title

my bigger question is if the quality are going to get more loosen or stuff like nsfw cub will be allowed

flowersylveon said:
title

my bigger question is if the quality are going to get more loosen or stuff like nsfw cub will be allowed

I don't think there will be any differences, and to be honest, we don't need one. E6/blep is a place with really quality content, and let's keep it like that.

flowersylveon said:
title

my bigger question is if the quality are going to get more loosen or stuff like nsfw cub will be allowed

For the time being, nothing is changing.
Our quality guidelines are what makes us who we are, and in itself was an appealing aspect for those for gave us this new home. (and obviously for the userbase we've had all along!)

sergalbutt said:

...Our quality guidelines are what makes us who we are, and in itself was an appealing aspect for those for gave us this new home.

Even if it frustrated the hell out of some of us, but found the value it added in the end to be worth it.

chastity_coyote said:
Even if it frustrated the hell out of some of us, but found the value it added in the end to be worth it.

People like Mlem being willing to work with you is a reason I can tolerate how high the quality standards are. If your stuff just got deleted and they refused to work with you to help get your pic up to standards, I'd have a very different opinion.

Allowing cub and blacklisting it by default would erase half the drama on this site.

Now that we are hosted by an organization that explicitly permits cub in their content guidelines, and are no longer owned by the people that forced the site to disallow cub in the first place (as confirmed by staff), there is effectively no reason to continue upholding a rule that has alienated the community with subjective bans over small or cute characters and consumed a significant portion of administrative resources.

ivorymane said:
I don't think there will be any differences, and to be honest, we don't need one. E6/blep is a place with really quality content, and let's keep it like that.

+1

haruinfigaru said:
Allowing cub and blacklisting it by default would erase half the drama on this site.

Now that we are hosted by an organization that explicitly permits cub in their content guidelines, and are no longer owned by the people that forced the site to disallow cub in the first place (as confirmed by staff), there is effectively no reason to continue upholding a rule that has alienated the community with subjective bans over small or cute characters and consumed a significant portion of administrative resources.

I think this would be a good idea too. Quite frankly I got fed up having multiple generations taken down because of the ever so flawed "short = young" ruling used on e6AI, amongst other things.

boxelby945 said:
I think this would be a good idea too. Quite frankly I got fed up having multiple generations taken down because of the ever so flawed "short = young" ruling used on e6AI, amongst other things.

It especially backfired against the Pokémon community. A talented AI-assisted artist I follow has had half of their content purged from here, despite not producing cub. A lot of people don't feel comfortable uploading their works here—which is to be expected. Why would anyone invest time uploading and tagging their art when it can be deleted a month later without any warning or objective reasoning?

boxelby945 said:
I think this would be a good idea too. Quite frankly I got fed up having multiple generations taken down because of the ever so flawed "short = young" ruling used on e6AI, amongst other things.

I recommended a few changes (young, too much like photo, no human faces) and it was sent up the water column. We'll see what flushes out. Today is only the first day, after all.

haruinfigaru said:
It especially backfired against the Pokémon community. A talented AI-assisted artist I follow has had half of their content purged from here, despite not producing cub. A lot of people don't feel comfortable uploading their works here—which is to be expected. Why would anyone invest time uploading and tagging their art when it can be deleted a month later without any warning or objective reasoning?

See my reply immediately above.

These changes would definitely be nice, although I agree the quality requirements are a definite benefit even if they are annoying for the artists/directors.

da_reel_digitaltf said:
I recommended a few changes (young, too much like photo, no human faces) and it was sent up the water column. We'll see what flushes out. Today is only the first day, after all.

da_reel_digitaltf said:
See my reply immediately above.

These are already covered by the parent organization's policy. It would make the most sense to simply adopt them here.

sil said:
These changes would definitely be nice, although I agree the quality requirements are a definite benefit even if they are annoying for the artists/directors.

I know plenty of people dislike them, as with any subjective guidelines. I personally find it necessary to filter out the flood of low-effort prompt gambling. I have never had any of my images taken down for quality reasons, and I doubt I would have any trouble improving my images if I had to.

Perhaps staff could offer some leniency by unapproving or otherwise filtering out decent-but-not-perfect uploads from the main gallery, instead of deleting them outright.

If it's a vote, then my vote goes toward keeping quality guidelines the same as they were at e6ai.

I chose e6ai.net for a reason, I'd like to stay at blep.art for the same reason.

If things loosen up then there's nothing to separate this site from every other nsfw site that accepts AI gens. If you want gens with too many fingers or multiple forearms coming out of the same shoulder, then rule34.xxx is already there for you. If you want gens of loli/shota/cub, then AIbooru and pawbooru are already there for you.

