your closet is nasty

Given that we can't see the front, it could be some kind of weird costume she is wearing rather than her actual breasts, but ... o_O

HawkeyeNFO said:

Given that we can't see the front, it could be some kind of weird costume she is wearing rather than her actual breasts, but ... o_O

It's the internet, there's way worse out there. This was actually tastefully done for it's genre, the artwork itself was well executed, I don't see a problem with it other than it's not to one's personal taste. If it was genuinely bad, and I've seen that, then I could see flagging it.

If you don't like this sort of thing, I recommend avoiding images with tags like 'gigantic breasts'

HawkeyeNFO said:

Given that we can't see the front, it could be some kind of weird costume she is wearing rather than her actual breasts, but ... o_O

The author has posted several redheads with humongous breasts from the front too, don't think it's misleading in any way.

It might get deleted but, at least i thought it was funny enough to post.

That contrast between the well drawn backside and then woop!, planet sized saggy breasts hanging from the front :).

[deleted]

You know, I kind of like this! Thanks for sharing it @keonas.

Honestly, I can sort of understand the gripe against large breasts, huge breasts, gigantic breasts and the like, but they're niche fetishes -- just like how uterine prolapse and gaping are things that the average user may not like. But if the art quality is good and there's no signs of bad quality anywhere in the image (can't see any bad anatomy or gross proportions) then I think it's totally fine. I'm pretty inclusive on this stuff, anyway.

I'll go ahead and appeal it, but more power to you for making braver uploads. It'd be nice if more users were welcoming about this kind of stuff.

EDIT: We should probably also revise help:flag notice a bit.

Actually, I remember that part of the limit for proportions was based upon head size/bust size. At first it was double head size, but then a mod changed it when a user flagged something for being over double head size to be triple head size... now those guidelines seem gone, entirely...

If a flag was emitted each time there are breasts larger than three heads, almost every post from gigantic_breasts would have disappeared.

NWSiaCB said:

Actually, I remember that part of the limit for proportions was based upon head size/bust size. At first it was double head size, but then a mod changed it when a user flagged something for being over double head size to be triple head size... now those guidelines seem gone, entirely...

Actually, the ToS says :

The following may be uploaded, but will be put to a higher level of artistic and qualitative scrutiny than normal, and (if applicable) you must tag them with the corresponding tag. Please do not upload more than 20 a day of these works: [...] 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 that are larger than three heads in size or penises that are larger than two heads in size). Please use the guro tag.

Nitrogen09 approved this post given that it fit the higher quality standards despite the extremely large breasts, but given it's been some time since the last discussion about this in the ToS, it probably deserves another reawakening: topic #6411. And it still seems that a few users are confused over what exactly constitutes a "ToS violation", as that is a term reserved for any images that break site rules, NOT site guidelines.

My opinion on the matter is that if the quality of the image is more than sufficient enough to offset whatever dislike the extreme proportions will garner, then it should stay -- regardless of the score or what users think of such an image. There are worse, more offending pictures that have stayed because they followed quality standards. This shouldn't be any different.

Rignak said:

If a flag was emitted each time there are breasts larger than three heads, almost every post from gigantic_breasts would have disappeared.

Actually, the ToS says :

Considering how exactly zero of those gigantic_breasts tag images actually DO have guro tagged, then they're clearly not following the ToS, anyway...

For that matter, for as long as there are users and mods with giant breasts fetishes, there are going to be plenty of images that do not at all get set to a higher level of artistic and qualitative scrutiny than normal.

In fact, this image, which yes, I can entirely see being used "because it's funny" and not because it's meant to be porn may be the entire reason why it will get deleted when the crap porn images stay - it doesn't have the rabid defenders of the fetish coming to its defense.

Mikaeri said:

And it still seems that a few users are confused over what exactly constitutes a "ToS violation", as that is a term reserved for any images that break site rules, NOT site guidelines.

And by THAT standard, there would be almost no reason for flags at all, barring preventing a mod that explicitly goes out of their way to approve things that are in overt violation of ToS.

