They were deleted because ridiculously huge penises are a terms of service violation. You can still see them by searching usatarou status:deleted and following the size link under Statistics in the sidebar.
Updated
Posted under General
They were deleted because ridiculously huge penises are a terms of service violation. You can still see them by searching usatarou status:deleted and following the size link under Statistics in the sidebar.
Updated
Pretty sad but we were alot more lenient with TOS as long as it was high quality and fairly popular/accepted by the community but someone threw a hissy fit and had images with large penises banned. You can read the whole mess here: forum #17257
I still think its bullocks. Quality should come before content and usatarou consistently pumps out high quality work.
Thoughrough bollocks indeed...
Ridiculous that amazingly awesome futa gets deleted but then post #528060 stays alive....
At least Usa's were mostly non-rape futa
My point is that if Usatarou's stuff was deleted because it was too extreme, how is that still up?
I mean I still love that pic and the amazing detail, but if you put them next to eachother, they should both be deleted on the same grounds. Shouldn't be deleting stuff just cause somebody doesn't like it, just make it something like the loli tag where only paying accounts get it :/
tammaro said:
My point is that if Usatarou's stuff was deleted because it was too extreme, how is that still up?
I mean I still love that pic and the amazing detail, but if you put them next to eachother, they should both be deleted on the same grounds. Shouldn't be deleting stuff just cause somebody doesn't like it, just make it something like the loli tag where only paying accounts get it :/
Only advice I can give you is just take it as it is. You can do what Evazion suggested and get the pics for your own use. The deed has been done and it'd be really hard to change the opinions of those who decided to make the TOS stricter than before.
The argument "there's other/worse stuff that hasn't been deleted" has never impressed anyone. The only thing it's likely to do is make someone flag any pictures you summon to your defense as TOS violations themselves.
I agree with Bloodletter, though. The futa in that picture is on the large end of acceptable and the monster is a monster; we generally don't consider monsters as 'grotesque' since that's the whole point of them. If some mod did deem it a TOS violation I wouldn't argue, though.
7HS said:
The argument "there's other/worse stuff that hasn't been deleted" has never impressed anyone. The only thing it's likely to do is make someone flag any pictures you summon to your defense as TOS violations themselves.I agree with Bloodletter, though. The futa in that picture is on the large end of acceptable and the monster is a monster; we generally don't consider monsters as 'grotesque' since that's the whole point of them. If some mod did deem it a TOS violation I wouldn't argue, though.
Same thing with Usatarou's works. It is a stylistic choice and the point of his pictures.
There's another thing that troubles me about TOS deletions post #574960 is a perfect example. 320 people liked the picture enough to fav it, then it was taken down because of TOS.
It is unfair that anybody ignores such overwhelming support for the picture and deletes it. You can see the trend in the other usatarou Status:deleted pictures. Most of them have a hundred or so favs but they got deleted regardless. Having a few people dictate the wishes of hundreds of people is just unfair, ridiculous and counter productive. Why try to alienate your user base?
Action_Kamen said:
It is unfair that anybody ignores such overwhelming support for the picture and deletes it.
post #35911 has 69 favorites; do you reckon we should start allowing photos on Danbooru, too?
If you want to argue that the TOS should be relaxed, that's fine, but you seem to be saying that we should make specific exceptions to the TOS on the basis of fav count, and that's a bad idea.
Action_Kamen said:
Having a few people dictate the wishes of hundreds of people is just unfair, ridiculous and counter productive.
It's also the business model of Danbooru. "Having a few people dictate the wishes of hundreds of people" is a pretty succinct description of the 'mod queue' concept in general.
Rules are rules. Suppose a furry picture was uploaded, and some 300-something furry lovers faved it. Does that mean it shouldn't be deleted, even though the rules explicitly say "No furry pictures"? Of course not. You don't get to avoid a rule just because some people like the subject material.
On the subject of other "grotesque" pictures, opinion plays a large role, I suppose. If the mods don't think that sort of thing is "excessive", they won't see it as a violation or delete it. However, if a rule clearly states you can't have something like ridiculously over-sized penises or breasts, then anything that has those would be violations regardless of the moderator's own views on the subject.
glasnost said:
post #35911 has 69 favorites; do you reckon we should start allowing photos on Danbooru, too?
Horrible counter example. Danbooru is not an photo image site. The picture I gave for my example is on topic and of high quality.
If you want to argue that the TOS should be relaxed, that's fine, but you seem to be saying that we should make specific exceptions to the TOS on the basis of fav count, and that's a bad idea.
