matter, almost all laws banning pornographic content are on the grounds of "obscenity", which has been struck down time & time again by the Supreme Court (we'll have to see if that changes).

Furthermore, there's 2 types of laws regulating speech; content-neutral, & content-aware. Content-neutral laws face a fairly low bar to pass judicial review (rational-basis review iirc) because they aren't specifically censoring types of speech, only the presentation of it (e.g. you can protest on public grounds for whatever you want, but you need a license & to follow certain rules, etc.). Content-aware laws face an extremely high bar (strict scrutiny) that's almost impossible to overcome. It's not impossible, & there are laws which specifically criminalize speech (e.g. terroristic threats, some states have doxxing laws, swatting is illegal, etc.), but the vast majority are either swatted down in federal court or aren't directly criminalizing speech (e.g. for conspiracy charges, the agreement to commit a crime is an element, but you need an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to make it a crime, although it is also a crime for parties who made the agreement but didn't take an action in furtherance).

At the end of the day, if you have legal questions, a lawyer is a better person to ask than some random on the internet. Different states & countries have different laws, & your mileage may vary. We've talked to our lawyers, & they say we're in the clear at least legally to host that content, both now & then.

If you want a specific thing to point to.

I'm very glad you included this. It is a bit of an echo of stuff ive already seen before, but its good to hear it from people with actual stake/authoriy on the sites success (you and the comment from rainbow dash). And it is also a relief to hear that there has been actual legal consuel provided on the sites content. I appreciate you being very clear and articulate on this matter. I don't believe I have any more questions.

gasinmad said:
hi, first forum post here, but id like to ask something semi-related without putting myself front-and-center by making a whole discussion. But im just curious how young human-like characters in explicit situations was ever allowed on e6 in the first place? not from a archival perspective but from a legal one.

and yes i have viewed the original forum discussion on this topic when the purge happened, but im not satisifed with any of the answers there. like... people say one thing but from what ive researched people have gone to jail in the united states even for loli content.

although I suppose considering e6 hosted content like that for so long, and nobody has ever really seemed that alarmed about it, and its a well known porn website (amongst furries at least), I guess thats a sign that theres some sort of addendum or nuance?

I do wish I had it in my mind to ask this question before e6 did the purge, because now it seems irrelevant i guess, but this is a more comfortable space to ask this than lets say, reddit.

I'm pretty sure that there are many existing threads here that could answer your question.

Regardless, I will leave my answer below, but I will not be engaging in an in-depth discussion about this since it is a moot point by now and this is not the appropriate thread for it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm pretty sure that there are many existing threads here that could answer your question.

this matter has basically been settled by the time you sent this but thanks ig

my concerns have been addressed so from this point on ill stop my discussion of the topic.

They got back to me and to put it simply, we disagree on what we think does and doesn't cross the line.

They think that some parts of the body look too close to skin I guess. For the color and the glistening, which I disagree with, because plenty of furry art has the fur glisten like it's skin. It's a common quirk a lot of 2D furry art has.
I gave them this image as an example of similar stuff that's on the platform, and they said that "I would be very close to deleting this if not for the line of the snout."

https://e621.net/posts/6000848?q=zhao

??? Idk what they mean because again, this is almost identical to what was rejected.

Here's another video that just recently got approved that also has basically no snout:

https://e621.net/posts/6003561?q=zhao

I was told to dm them again or take it up to higher management to discuss it further. A part of me is tempted to just post these again, because I guarantee you that other janitors would approve them if all of the aforementioned examples I used are apparently allowed.

If you are someone who's in a higher position or you have connections to higher positions and you're reading this, atleast vote for or reccomend that the rules have more added to them to make them less broad if situations like these are able to happen.
I'm happy to follow rules, but there needs to be more consistency with how they are both, followed, and enforced. And that can't done well with a very broad, unspoken line that could go either way.

I guess I'm pretty much done here. If any of you had similar stuff happen, let me know. Idk if I'll feel like pressing this any further but we'll see I guess. You all have a good one.

Here's the response they gave copy and pasted:

Hello, thanks for the message about post #5999451 and post #5999470. As the top 2 lines of my profile say, please dmail strikerman for appeals. That said, I will do my best to explain my reasoning:
1. This does not appear to be fur as you claim.Sure, there is fur on the legs, however the character's torso clearly depicts skin (glistening, areola, nipples, clearly defined navel).
2. The character features a humanoid (not anthro) face.
3. The ears and tail are common with humanoid characters as well.
4. Partial humanoids typically also have only the legs and arms as anthro. Context matters on these posts, but if the torso/face itself has no fur, it is likely too humanoid.
5. We need to consider the reason for the rule in the first place, being compliance with our hosting provider's requests by world governments. In effect, this means that 'young humanoid' not being a valid tag doesn't mean it can't be deleted for that reason - they use different metrics.
6. As for the other post (post #6000848) you linked, I would be very close to deleting it, the only reason I wouldn't is because there is a the mark intended to be a "snout" despite having no depth.