Flags being used as a means of quality control (or "qualitative scrutiny" to use the ToS terms) is perfectly valid, as has been hashed to death in the "flag vandalism" thread, among several others.

Mikaeri said:

There are worse, more offending pictures that have stayed because they followed quality standards. This shouldn't be any different.

I also remember when "this shouldn't be deleted because there are worse images" was explicitly invalidated as an excuse. Yes, there's absolutely plenty of worse images unfortunately not being deleted, and that's the whole problem. Why does every bad image have to be deleted explicitly in order of how terrible they are? If a shoplifter was on trial with evidence holding them dead to rights, would they be able to say, "You can't convict me, there are still murders out there that aren't convicted!" It's an excuse to be used so that nothing can ever be held to any standard at all.

The entire reason there is a wave of flagging right now is as a backlash from a period from allowing practically everything under the sun in. It is the inevitable result of the lack of clearer and more consistently applied standards.

This isn't the proper place to start a discussion, but I felt the need to respond anyway.

NWSiaCB said:

Considering how exactly zero of those gigantic_breasts tag images actually DO have guro tagged, then they're clearly not following the ToS, anyway...

For that matter, for as long as there are users and mods with giant breasts fetishes, there are going to be plenty of images that do not at all get set to a higher level of artistic and qualitative scrutiny than normal.

In fact, this image, which yes, I can entirely see being used "because it's funny" and not because it's meant to be porn may be the entire reason why it will get deleted when the crap porn images stay - it doesn't have the rabid defenders of the fetish coming to its defense.

First off, you're misreading the ToS. In fact, that line should probably be revised as it implies grotesque -> guro, which is simply just not the case. guro refers to extreme graphic violence, not "grotesque" proportions. And for the second matter, yes you're correct. But perhaps Apollyon sees something worthy in that upload that you or others don't. If such an image really isn't up to quality standards in your opinion, then you're welcome to flag it if it hasn't been already.

And are you intentionally being condescending about this kind of content? "Crap porn" content stays because "it doesn't have the rabid defenders of the fetish coming to its defense"? Do you really think the approvers consider that when they choose to reapprove posts, by way of some 'popularity' contest about how an image shouldn't be deleted just because of such and such fetish? That's asinine.

And by THAT standard, there would be almost no reason for flags at all, barring preventing a mod that explicitly goes out of their way to approve things that are in overt violation of ToS.

Flags being used as a means of quality control (or "qualitative scrutiny" to use the ToS terms) is perfectly valid, as has been hashed to death in the "flag vandalism" thread, among several others.

Once again, you're misreading it. A ToS violation is a violation. It's not a quality check. It's a failure to abide by the site rules. The term itself carries a deeper connotation. If it's a quality check, then by all means users can flag it for that particular reason. This doesn't have to be blown up more than it needs to.

I also remember when "this shouldn't be deleted because there are worse images" was explicitly invalidated as an excuse. Yes, there's absolutely plenty of worse images unfortunately not being deleted, and that's the whole problem. Why does every bad image have to be deleted explicitly in order of how terrible they are? If a shoplifter was on trial with evidence holding them dead to rights, would they be able to say, "You can't convict me, there are still murders out there that aren't convicted!" It's an excuse to be used so that nothing can ever be held to any standard at all.

And thrice you misread my intentions. Because they followed quality standards. Of course the standard has changed in DB over time, so old images that were approved would probably not be approved/reapproved now if they were flagged or uploaded. I'm not saying that "every bad image have to be deleted explicitly in order of how terrible they are." I'm saying if they abide by the quality standards (and a higher standard given the content thus far), then they should be accepted. And that's a terrible analogy. A false analogy at that. We don't hold those two to the same regard.

The entire reason there is a wave of flagging right now is as a backlash from a period from allowing practically everything under the sun in. It is the inevitable result of the lack of clearer and more consistently applied standards.

Well, at least we can agree on something. And that's why I suggest we discuss it further in the forums.

I'll try to keep mature and ignore the insults, here, but...