I highly doubt that reducing blep.art to the lowest common denominator would be a net gain.

No reason to ban cub. Fictional characters dont deserve rights, or we'll have to get rid of everything against the law, and that list is very wide.

If I may vent, the main reasons I don’t use this site much are for the exact reasons being discussed here. I like to think I take a pretty decent amount of time with my gens if I notice they’re ones that require some work to make them look nice, only for a mod to look at one of my uploads and go “oh there’s some tiny errors so we deleted it, but we won’t actually mention what they are.”

Incidentally, a lot of my gens are Pokemon and MLP, so I don’t bother uploading a lot because I know there’s a chance they’ll be taken down for the cub rule that for some reason exists when e621 doesn’t have a rule against it.

haruinfigaru said:
Allowing cub and blacklisting it by default would erase half the drama on this site.

Now that we are hosted by an organization that explicitly permits cub in their content guidelines, and are no longer owned by the people that forced the site to disallow cub in the first place (as confirmed by staff), there is effectively no reason to continue upholding a rule that has alienated the community with subjective bans over small or cute characters and consumed a significant portion of administrative resources.

I'm not sure if things will change here just because the parent organization's guidelines allow cub. Allowing cub will inevitably alienate some of the userbase coming from e6ai. I would like to see cub here but with the current precedent, I don't know if that'll happen. I'm not even sure if a sizeable portion of the community here even wants cub when people who want it are probably getting there needs met over on Inkbunny.

ydt-archive said:
If it's a vote, then my vote goes toward keeping quality guidelines the same as they were at e6ai.

I chose e6ai.net for a reason, I'd like to stay at blep.art for the same reason.

If things loosen up then there's nothing to separate this site from every other nsfw site that accepts AI gens. If you want gens with too many fingers or multiple forearms coming out of the same shoulder, then rule34.xxx is already there for you. If you want gens of loli/shota/cub, then AIbooru and pawbooru are already there for you.

I highly doubt that reducing blep.art to the lowest common denominator would be a net gain.

"If you want gens of loli/shota/cub, then AIbooru and pawbooru are already there for you."

This is a thought-terminating cliché built upon special pleading. There are also plenty of other websites that host feral content—by your logic, we should also ban feral content here.

"I highly doubt that reducing blep.art to the lowest common denominator would be a net gain."

You have conflated your argument about quality control to justify banning cub, without actually presenting any material argument for the latter.

haroldleviticusgrimm said:
I'm not sure if things will change here just because the parent organization's guidelines allow cub. Allowing cub will inevitably alienate some of the userbase coming from e6ai. I would like to see cub here but with the current precedent, I don't know if that'll happen. I'm not even sure if a sizeable portion of the community here even wants cub when people who want it are probably getting there needs met over on Inkbunny.

"Alienate" is the wrong word here. Being morally dumbfounded over content that is blacklisted by default does not meet the criteria. On the contrary, deleting content and banning people over cute artstyles quite literally does meet the criteria (estrangement and isolation).

If they do not want to see it, they won't. If they are merely upset over the content being invisibly hosted here, yet have no qualms over the host actively training on and generating cub porn, then their morals are purely performative and schizophrenic.

ydt-archive said:
If it's a vote, then my vote goes toward keeping quality guidelines the same as they were at e6ai.

I chose e6ai.net for a reason, I'd like to stay at blep.art for the same reason.

If things loosen up then there's nothing to separate this site from every other nsfw site that accepts AI gens. If you want gens with too many fingers or multiple forearms coming out of the same shoulder, then rule34.xxx is already there for you. If you want gens of loli/shota/cub, then AIbooru and pawbooru are already there for you.

I highly doubt that reducing blep.art to the lowest common denominator would be a net gain.

One uncle of mine had 12 toes. A different cousin had a deformed arm. These are normal anomalies. Small breasts or genitalia do not equal young. In fact, seeing huge boobs on Judy Hopps is something I can't fathom as she'd give herself a concussion and severe brain damage from two boxing speedbags bopping her in the face at every bounce.

Logic can coexist alongside content moderation, you know.

haruinfigaru said:
Words words words.

I don't have to care what you think, my stance is my stance. No amount of middle school debate class logic will work on me. 💪

da_reel_digitaltf said:
These are normal anomalies.

"Normal anomalies" is an oxymoron, then you call for "logic". Cool story. 👍

haruinfigaru said:
"If you want gens of loli/shota/cub, then AIbooru and pawbooru are already there for you."

This is a thought-terminating cliché built upon special pleading. There are also plenty of other websites that host feral content—by your logic, we should also ban feral content here.

