Flag Vandalism

@Astolfo: I already re-approved it, but post #3653074

2019-10-10T12:20:24-04:00

I already re-approved it, but post #3653074

@Lacrimosa: > skylightcrystal said: > > Most likely either...

2019-10-05T14:15:52-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

Most likely either someone who has approval priveleges but doesn't know the rules themselves, or someone simply using the "breaks the rules" option to alert other mods to the fact that it is a self-upload.

You can write a more detailed message.
There should be no reason to mark someone as rulebreaking when it doesn't.

@skylightcrystal: > 忍猫 said: > > Unrelated: if solely being a...

2019-10-05T02:49:05-04:00

忍猫 said:

Unrelated: if solely being a self upload is not a valid reason for a flag, why do some SUs get marked with "breaks the rules" if they don't make it through the mod queue? Example at post #3620396

Most likely either someone who has approval priveleges but doesn't know the rules themselves, or someone simply using the "breaks the rules" option to alert other mods to the fact that it is a self-upload.

@kittey: > 忍猫 said: > > Unrelated: if solely being a...

2019-10-04T17:52:13-04:00

忍猫 said:

Unrelated: if solely being a self upload is not a valid reason for a flag, why do some SUs get marked with "breaks the rules" if they don't make it through the mod queue? Example at post #3620396

Self-uploads are verboten because most of them are garbage or mediocre at best, but if a self-upload is actually good enough to somehow make it past the approval process and it being a self-upload is the only bad thing about it, there’s no need to enforce that rule by flagging the post.

@user_429955: > skylightcrystal said: > > That last bit...

2019-10-04T16:28:05-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

That last bit would have been a joke.

(expand for explanation)

NOoU basically served as the sole person monitoring the back end of the pending queue for several years, and for a lot of that time there were usually only 3-5 mods in total viewing each post as it went through the queue. His standards thus inevitably served as the site's minimum quality threshold for several years, meaning that during this time most of the lower quality art that got approved (and thus the stuff most likely to be bad/get flagged) was approved by him, as well as the fact that most of the top quality stuff was getting approved before he looked at it. And yes, there is some genuinely bad art in there if you look for it. His minimal standards were also lower than current approvers, although there were several other approvers in early days danbooru who had significantly lower standards still, but are less prominent due to their lower approval count and the fact that not many people view these posts nowadays.

On the other hand, he approved a heck of a lot of stuff (as far as I know more than any other person?), the vast majority of which is perfectly decent art, almost all of which would otherwise have been sent to deletion. Whenever he disappeared for a while, the deletion appeal thread would inevitably get flooded with high quality artworks that should never have been deleted and which he would have almost certainly have saved from deletion. In all honesty there's a chance the site would have completely ceased to function during 2014/15 if he were not there.

The combined effect of the above made him a very controversial figure at the time and to a certain extent still now.

It certainly does not make something being approved by him be evidence that the post should be deleted.

I hope you wouldn't think of stuff like post #1936827 or post #2452548 as deserving of deletion?

Thank you so much for the response and explanation, @skylightcrystal

A lot of times things that happen on the site aren't explained completely in the rules or guidelines. I figured NOoU approvals were placed under more scrutiny, but any old post approved by them isn't a sole reason for a flag. I figured approver:Not_One_Of_Us was a possible flag reason, in the same way that bad anatomy is a possible flag reason- obviously not every post tagged bad anatomy should get flagged (after all, there's 5048 results for a bad_anatomy status:active search). So of course neither post #1936827 or post #2452548 should get deleted because of the approver alone.

Unrelated: if solely being a self upload is not a valid reason for a flag, why do some SUs get marked with "breaks the rules" if they don't make it through the mod queue? Example at post #3620396

@Unbreakable: post #1277106 "guro"

2019-09-17T21:35:48-04:00

post #1277106

"guro"

@skylightcrystal: > 忍猫 said: > > I apologize, I wasn't aware and...

2019-09-03T16:42:48-04:00

忍猫 said:

I apologize, I wasn't aware and thought that for this instance it was a valid flag reason. How should I rephrase it in the future? I took this advice from forum #149804 where user nonamethanks mentions examples of flags, such as "old low quality scans, scribbles, heavy JPG artifacts or stuff approved by Not One of Us."

That last bit would have been a joke.

(expand for explanation)

NOoU basically served as the sole person monitoring the back end of the pending queue for several years, and for a lot of that time there were usually only 3-5 mods in total viewing each post as it went through the queue. His standards thus inevitably served as the site's minimum quality threshold for several years, meaning that during this time most of the lower quality art that got approved (and thus the stuff most likely to be bad/get flagged) was approved by him, as well as the fact that most of the top quality stuff was getting approved before he looked at it. And yes, there is some genuinely bad art in there if you look for it. His minimal standards were also lower than current approvers, although there were several other approvers in early days danbooru who had significantly lower standards still, but are less prominent due to their lower approval count and the fact that not many people view these posts nowadays.

On the other hand, he approved a heck of a lot of stuff (as far as I know more than any other person?), the vast majority of which is perfectly decent art, almost all of which would otherwise have been sent to deletion. Whenever he disappeared for a while, the deletion appeal thread would inevitably get flooded with high quality artworks that should never have been deleted and which he would have almost certainly have saved from deletion. In all honesty there's a chance the site would have completely ceased to function during 2014/15 if he were not there.