Yes, flags are also for quality checks. The mods themselves routinely use flags for this purpose, including frequently with regards to the works approved by former mods that were demoted for too many of their works being deleted after being flagged for poor quality. Albert has even weighed in on the matter in the threads regarding the Doom picture, and it's, once again, been hashed to death in the "Flag Vandalism" thread. If you want to take it to the forum once again, feel free, but I've no interest in reinventing this wheel.

Hell, there was a post a few days ago where someone said they forgot to hit the button to post for approval, and the response was "just self-flag it" because all a flag does is see if a mod will approve it (again).

Just look at who has been approving posts in the "gigantic breasts" tag, and note that certain names appear disproportionately more often compared to other tags. It's simple fact that different mods have different tastes, and are far more likely to approve things to their tastes since, as you yourself say you agree, there are no clear or consistently applied standards which means they are free to go with their subjective tastes until and unless it generates a backlash against them.

And yes, there are "crap porn" images on this site. This should be self-evident, especially the further back you go chronologically into Danbooru. There are plenty of terrible sketches that stay on in spite of low quality because of, once again, inconsistent standards, and the porn tends to get far more favorites than anything else because there are clearly more basic users that just occasionally scan Danbooru for whatever random porn is the first thing they find looking for a tag rather than staying for other forms of content.

The criminal's defense case is not a false analogy, it is reductio ad absurdum. Whether something is judged as good art or not should be determined entirely upon its own merits, not upon whether or not there are worse artworks out there, just as individual guilt or innocence of a particular crime is wholly independent of the guilt or innocence of anyone else. The metaphor simply highlights how self-defeating an argument "but there's worse art still on Danbooru" really is. There is, again, a reason why it used to be explicitly highlighted by all the mods as an argument you should never, ever use.

As far as this individual post goes, I don't think it's terrible, personally, but that isn't at all what I'm arguing. I'm simply arguing against things that are obviously false, or based upon self-defeating logic.

Beyond that, yes, the ToS is absolutely a confusing mess of outdated information, although it hardly matters, because nobody read or abided by the ToS even then, and yes, I've been among those who protested for updates to the ToS to actually make it follow the reality of how Danbooru works. Those protests have been ignored for years. Again, however, if you want to go to the forums to argue that yourself, feel free.

NWSiaCB said:

I'll try to keep mature and ignore the insults, here, but...

@NWSia​CB Eh, I should apologize also, as I probably made that comment in haste. Anyways, I'll post this as no-bump so other users don't have to see this fill the page.

Yes, flags are also for quality checks. The mods themselves routinely use flags for this purpose, including frequently with regards to the works approved by former mods that were demoted for too many of their works being deleted after being flagged for poor quality. Albert has even weighed in on the matter in the threads regarding the Doom picture, and it's, once again, been hashed to death in the "Flag Vandalism" thread. If you want to take it to the forum once again, feel free, but I've no interest in reinventing this wheel.

Hell, there was a post a few days ago where someone said they forgot to hit the button to post for approval, and the response was "just self-flag it" because all a flag does is see if a mod will approve it (again).

Just look at who has been approving posts in the "gigantic breasts" tag, and note that certain names appear disproportionately more often compared to other tags. It's simple fact that different mods have different tastes, and are far more likely to approve things to their tastes since, as you yourself say you agree, there are no clear or consistently applied standards which means they are free to go with their subjective tastes until and unless it generates a backlash against them.

Right on all points. Sadly, it is a fact that approvers/queue moderators will generally be more bias to what they like, and that approving will always be a subjective matter. Provence once said to me that flagging should be treated objectively, whereas approvals subjectively -- ironic as the system may work.

And yes, there are "crap porn" images on this site. This should be self-evident, especially the further back you go chronologically into Danbooru. There are plenty of terrible sketches that stay on in spite of low quality because of, once again, inconsistent standards, and the porn tends to get far more favorites than anything else because there are clearly more basic users that just occasionally scan Danbooru for whatever random porn is the first thing they find looking for a tag rather than staying for other forms of content.