"I highly doubt that reducing blep.art to the lowest common denominator would be a net gain."

You have conflated your argument about quality control to justify banning cub, without actually presenting any material argument for the latter.

"Alienate" is the wrong word here. Being morally dumbfounded over content that is blacklisted by default does not meet the criteria. On the contrary, deleting content and banning people over cute artstyles quite literally does meet the criteria (estrangement and isolation).

If they do not want to see it, they won't. If they are merely upset over the content being invisibly hosted here, yet have no qualms over the host actively training on and generating cub porn, then their morals are purely performative and schizophrenic.

For those that like to prevaricate about 'cub' stuff... I just cite actual cartoon canon.

In Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the cartoon character Baby Herman is "a 50 year old stuck with a 3 year old's willy". That's actually IN the movie. Cartoons don't age. Then again, none of this is real so presuming that any nonexistent being is any particular chronological age is foolish on its face. And that's without getting into the age-frame and maturation rates of various species even if bipedal and anthropomorphic. But that's using logic, which is annoyingly absent in many things these days.

da_reel_digitaltf said:
One uncle of mine had 12 toes. A different cousin had a deformed arm. These are normal anomalies. Small breasts or genitalia do not equal young. In fact, seeing huge boobs on Judy Hopps is something I can't fathom as she'd give herself a concussion and severe brain damage from two boxing speedbags bopping her in the face at every bounce.

Logic can coexist alongside content moderation, you know.

I should point out that "normal anomalies" is an oxymoron, and unless every single artist here is intentionally trying to represent deformed people, this specific argument does not hold up under logical scrutiny.

Of course, there are edge cases where what one person sees as an anomaly, the creator added intentionally. That is a genuine gap in the current enforcement.

"Small breasts or genitalia do not equal young."

This is accurate, especially considering the anatomical diversity of furries.

ydt-archive said:
I don't have to care what you think, my stance is my stance. No amount of middle school debate class logic will work on me. 💪

Thank you for formalizing your dialectal surrender. Ad hominem, anti-intellectual pride, and your self-admission to being unable to counter 'middle school debate class logic' is not an argument. My premises remain unaddressed.

ydt-archive said:
I don't have to care what you think, my stance is my stance. No amount of middle school debate class logic will work on me. 💪

"Normal anomalies" is an oxymoron, then you call for "logic". Cool story. 👍

You're welcome to your stance. I'm just pointing out that it's not well-founded.

And yes, 'Normal anomalies' is a oxymoronic term, same with 'age of a figmental character' and 'furry community'.

As far as that being middle-school debate level... would you like to step it up to collegiate professor level and we can discuss the sociological implications and effects surrounding historic and current impedance to the freedom to create art in whatever form the artist declares as art? Or would that be a touch much?

Slightly annoying how the discussion derailed a bit and conflated the points of the quality standards and cub acceptance for uploads. I just wanted to upload generations of characters without having to give them 6 packs when unneeded lol

haruinfigaru said:
Thank you for formalizing your dialectal surrender. Ad hominem, anti-intellectual pride, and your self-admission to being unable to counter 'middle school debate class logic' is not an argument. My premises remain unaddressed.

Are you even old enough to legally visit this website?

If so, do you commonly talk to other adults like you're still a teenager? If you do, that doesn't make you seem intelligent you just come off as annoying.

In my life I've had to deal with people far smarter and more dangerous than you. You wouldn't stand a chance with your insistence on arguing sweet little nothings until you're blue in the face.

boxelby945 said:
Slightly annoying how the discussion derailed a bit and conflated the points of the quality standards and cub acceptance for uploads. I just wanted to upload generations of characters without having to give them 6 packs when unneeded lol

Yeah, six-packs, beach ball boobs, and wangs longer than a chinese phone book are kind of excessive, IMO.

ydt-archive said:
[Emotional noise, projections, and personal attacks; zero arguments or premises]

👍

boxelby945 said:
Slightly annoying how the discussion derailed a bit and conflated the points of the quality standards and cub acceptance for uploads. I just wanted to upload generations of characters without having to give them 6 packs when unneeded lol

da_reel_digitaltf said:
Yeah, six-packs, beach ball boobs, and wangs longer than a chinese phone book are kind of excessive, IMO.

I agree. The previous enforcement of guidelines had severely limited freedom of style and expression.

ydt-archive said:
Are you even old enough to legally visit this website?

If so, do you commonly talk to other adults like you're still a teenager? If you do, that doesn't make you seem intelligent you just come off as annoying.

