Topic: Young ferals

Posted under General

Adusak90

Member

As a feral enjoyer I'm gonna go straight to the point here: there's no reason to ban young ferals and especially ones that just look young.

I know the reason is that some of the pictures could be somehow based on an illegal pictures (which let's be honest, were probably filtered out by the OWNERS OF THE AI BASE TO NOT GO TO JAIL, but that's besides the point), but how in the hell feral four-legged creatures could be based off human pictures? There's no possibility for something like that.

I'm so sick of cute eevee pictures like this one https://e6ai.net/posts/142308 getting sent into the shadow realm because the young human policy was for some ungodly unrelated reason stretched onto ferals. Anthro I could understand, two legged creatures could have their generation include humans, okay, but how is a feral eevee supposed to do that? Especially in that normal dog-like standing position?

Good thing I automatically download eevee/mew/fennekin/[insert any first evolution four legged dog/cat/fox pokemon] pictures because the amount of times a picture would've been lost forever for me otherwise is worringly high.

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

To answer I need to clarify a few misconceptions.

1. Furry artwork is anthropomorphizing animals; in short, it's giving human qualities to animals.
- For content to be considered non-beastiality, ferals must have humanizing trait (often facial expressions). If they don't have human traits, that's bestiality/zoophilia.

2. For ferals, anthros, humans or anything in between: young is young, no exception.

3. Children and animals (not ferals; animals) are assumed to be unable give consent.

---

adusak90 said:
there's no reason to ban young ferals and especially ones that just look young.

False: see reason #2 and #3

adusak90 said:
the reason is that some of the pictures could be somehow based on an illegal pictures

False: False: see reason #2 and #3

adusak90 said:
how in the hell feral four-legged creatures could be based off human pictures? There's no possibility for something like that.

True, but that's irrelevant.

adusak90 said:
I'm so sick of cute eevee pictures like this one https://e6ai.net/posts/142308 getting sent into the shadow realm

That's understandable, but those picture can be host on other websites; e6ai staff and admins decided is just not the place for that content.

adusak90 said:
Anthro I could understand, two legged creatures could have their generation include humans, okay, but how is a feral eevee supposed to do that? Especially in that normal dog-like standing position?

True, but that's irrelevant. The decision is not based on hypothetical use of illegal material; it's based on the things that are contained in the post.

Hammapajamma

Member

What I don't get about this stuff is the inconsistency. What makes this Evee a particularly young character, when this one? apparently isn't? They're both Eevee drawn like an Eevee, with the same cutesy eyes-to-body ratio and compact build and everything. It just seems arbitrary at times.

How are you supposed to know what you're allowed to upload in that sort of environment?

Updated

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

hammapajamma said:
What makes this Evee a particularly young character, when this one? apparently isn't?

That just mean you found 2 edge case images.

hammapajamma said:

It just seems arbitrary at times

What do you expect? Janitors are humans and each artwork is different: there is bound to be variety from janitor to janitor, from artwork to artwork, from minute to minute.

The staff is well aware of this, and this is why the members are allowed to appeal deletion, and this is why no approval are final.

hammapajamma said:
How are you supposed to know what you're allowed to upload in that sort of environment?

Make sure you generate things that doesn't flirt with the limit defined by the rules.

Hammapajamma

Member

kalethorebiter said:
That just mean you found 2 edge case images.

Not... really? There's a whole bunch that are similar to that one because it's just the default Eevee look, so it tends to get generated like that. Same goes for Pokémon like Vulpix and certain other cub-looking stage 1 pokémon.

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

hammapajamma said:
cub-looking stage 1 pokémon


You said it yourself: cub looking.

If you don't think that "cub looking" is where the edge cases will be, I really don't know what to tell you.

Updated

sergalbutt

Janitor

hammapajamma said:
What I don't get about this stuff is the inconsistency.