I'm part of a newer generation of users (used to just browse pixiv alone), so I don't have quite as much exposure to this, but you're most likely right. It does seem that most of DB's users just favorite what basically amounts to good porn on whatever fetish they like, and whatever's popular on pixiv isn't always popular on here. pixiv users are, by far, almost all Japanese and + they encompass users of many preferences, whereas danbooru is mostly male, I believe.

The criminal's defense case is not a false analogy, it is reductio ad absurdum. Whether something is judged as good art or not should be determined entirely upon its own merits, not upon whether or not there are worse artworks out there, just as individual guilt or innocence of a particular crime is wholly independent of the guilt or innocence of anyone else. The metaphor simply highlights how self-defeating an argument "but there's worse art still on Danbooru" really is. There is, again, a reason why it used to be explicitly highlighted by all the mods as an argument you should never, ever use.

As far as this individual post goes, I don't think it's terrible, personally, but that isn't at all what I'm arguing. I'm simply arguing against things that are obviously false, or based upon self-defeating logic.

Well, I'm definitely starting to see why I'm wrong on this much. I probably phrased that incorrectly. It would be much better to say "There are more offending images that have been approved because of their quality -- a post's standard of quality is held to a higher degree the more 'offensive' content there is in it." Something like that? Either way, I do agree with you unconditionally that an image's approval should be based on its' own merit, not because "other worse images were approved." It's the argument I've seen time and time again in the forum, but one I didn't expect to convey in my message, so I apologize on this front. You are correct.

Beyond that, yes, the ToS is absolutely a confusing mess of outdated information, although it hardly matters, because nobody read or abided by the ToS even then, and yes, I've been among those who protested for updates to the ToS to actually make it follow the reality of how Danbooru works. Those protests have been ignored for years. Again, however, if you want to go to the forums to argue that yourself, feel free.

I'll say, again, that I'm part of a newer generation of users so I haven't always been aware of these discussions (and yes, it's a poor excuse) -- but I do want to change the ToS for the better in addition to the other pages that are extremely relevant: howto:upload, howto:flag, help:flag notice, etc. Just because it's been argued for before and hasn't worked out doesn't stop it from being argued for again. The ToS is a crucial piece of information that should be read by most if not all users, and having it be inundated with confusing, outdated, or false information makes it all the less worthy of being used as an actual policy measure. It'd be much better for users, higher ups and casual users alike, to be able to refer to it in times of need.

But I do respect your opinion, and I definitely see value in what you say. You've been a much older user of the site, so you have more exposure and experience than I do. I'll take your comments into consideration when I start to draft some sort of proposal to change the ToS, in whatever topic it may lie in.

Stupid assholes.. Just blacklist gigantic_breasts if you hate it so much.

The thing is, I think the mods actually prefer it confusing and inconsistent, because it means they have more individual liberty to act on their own, and also because they don't agree amongst themselves to start with. Making it a free-for-all at least prevents anyone from losing out, which suits them just fine.

I actually explicitly remembered the triple head size rule when I only vaguely recall the rest because there was someone who made a stink about it several years ago when he flagged something for breaking the ToS limit of having breasts no more than TWO head sizes in volume. In a nearly literal case of Moving the Goalposts, the mod in question simply changed the ToS at that point to be three head sizes and said that anything larger "needed to pass higher artistic standards" to add an even more flexibility.

Beyond that, the rules of the ToS are blatantly contrary to the facts on the ground. They talk about how pornographic images need to be held to a higher standard because Danbooru is not a porn site, but they'll still be allowed if it's high enough quality. Also, the ToS directly discourages the uploading of webcomics and doujins and says they'll only be allowed in under the strictest of conditions... Those two are basically the only reasons anyone even comes to Danbooru, make up a large bulk of the content, and are put to lower artistic standards because more people defend them. (The concept of a virtuous cycle or Eternal September is again a key term to understanding Danbooru - when people come here for the porn, they then upload more porn, vote up the porn, and eventually become mods that approve the porn, while generally not promoting anything else. There isn't much furry porn here specifically because most users will press back against furry porn, but as soon as enough gets through the gates without pushback, those who get in will keep the gates open for more...) There's then even the arguments around how the "Safe" rating doesn't even mean "Safe For Work", just that there isn't actual nudity or indisputably sexualized poses that makes it difficult to even try to use Danbooru as a non-porn site that is... you know, safe for work.