In my life I've had to deal with people far smarter and more dangerous than you. You wouldn't stand a chance with your insistence on arguing sweet little nothings until you're blue in the face.

Awww... are you having a special moment?

You know, you could just pretend like I'm going to care about your feelings.

But... have it your way. You're right! Nothing should change! It was perfectly fine the way everything was... except that the database looks like swiss cheese because of deletions. But that's fine.... right?

Or is it that you're one of the ones that made those deletions so you're attached to being correct?

And I won't get into a biggus dickus contest with you over who did what in the past. We might actually have worn the same uniform and seen the same dirt fly. I don't know. I'm not gonna ask and this certainly ain't the right place to tell.

You've got your opinion, I've got mine.

Keep in mind that at least some of the rules are going to be dictated by the amount of legal troubles the website is willing to get into. Being a porn site is already really bad by itself, but trying to host "rare" fetishes can get you into much worse trouble. Hosting services, payment processors, advertisers - many will just blacklist you outright. And that's assuming you're not being served papers by the police.

Though ultimately the rules will be set by the admins and site owners. They're the ones running the site, they can do whatever they want and host whatever content they want. It's their right. It's not a democracy.

Maybe it's even for the better it's not a democracy, considering we literally just saw E6AI getting shut down by the "people" who "voted" for it to be shut down because they saw a video of a guy saying AI drinks their water and steals their art.

I like how every cub related discussion ends in shitflinging lmao

Sooo trying to get back on topic (unless everyone prefers to watch those two users fight like teenagers), I think not changing the rules for now is the right call, it's a big and sudden change to migrate things to a new website.

Once everything's "settled down" then guidelines/rules changes can be considered, one at a time to avoid the confusion of mixing them, like present in this very thread.

I think the quality standard should be kept. Anyone can generate slop if they want to view slop. This site is already very high quality compared to alternatives.

Cub content is a good candidate for consideration, and should be considered by itself, not because "we're no longer restricted by the parent org/company" or "the parent org/company allows it so we should too". But later, not right now.

artificialdragon said:
Keep in mind that at least some of the rules are going to be dictated by the amount of legal troubles the website is willing to get into. Being a porn site is already really bad by itself, but trying to host "rare" fetishes can get you into much worse trouble. Hosting services, payment processors, advertisers - many will just blacklist you outright. And that's assuming you're not being served papers by the police.

Though ultimately the rules will be set by the admins and site owners. They're the ones running the site, they can do whatever they want and host whatever content they want. It's their right. It's not a democracy.

Maybe it's even for the better it's not a democracy, considering we literally just saw E6AI getting shut down by the "people" who "voted" for it to be shut down because they saw a video of a guy saying AI drinks their water and steals their art.

Please read through the thread; this site is now owned by a non-profit that actively trains on and generates cub porn, and explicitly permits cub porn in their content guidelines.

The primary reason cub was not allowed here is because the previous owner demanded its prohibition. Hosting services, payment processors, and advertisers are not in the equation here, at all.

anonimo191 said:
Sooo trying to get back on topic (unless everyone prefers to watch those two users fight like teenagers), I think not changing the rules for now is the right call, it's a big and sudden change to migrate things to a new website.

Once everything's "settled down" then guidelines/rules changes can be considered, one at a time to avoid the confusion of mixing them, like present in this very thread.

I think the quality standard should be kept. Anyone can generate slop if they want to view slop. This site is already very high quality compared to alternatives.

Cub content is a good candidate for consideration, and should be considered by itself, not because "we're no longer restricted by the parent org/company" or "the parent org/company allows it so we should too". But later, not right now.

I argue the opposite: we should change the rules now, while everything is fresh, before it settles back into a dead dogma.

Removing a rule after everything has "settled down" is much harder than adding a rule later.

"not because "we're no longer restricted by the parent org/company""

These were the primary reasons for the prohibition in the first place. They are now gone. There has not yet been a single new proposed reason to continue banning it beyond "it's already banned so we should keep it that way"—that is the exact dogma being placed under scrutiny.

I made it very clear early in this thread where the site stands at this moment.

The one thing I can confidently confirm is that our quality guidelines will be unchanging.

This much has been said by the MakeFox staff themselves on this forum post

hinoserm said:

What we won't change

We don't want to change anything about the spirit of the site, or the moderation standards that have been in place for a long time. We have no intention of locking anything behind paywalls, or adding obnoxious third-party ads or sponsors.

MakeFox's ownership has not changed our content policies.

As for what content may or may not be permitted in the future, nothing has been discussed between MakeFox and site staff. There have been mentions, but there are no plans.

Now that you all have been informed, I'm locking this thread.
Please do not continue this discourse elsewhere.