This was spoken about recently on the e6ai channel on Furry Diffusion.
I'll link to the start of the conversation if you'd like to read through it yourself, but if you don't want to, I'll also summarise the key pointers that were made (mostly by ceti).

Different staff members can enforce the same rules differently. When it comes to "young" posts, we have had constant and ongoing discussions about them, and while we do have some general agreement of what does and doesn't constitute "young", there's still a bit of "vibes-based" judgement when it comes to whoever staff member is left to either approve or delete a post.

Now, here's an important note: Uploaders are allowed to contest those deletions, just as they can if it was any other post deleted for whichever other reason. It's in the site rules, but I'll put it here and highlight some specifics here too

Disputing Staff Actions

If you are ever faced with a staff action that you do not agree with – be it a post deletion, a warning, or a ban – the first thing that you should do is contact the staff member responsible for that action via a DMail.

You'll even find that most of us have that written on our user profiles, which are easily accessed via the deletion reason, or if you're on FD or the site's own Discord server, we're just as easily contacted there. We're not monsters, and we're more than happy to clarify our reasoning for decisions made, and if you still disagree, well contested deletions then get discussed by all the staff, and put to a vote. There have been countless posts that have been undeleted this way, including ones exactly as you and the OP were describing.

Is it a bit annoying? Sure, but if an uploader/director truly disagrees with said reasoning, then this is the best and fairest way to go about it.

I've said it countless times, but it's not as if we're actively looking to delete posts. We want people to upload their gens. There would be no e6ai if all we did was delete things, but there are rules and quality guidelines present that are expected to be followed, and it's us staff members who are there to make sure they are. We're individuals, not a hivemind, and that means that sometimes mistakes get made, but for when perceived mistakes DO happen, we also have rules and systems in place to help correct that.

Hammapajamma

Member

Thank you, knowing that the practical side of enforcing such a rule (likes when it comes to creatures that we know don't have to be as juvenile as they appear, which of course isn't strictly following TWYS but still a bit frustrating, because you can't just unlearn that knowledge) has at least been well-discussed and evaluated by staff is reassuring.

And I actually wasn't aware that deletions over content were open to dispute as much as the typical ones that are about anatomy flaws and other artifacts. Okay, that's nice. 👍

kalethorebiter said:

You said it yourself: cub looking.

If you don't think that "cub looking" is where the edge cases will be, I really don't know what to tell you.

I'm sorry, I thought you meant I was cherry-picking specific Eevee posts that happen to be edge cases (considering one of them was the OP's deleted upload), when in reality the whole species could be considered an edge case when on-model.

It's why I found it strange that quite a few have been approved in the past, even when accounting for different janitors having slightly differing views on what exactly is too young-looking.

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

hammapajamma said:
deletions over content were open to dispute as much as the typical ones that are about anatomy flaws and other artifacts. Okay, that's nice.

Yeah! staff is well aware that human decisions are flawed, and they will readily admit when they get something wrong.

Thing is, AI is pretty darn hard to tune for moderation, and still they make errors (just look at civitAI's auto tagger). Really, as of this date, the best system is still human curation/classification/janitors.

hammapajamma said:
I was cherry-picking specific Eevee posts that happen to be edge cases (considering one of them was the OP's deleted upload), when in reality the whole species could be considered an edge case when on-model.

Ah! I see! Indeed, I wasn't saying you cherry-picked them. In fact, I feel like it's an excellent example of how hard cub-looking pokémons/digimons/etc are to classify. I even agree with you: the 2 artwork are so similar that I couldn't tell you an objective reason for accepting one and not the other.

hammapajamma said:
It's why I found it strange that quite a few have been approved in the past

The thing is, it is not against the rules to post artwork containing eevees, riolus, (or any-subject-that-can-be-classify-as-babies), that are lore-accurate. What is against the rules is sexualizing "youngness" and young-looking characters.

It's a subtle distinction, but that what allows post like this one, and that one to stay on the website. On that post, there's no over emphasis on the fact the character is young.

(at least for now)