The standards of Danbooru have always been almost entirely in the tastes of the mods. In fact, a lot of work done cleaning up the place early on was just having enough new mods join on and say with close enough to unanimity that Danbooru shouldn't just be whatever Albert wanted to upload, as he originally was just putting up Japanese AV photoshoots among other things. What's been happening recently is part of a trend that started a few years ago actually pushing back against some of the mods, and bringing in a cycle of newer blood, which in turn has led to some purging of the old artwork.

Do note that no one has ever complained about the anatomy of the other parts of the character, but rather just the out-of-place breasts. For me, it's good art, but from what we have seen here, it just doesn't fit with the userbase on this site.

I'm sort of disappointed, but not really surprised this is still going on. The image is fine as is. If it's not your cup of tea, perhaps you should avoid things tagged 'giant_breasts' if you don't like Giant Breasts?

Particularly since the mods already shot down one complaint about it, so they rephrased it and flagged it again.

ThePencilandPaperGuy said:

Particularly since the mods already shot down one complaint about it, so they rephrased it and flagged it again.

Two separate users flagged this post. Both were basic members. Though both of them did so 4 days ago according to the header, which is odd.

OOZ662 said:

Though both of them did so 4 days ago according to the header, which is odd.

The timestamp rounds up.

So..what do we have here? A post that has some anatomical nonsense when the rest of the body is constructed that way.
There is also no violation of the ToS, because such posts are put to higher scrutiny. What is the scrutiny and what is meaning higher here? Well, normally such posts have ugly colors, lines and the rest of body is off in terms of proportions and/or perspective. I can't see anything of the remaining three parts missing here: Coloring, Lines and Perspective. About anatomy, you can discuss, but sometimes art is tending to be overexaggerated. Is this a good thing? Probably, because art is free (most of the time). And since there is only a soft-ban, I'll undelete this image.
So that means these posts should be treated like furry posts which are per se not prohibited, but restricted. And that is absolutely fine.
I don't care how consistent the ToS are in other regards, like the Doujin policy, because this is a seperated matter.

So in short, because no one is reading this here: An image has multiple components and not just one. One here is very off, but mostly for fun reasons, because it is overexaggerated. I also won't tag this with bad anatomy, but with anatomical nonsense, because this image falls under this category.

I want to ask a serious question.

If instead of a woman this was a man and instead of breasts those were pecs this freakishly large on an otherwise seriously drawn and realistically proportioned body, would you still think it belongs here?

If the answer is no, then this doesn't belong either. Standards shouldn't be compromised because of "OMG TEH BOOBIES"

It'd be one thing is this was part of a gag comic with goofy nonsense all over the place or if the rest of the anatomy was cartoonish overexaggerated as well, but it's not. There's no context at all but what you can see. So you have to assume it's being serious and a character with a normal body but with breasts that are roughly 70% of the subjects body is ridiculous.

High quality is more than just technical skill. It's also mastery of other concept such as anatomy which this picture clearly lacks.

Hoobajoob said:

I want to ask a serious question.

If instead of a woman this was a man and instead of breasts those were pecs this freakishly large on an otherwise seriously drawn and realistically proportioned body, would you still think it belongs here?

If the answer is no, then this doesn't belong either. Standards shouldn't be compromised because of "OMG TEH BOOBIES"

It'd be one thing is this was part of a gag comic with goofy nonsense all over the place or if the rest of the anatomy was cartoonish overexaggerated as well, but it's not. There's no context at all but what you can see. So you have to assume it's being serious and a character with a normal body but with breasts that are roughly 70% of the subjects body is ridiculous.

High quality is more than just technical skill. It's also mastery of other concept such as anatomy which this picture clearly lacks.

