Topic: Arbitrariety of "no-young" content

Posted under General

First of all, this is NOT against ANY janitor/mod/admin/webmaster/whateverrankyoucanimagine.

I'm feeling some arbitrariety (or at least, not being clear what is exactly okay and what isn't) with the "no-young" rule.

I've saw some posts deleted with dubious arguments, and I've saw some posts with clear young AND explicit content such as post #9569, which was even approved (and even it's tagged as "young"...)

I'm asking for clear rules about what is permitted and what isn't, i'm not saying you should delete post #9569 and not delete my post of a male elephant which looks young for some people, and the background slightly resembles a cradle (i even added a takedown request for that image, so it's not a big deal if it got removed.)

It's more like a request for a clearer rule for avoiding future incidents on this.

EDIT: I'm not complaining against the rule either. I've read this post and even there they fail to explain what is OK and what's not. Just to be clear, i'm asking for clearer rules.

EDIT2: Double checked above post. About last message of Lance Armstrong on this post, that line was clearly crossed on some posts, so a clarification on these rules are really important.

Updated

Tending to agree, posted a doe with udder and teats which is an adult deer trait, nothing besides spots to indicate youth, but the prompt contained the word young (used to avoid breasts - trying for anatomically correct). Deleted as young. No reply from admin when I asked for clarification.

fuzzybunny23 said:
Tending to agree, posted a doe with udder and teats which is an adult deer trait, nothing besides spots to indicate youth, but the prompt contained the word young (used to avoid breasts - trying for anatomically correct). Deleted as young. No reply from admin when I asked for clarification.

You can try "flat-chested" and the like. "Breasts" in the negatives work too.

I've had cub content removed being told it's not allowed but it seems to be

Why are there different standards for e621 and e6ai in the first place? I'd genuinely like to know. Something about AI ethics?...

Are teenagers "young"?

Is this no-young policy supposed to be final now? Can't say that I understand. *Everything* else is allowed here, even furries eating feces freshly tapped from the anus - one of the many things here I wish I could unsee...

If it's all within the law, then who are you to decide that fecal snacking is fine and some casually nude 12 year old furry is not? I don't think anyone really understands your point about models potentially being trained on actual CP, which is of course a no-go, but also rather far-fetched.
Why can't you apply the same standards as on e621?

I don't get any kicks out of any form of abuse, ficticious or not. I just want to have some young, furry, innocent same-age romance or casual nudity in the mix - not defenseless cubs getting used like things and not *too* young either (double-digit minimum).
It's just as legal as displaying furries literally eating shit. The difference is that the one is very cute and dignified, while the other is disgusting and disturbing.

If you suddenly developed moral concerns and want to apply censorship, why don't you ban abuse instead?

furlover69 said:
Is this no-young policy supposed to be final now? Can't say that I understand. *Everything* else is allowed here, even furries eating feces freshly tapped from the anus - one of the many things here I wish I could unsee...

If it's all within the law, then who are you to decide that fecal snacking is fine and some casually nude 12 year old furry is not? I don't think anyone really understands your point about models potentially being trained on actual CP, which is of course a no-go, but also rather far-fetched.
Why can't you apply the same standards as on e621?

I don't get any kicks out of any form of abuse, ficticious or not. I just want to have some young, furry, innocent same-age romance or casual nudity in the mix - not defenseless cubs getting used like things and not *too* young either (double-digit minimum).
It's just as legal as displaying furries literally eating shit. The difference is that the one is very cute and dignified, while the other is disgusting and disturbing.

If you suddenly developed moral concerns and want to apply censorship, why don't you ban abuse instead?

The E6AI Admins do not give this site as much attention as their main site E621. If you really want to engage them in discussion about this topic, you may want to try their discord for E621. The Approvers can only follow the rules as laid out, it is not their say.

It seems clear to me: https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/4
No:
Underage Characters: Any submissions containing underage characters in explicit situations
Visual appearance or canonical age both count for this

It's just a question of enforcement?

Can anyone explain why this post made it through and was approved if this content isn't allowed? https://e6ai.net/posts/18770

A mod literally looked at this pic, looked at the added prompt, which indicated that they used practically every cub related tag, and was like "Yep, that's fine."

I too think it's weird that e621 is practically a place where anything goes, and people can't post the kind of content they want here. The majority of the posts taken down are because of cub related art reasons, clearly that's what they want. I just don't understand how the one link I posted made it through if it's such a "strict" rule.

firemetal said:
Can anyone explain why this post made it through and was approved if this content isn't allowed? https://e6ai.net/posts/18770

A mod literally looked at this pic, looked at the added prompt, which indicated that they used practically every cub related tag, and was like "Yep, that's fine."

I too think it's weird that e621 is practically a place where anything goes, and people can't post the kind of content they want here. The majority of the posts taken down are because of cub related art reasons, clearly that's what they want. I just don't understand how the one link I posted made it through if it's such a "strict" rule.

Like hell I looked at the prompt. It slipped in.

You got it deleted, pat yourself on the back.

  • 1