If you still believe this should be allowed on the site, please dmail (or forward this message to) strikerman. We can then have an internal discussion about these posts.

Thanks,

~ Catt0s

valdrich said:
A part of me is tempted to just post these again, because I guarantee you that other janitors would approve them if all of the aforementioned examples I used are apparently allowed.

That's explicitly against the rules and a great way to get a record
Either accept their ruling or appeal it up the chain, complaining here isn't going to go any further (also I'm very sure those other Janitors wouldn't approve it)

valdrich said:
If you are someone who's in a higher position or you have connections to higher positions and you're reading this, atleast vote for or reccomend that the rules have more added to them to make them less broad if situations like these are able to happen.

The site isn't a democracy, you know
We aren't running political campaigns to influence rules

Also many rules have some amount of give on purpose, that one especially needs to be very loose due to the nature of how it came to be, the site can't really afford to take risks and humanoid faces on young looking bodies are a huge risk

valdrich said:
??? Idk what they mean because again, this is almost identical to what was rejected.

...I guarantee you that other janitors would approve them if all of the aforementioned examples I used are apparently allowed.

I don't think anybody mentioned this already, but bringing up the argument that "X is approved, so why not Y" is not a good one.
It can lead to more deletions by the janitor in question to be more inline with their own standards, if they really want to enforce it.

What you ought to do is contact those janitors that approved those posts you mentioned and link them your post to ask for a second opinion.
Otherwise, go up the chain and ask the head janitor @Strikerman for their opinion on the matter.

donovan_dmc said:
That's explicitly against the rules and a great way to get a record
Either accept their ruling or appeal it up the chain, complaining here isn't going to go any further (also I'm very sure many of those other Janitors wouldn't approve it)

What makes you certain of that with how they approved all the other posts I just mentioned and sourced. Why don't you share your thoughts on the posts that were approved that I sourced earlier compared to the one's that were rejected? That's the input I'm interested in. You asked for them after all.

And yes, I am aware. I've made it clear that I've read the rules. The rules that they need to improve. And they're making it harder for me to care about records on my account now at this point with how this website is.

I don't know what you mean by "go any further." I made this forum because I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the art and the decision to delete it, to bring awareness to maybe prevent other people from making similar mistakes, and to ask if I was missing anything specific that wasnt stated in the rules that warranted the deletion. I don't expect this forum to be the only thing I need to solve the issue.

My options have been stated multiple times. They don't need to be repeated. Like I said, maybe I will decide to take it up with higher management later. Thank you though.

valdrich said:
What makes you certain of that with how they approved all the other posts I just mentioned and sourced. Why don't you share your thoughts on the posts that were approved that I sourced earlier compared to the one's that were rejected? That's the input I'm interested in. You asked for them after all.

For starters, there's a line in the uploading guidelines that directly states not to upload previously deleted images, so I'd suggest you don't upload them again.

I don't know what you mean by "go any further." I made this forum because I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the art and the decision to delete it, to bring awareness to maybe prevent other people from making similar mistakes, and to ask if I was missing anything specific that wasnt stated in the rules that warranted the deletion. I don't expect this forum to be the only thing I need to solve the issue.

Well, you asked for our thoughts on the matter, and after we gave them, you still outright disagreed with us. I'm not sure what you were expecting, especially since one of the folks you disagreed with was once staff.

As you said, you know what your options are, so I won't go on and repeat them – however, if you really do have as much an issue with the rules of the site as you said, maybe this site isn't for you.

valdrich said:
What makes you certain of that with how they approved all the other posts I just mentioned and sourced.

Because I was there when the rule was made, I know how it's applied
I know if I were a janitor I'd delete that post without a second thought, that face looks humanoid and that is the primary target of the rule

valdrich said:
Why don't you share your thoughts on the posts that were approved that I sourced earlier compared to the one's that were rejected? That's the input I'm interested in. You asked for them after all.

post #5936215 doesn't look remotely humanoid
post #5999134 doesn't look young, if it were there's a good chance it would be deleted (though the animal nose might save it)
post #5991461 doesn't look humanoid
post #6000848 I would personally delete if it looked young, but it doesn't

valdrich said:
And yes, I am aware. I've made it clear that I've read the rules. The rules that they need to improve. And they're making it harder for me to care about records on my account now at this point with how this website is.

If you find it difficult to find records sufficient motivation to avoid knowingly & unambiguously breaking our rules, I'd be more than happy to give you a ban instead.

You acknowledge you know what your options are to appeal. You can follow those options, you can let it go, but you cannot abuse our systems hoping for a better outcome.

We have internal discussions about these things all the time, & overturning it by properly adjudicating the matter is a real thing that does happen. I promise you, maliciously reposting it will basically guarantee we shut it down & refuse to even consider letting through because we simply cannot tacitly approve of this behavior.

You know how the community feels on the matter, you know what you may do, & you know what you may not. This discussion is officially over. If you don't like that, then I'm sure someone as well-informed about our rules as you purport to be can figure out how to properly appeal that decision.