Hypothetical question is theoretical^^.
But off course I would.

Provence said:

So..what do we have here? A post that has some anatomical nonsense when the rest of the body is constructed that way.
There is also no violation of the ToS, because such posts are put to higher scrutiny. What is the scrutiny and what is meaning higher here? Well, normally such posts have ugly colors, lines and the rest of body is off in terms of proportions and/or perspective. I can't see anything of the remaining three parts missing here: Coloring, Lines and Perspective. About anatomy, you can discuss, but sometimes art is tending to be overexaggerated. Is this a good thing? Probably, because art is free (most of the time). And since there is only a soft-ban, I'll undelete this image.
So that means these posts should be treated like furry posts which are per se not prohibited, but restricted. And that is absolutely fine.
I don't care how consistent the ToS are in other regards, like the Doujin policy, because this is a seperated matter.

So in short, because no one is reading this here: An image has multiple components and not just one. One here is very off, but mostly for fun reasons, because it is overexaggerated. I also won't tag this with bad anatomy, but with anatomical nonsense, because this image falls under this category.

Isn't this the core of the problem, right here?

I mean, to paraphrase, "the ToS doesn't explicitly say it's out of bounds, just that it's subjectively put to a subjectively higher standard for some nebulous group of other people to subjectively determine whether the ToS or uploading guidelines apply in this case or not, and it only maybe-sorta violates one part of the ToS at a time, so it's fine if any random mod decides it's fine."

Notice how that gives virtually no actual guidance to people who either upload or want to flag? It doesn't exist, as it purports to be, as a guideline for user behavior, but as an excuse/justification for mod behavior, so that whichever mod arbitrarily happened across this image that day can arbitrarily determine whether the rules apply in this case or not.

The end result is a, you guessed it, Eternal September phenomenon where it just comes down to whoever has the largest mass of people complaining the loudest wins. Furry porn is generally not allowed because most users generally look down on it, but that only lasts as long as the people who dislike furry porn apply more pressure than the people who do. This is also exactly what happened in the Doom picture, which wound up deleted after half a dozen mods, plus Albert himself, weighed in saying the image was fine, but were outweighed by basic user flags outnumbering the mods that could re-approve the image.

Hoobajoob said:

High quality is more than just technical skill. It's also mastery of other concept such as anatomy which this picture clearly lacks.

To get this clear for the record, good anatomy =/= good proportions. Yes, the proportions are ridiculous but that's not a sign of bad anatomy. Maybe anatomical nonsense (although why this implicates bad anatomy is really beyond me when its such a rarely used tag), but sometimes it's used to an artistic degree also, like in post #2282030.

Not all good art has good anatomy, not all good anatomy is good art. Being narrow-sighted in the approach to art appreciation homogenizes the pool of art we can curate from. In the greater scope of things: there are ridiculous pieces of art some people like, there are good pieces of art that some people don't like.

Mikaeri said:

To get this clear for the record, good anatomy =/= good proportions. Yes, the proportions are ridiculous but that's not a sign of bad anatomy. Maybe anatomical nonsense (although why this implicates bad anatomy is really beyond me when its such a rarely used tag), but sometimes it's used to an artistic degree also, like in post #2282030.

Not all good art has good anatomy, not all good anatomy is good art. Being narrow-sighted in the approach to art appreciation homogenizes the pool of art we can curate from. In the greater scope of things: there are ridiculous pieces of art some people like, there are good pieces of art that some people don't like.

This isn't art, is Ecchi/Hentai directed to certain public, you give the sensation of "We have to accept the image because my reasons and tastes were accepted, and we (the majority) create a reason to justify their staying" is absurd. Just let them be, don't try to compare this to the real art.

NWSiaCB said:

Isn't this the core of the problem, right here?

I mean, to paraphrase, "the ToS doesn't explicitly say it's out of bounds, just that it's subjectively put to a subjectively higher standard for some nebulous group of other people to subjectively determine whether the ToS or uploading guidelines apply in this case or not, and it only maybe-sorta violates one part of the ToS at a time, so it's fine if any random mod decides it's fine."

