p3rf3c7c311 said: Weird body proportions.. Why do people who don't like this sort of thing just hate on it instead of going elsewhere?
Because they don't need to. Its this picture that should go elsewhere, since I'm fairly certain gigantic breats are TOS violations, though it could be situational.
Grotesque: Any depiction of extreme mutilation, extreme bodily distension, feces, or bodies that are far outside the realm of normal human proportion (for example, _breasts or penises that are larger than two heads in size_)."
This image fits the "breasts or penises that are larger than two heads in size" condition. It should be banned.
Oh, look at the sly move: Now the rules have changed overnight: "(for example, breasts that are larger than _three_ heads in size or penises that are larger than _two_ heads in size)."
Yeah, well, keep changing the rules as you see fit, danbooru, but with these new rules, there are quite a number of banned pictures of busty women which should now be allowed. Will the mods scan the banned list and approve these images now that they are legit? I won't hold my breath.
I didn't flag this image because I hate it, I flagged precisely to highlight what the mods are doing: applying the rules arbitrarily and, as we can see now, even changing them overnight to justify an approval.
If you disagree with what's said here, offer your arguments, downvoting comments you don't agree with only hides the problem.
Think of this: What happened to this image, one day could happen in reverse: The mods change the rules overnight because they somehow decide that this or that fetish or feature should be banned and so, some of your uploads become suddenly verboten. And the explanation?: "Oh, we just act according to the rules... which we changed overnight precisely to fit our new point of view."
surveyork said: Oh, look at the sly move: Now the rules have changed overnight: "(for example, breasts that are larger than _three_ heads in size or penises that are larger than _two_ heads in size)."
Yeah, well, keep changing the rules as you see fit, danbooru, but with these new rules, there are quite a number of banned pictures of busty women which should now be allowed. Will the mods scan the banned list and approve these images now that they are legit? I won't hold my breath.
I didn't flag this image because I hate it, I flagged precisely to highlight what the mods are doing: applying the rules arbitrarily and, as we can see now, even changing them overnight to justify an approval.
If you disagree with what's said here, offer your arguments, downvoting comments you don't agree with only hides the problem.
Think of this: What happened to this image, one day could happen in reverse: The mods change the rules overnight because they somehow decide that this or that fetish or feature should be banned and so, some of your uploads become suddenly verboten. And the explanation?: "Oh, we just act according to the rules... which we changed overnight precisely to fit our new point of view."
I agree with your logic, although it could have been summarized in a smaller concise text for higher impact. If rules are so plastic and can be changed overnight, then all the instances where the changed rules were enforced are invalid. Instead of just change the rules a “attenuating circumstances” rule could be added. The precise wording for this should be made by the mods, but by studying this case some premises can be inferred. In this case we have a Character represented in her “real” appearance. There was no exaggeration of features compared to the source material, like the manga and anime. The art was made by the original artist. The picture is not “exploitive” of the said feature in fault by the rules; instead it’s actually of good taste. The picture is not made by the “fault” to the rules; it’s well drawn, the “fault” might be considered a bonus to some. And like this there are a lot of ways to look at this and other similar cases. It’s obvious that the mods would be somewhat biases by cases such as these, when we are facing good art, by respected artists in their fields (eromanga) that the only reason that it wouldn’t be approved was because it has a detail that they themselves decided upon before being faced with this case. The rules worked well before, so the previous decisions should be still stand, changing the rules is also a possible way of dealing with this, but it will open the door to bad art and cast a shadow of doubt on previous decisions; a “Good Taste Clause – Harmonious Design” is on of the best solution.
Just for your information, rules weren't changed "overnight". They were changed back in 2011 after a long discussion in the forum, see forum #63296.
I have no idea where you have seen the old version of the rules, but you probably did something wrong.
Also, "Prohibited Content" section in ToS is more like an enforced set of guidelines, not absolute rules. Partially because it is incomplete and there are more details/intricacies that are not covered in ToS. For example, not all images that can be classified as furry are banned, only the sexually explicit ones.
Just for your information, rules weren't changed "overnight". They were changed back in 2011 after a long discussion in the forum, see forum #63296.
I have no idea where you have seen the old version of the rules, but you probably did something wrong.
Also, "Prohibited Content" section in ToS is more like an enforced set of guidelines, not absolute rules. Partially because it is incomplete and there are more details/intricacies that are not covered in ToS. For example, not all images that can be classified as furry are banned, only the sexually explicit ones.
Years later here I am, after finding this post by chance.
> I have no idea where you have seen the old version of the rules, but you probably did something wrong.
Please bear in mind that what you call "the old version of the rules" was the version of the ToS as it was publicly visible to anyone around 12 years ago, when I complained. Some time (months, I think) after I posted my complaint is when the ToS changed from >2 heads to > 3 heads, not before I complained.
I did not use any cached/archived version of the ToS nor any hacker wizardry. I just visited Danbooru's ToS section, read them and copy-pasted them as they were available at the time of my complaint. Period.
Also, by periodically checking the ToS after my complaint is how I found out, some time later, that the > 2 heads rule was changed to > 3 heads. The > 2 heads rule was in the ToS at the time of my complaint and was still there for a few more months after that.
The *discussion* about that change might have been going on for years and for you and others the change might not seem sudden in the slightest. It did not occur to me that there could be a discussion going on about changing this rule. I was just checking the ToS from time to time to make sure I was not seeing things when I first read "> 2 heads".
> surveyork > almost 12 years ago > > http://danbooru.donmai.us/static/terms_of_service > > "Prohibited Content > > Grotesque: Any depiction of extreme mutilation, extreme bodily distension, feces, or bodies that are far outside the realm of normal human > proportion (for example, _breasts or penises that are larger than two heads in size_)."