TOS shouldn't be relaxed. TOS is there to stop the board from being flooded with sub-par offensive images, relaxing it = allowing low quality work to float through. Nobody wants that.
Making exceptions based on user-response is the best unless you believe that the users are all morons.
It's also the business model of Danbooru. "Having a few people dictate the wishes of hundreds of people" is a pretty succinct description of the 'mod queue' concept in general.
The mod queue is a necessary tool and I'm not asking for it, or the TOS to be removed. But when there is an overwhelming support for a picture there's no reason exceptions can't be made. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should allow anything through if the user
base wants it. If the quality is high but the content is against TOS, putting how the picture is recieved into consideration is allowable.
Arrei said:
Rules are rules. Suppose a furry picture was uploaded, and some 300-something furry lovers faved it. Does that mean it shouldn't be deleted, even though the rules explicitly say "No furry pictures"? Of course not. You don't get to avoid a rule just because some people like the subject material.
Using an improbable scenario to discuss a point is stupid, 300 furries all gathering to fav one picture. I chuckled.
Yeah, you're right we've never made exceptions for furry, what was I thin-OH WAIT post #466766. We've had this exact discussion before and the consensus was that exceptions can and will be made.
Action_Kamen said:
Using an improbable scenario to discuss a point is stupid, 300 furries all gathering to fav one picture. I chuckled.
Improbable? So then what you call the 320 people faving the picture you described? Those 320 people were there faving it for the enormous, out-of-proportion breasts. What is unbelievable about a similar number of people faving something else for the subject material they like?
Action_Kamen said:
Yeah, you're right we've never made exceptions for furry, what was I thin-OH WAIT post #466766. We've had this exact discussion before and the consensus was that exceptions can and will be made.
Then we have a double standard on our hands. And how do you propose we solve it? Can the mods just go lax in their deletion of violations? That can't be, because then that opens the floodgates for other disallowed material to be uploaded, making the terms of service pretty much pointless. Then should they become more strict? That becomes counter-productive to what you want them to do right now.
So then what do we do? Mod them on a case-by-case basis based on the mindsets of the present viewers? Oh hey, that's exactly what they're already doing. And that got people complaining about the presence of these images. Which prompted a mod to look at images that were previously fine and go "You know what, they have a point, this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed."
Updated
I honestly don't agree with that clause in the ToS and frankly believe it's wrong to have it there. The arguments for supporting it are really mostly built upon the foundations of personal taste instead of quality of the image. Opinion of quality itself being influenced by personal taste.
The idea of exceptions also does not always work, for example post #581016 and variant post #604158 were approved by two separate janitors and even so that was not enough to warrant an "exception" for them. Even if I stepped up and said I'd have approved them as well, even then that'd likely still not be good enough for an exception. Exactly how many people of the moderation staff are needed for an "exception" to exist? Not to attack Jxh (just the first case I ran into), just wanting to point out that making an "exception" work can be extremely difficult because even if you have more than one moderator's approval, it still only takes one down the road to say "that's not an exception" and it's gone.
Updated
NWF_Renim said: The idea of exceptions also does not always work, for example post #581016 and variant post #604158 were approved by two separate janitors and even so that was not enough to warrant an "exception" for them.
Janitors make mistakes too. They shouldn't have been approved in the first place.
And it's got less to do with "exceptions" than with the fact that there's never been any kind of systematic deletion campaign for these because nobody has specifically gone looking for them. I have better things to do.
Janitors aren't the only ones who are human, the rest of the moderation staff make mistakes too so I don't see a need to bring up what constitutes being human into the matter.
You're putting the fault at the janitor's hands, but we've already agreed in the past that the ToS is not set in stone and that exceptions can be made. To argue that they shouldn't have been approved in the first place is only arguing that because it's in the ToS it's always against the rules (which we've already rejected).
The ToS has and will be changed overtime. The fact that they're on the ToS does not also mean that the reasoning that got it put up there in the first place is a good enough reason to keep it on the list either.
NWF_Renim said: Janitors aren't the only ones who are human
I said janitors because you said janitors, not because it specifically applied only to janitors.
To argue that they shouldn't have been approved in the first place is only arguing that because it's in the ToS it's always against the rules (which we've already rejected).
This doesn't make any sense.
I suppose you wouldn't mind if I made exceptions for post #575376 and post #496858 too. After all, judging solely by art quality they are at least as good as Usatarou's works.
If you're going to start making exceptions for things, you had better be willing to make exceptions for everything equally.