Notice how that gives virtually no actual guidance to people who either upload or want to flag? It doesn't exist, as it purports to be, as a guideline for user behavior, but as an excuse/justification for mod behavior, so that whichever mod arbitrarily happened across this image that day can arbitrarily determine whether the rules apply in this case or not.

The end result is a, you guessed it, Eternal September phenomenon where it just comes down to whoever has the largest mass of people complaining the loudest wins. Furry porn is generally not allowed because most users generally look down on it, but that only lasts as long as the people who dislike furry porn apply more pressure than the people who do. This is also exactly what happened in the Doom picture, which wound up deleted after half a dozen mods, plus Albert himself, weighed in saying the image was fine, but were outweighed by basic user flags outnumbering the mods that could re-approve the image.

Yes, it is fine when a random mod is deciding that. I have no monopole over the decision, though. It means that my approval can be flagged. But as long there are reasons, and I think I have some for this post to stay, then the mod should be approving it. It can be flagged, though.
And that is the essence: I've written a comment before approving, so there is a reasons why it is undeleted, especially if it was flagged twice before. One can call that arbitrary, I call it subjectivity but based on objective components (colors, lines, rest proportions and anatomy).
Bad that is how the flagging system works at its core. And also the approval system :3.

By the way: The rule is applying. That why I've even written this comment. If it were just a regular with regular proportions, I wouldn't have bothered. But I think that users deserve to know why a post, that is controversial and falls under the ToS, is re-approved.

When did we decide that the 3+ heads rule meant "higher scrutiny" instead of an outright ban, like it was when it was first laid out? I remember we made that decision about furry and guro, but now it seems like people are extrapolating that decision to the entire ToS without even consulting the rest of the userbase first.

Lannihan said:

This isn't art, is Ecchi/Hentai directed to certain public, you give the sensation of "We have to accept the image because my reasons and tastes were accepted, and we (the majority) create a reason to justify their staying" is absurd. Just let them be, don't try to compare this to the real art.

I'm not an approver, though. And although you're right that I do like this image even with its' flaws, I don't thing it's right we flag and delete everything with bad anatomy. There's a reason the tag exists like the other bad_* tags.

Honestly, I'm really not sure how to respond to "this isn't real art." "Real art" means so many things to so many different people... Considering "ecchi/hentai" not "real art" is like saying "sweets" aren't "real food", for lack of a better analogy. I mean, yeah they have different aspects of appreciation, but to say something isn't "real x"... kinda sounds a bit presumptuous, doesn't it?

Art is boundless.
But that isn't the reason it was undeleted, but it serves as an example how multilayered art can be.
And overexaggerated imagery of the body while the rest is ok, serves as a pretty good example of non-accustomed posts.

feline_lump said:

When did we decide that the 3+ heads rule meant "higher scrutiny" instead of an outright ban, like it was when it was first laid out? I remember we made that decision about furry and guro, but now it seems like people are extrapolating that decision to the entire ToS without even consulting the rest of the userbase first.

Well, if the users wanna dole that out in a forum discussion they're more than welcome to, but the ToS is presented as it is. NWSiaCB has a point about the whole Eternal September phenomenon where we should tread carefully around these borderline images, but I think limiting ourselves to just sexy anime-esque art of practically all Japanese anime copyrights wouldn't be the best approach. Though my uploads say otherwise, so ha :/

Reading over the forums again, it seems like the "gigantic breasts are not banned" clause slipped in without discussion because they were lumped in with guro. I don't completely agree with it, but I guess making that a flag reason was my mistake. If I had known, I'd still have flagged it, though - her breasts are fused together into one huge flesh pile.

Sad, that this posts probably doesn't stay active, although the overall quality is clearly visible.

I'd approve it (now that I'm an approver), but as Nitrogen09 said before, if it doesn't fit in with the userbase then so be it. It most likely would be flagged again, sadly...

EDIT: And on that note, it would make this reapproved almost as much as that one doom post someone complained about.