The combined effect of the above made him a very controversial figure at the time and to a certain extent still now.

It certainly does not make something being approved by him be evidence that the post should be deleted.

I hope you wouldn't think of stuff like post #1936827 or post #2452548 as deserving of deletion?

@user_429955: > Lacrimosa said: > > I'm pretty sure that...

2019-09-03T15:29:54-04:00

Lacrimosa said:

I'm pretty sure that namecalling in flags is a bad thing to do.
post #2249852 and one other.

I apologize, I wasn't aware and thought that for this instance it was a valid flag reason. How should I rephrase it in the future? I took this advice from forum #149804 where user nonamethanks mentions examples of flags, such as "old low quality scans, scribbles, heavy JPG artifacts or stuff approved by Not One of Us."

@Lacrimosa: > Lacrimosa said: > > I'm pretty sure that...

2019-09-03T13:53:16-04:00

Lacrimosa said:

I'm pretty sure that namecalling in flags is a bad thing to do.
post #2249852 and one other.

post #2034456
It keeps going.

@Lacrimosa: I'm pretty sure that namecalling in flags is a...

2019-08-29T03:41:51-04:00

I'm pretty sure that namecalling in flags is a bad thing to do.
post #2249852 and one other.

@Lacrimosa: We may have an user that has some problems with...

2019-08-18T14:06:29-04:00

We may have an user that has some problems with Russian-related content and I don't see any problem with these uploads.
May be worth taking a closer look and observe them if they continue:
post #2938069
post #2980770

Not saying it's vandalism but it could very well be if it continues.

@iridescent_slime: You want to punish self-uploaders? Fine. I'd be...

2019-08-08T16:22:39-04:00

You want to punish self-uploaders? Fine. I'd be perfectly happy with a policy of giving them one warning followed by a ban. Put the rule in bold letters across the front page for all I care. But simply flagging good art or telling approvers to leave it unapproved in the queue, just because of the uploader? That's completely detrimental to our goal of archiving quality artwork.

You will never prevent self-uploads or eliminate drama by enforcing any kind of arbitrary zero-tolerance policy. Artists will continue to ignore the rules and scream bloody murder when their uploads get deleted, regardless of any rules in place. All you're going to achieve by this is throwing out the good images along with the bad.

I do agree with you that the rules about self-uploads should be clarified and made more prominent in the places that matter. Specifically, the flag dialog should make it clear that self-uploading is not one of the valid reasons to flag a post.

@skylightcrystal: We should not be deleting art on the basis of...

2019-08-08T16:18:37-04:00

We should not be deleting art on the basis of who the uploader was. Full stop. Period. There is no good reason for it. And how easily it can be circumvented has nothing to do with that.

And the ACT of uploading ones own art is sacrilege, not the presence of art that was uploaded by someone doing this. And the reason why it is sacrilege is that self-uploads tend to be worse than non-self uploads. If that were not the case then there would be no reason to even caution against it. If you start deleting good art on the basis that it was a self-upload then you've got your priorities completely back to front.

There is nothing wishy-washy about "Your uploads will be subject to the same standards as everything else and may be flagged, downvoted, or even deleted" - note this is about as far away as you can get from saying "Your uploads will be deleted with no regards to how good they are"* as you can get without actively encouraging people to do it.

Indeed it isn't the first time this has come up. The conclusion reached on previous occasions, however, goes directly against what you want to be the case. Indeed, there was overwhelming opposition in the thread you conveniently linked to what you are claiming, including from albert and all three admins.

*which is what you are not only saying should be the rules** but are outright claiming are the rules, which they definitely are not... and even going so far as to criticise other approvers for not enforcing rules that don't exist.
**an argument which you would be entitled to make, no matter how wrong it may be

@NWSiaCB: > skylightcrystal said: > > Then @NWSiaCB was...

2019-08-08T15:32:22-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

Then @NWSiaCB was wrong and could do with familiarising himself with the rules as well.

Uploading one's own art is sacrilege.

I'm not sure why the ToS version of that is so wishy-washy, but it shouldn't be (like all the "rules" here, it seems written not to actually be any kind of guideline for user behavior, but to excuse arbitrariness among the mods, which is something we should be curbing, not enabling); There's good reason to simply outright not accept self-uploads, which is that it forestalls all the drama of crap artist temper-tantrums. You cannot reason with someone that delusional that their work isn't good, but if you can point to a rule that is actually iron-clad that sorry, no self-uploads allowed, they're much more likely to just go away than require banning before they make dozens of sockpuppets just to troll that also require banning. Again, the utility of an actual set of black-and-white rules is that they are easier to enforce and don't require this kind of stupid back-and-forth argument about how rules written differently in three different places are actually meant to be interpreted. (Nevermind how much ammunition this gives the self-serving for complaints about how arbitrary the deliberately arbitrary "rules" are.)

And this is far from the first time this has come up. Yes, it's "easy to circumvent", but you know what, if someone does simply use a different nickname to avoid being noticed as a self-uploader, then they can't get up and argue with the deletions without blowing their cover about their own bias, and that "circumvention" also easily bypasses any complaints that "good artwork won't get through just because it was self-uploaded".

@skylightcrystal: Then @NWSiaCB was wrong and could do with...

2019-08-07T13:24:27-04:00

Then @NWSiaCB was wrong and could do with familiarising himself with the rules as well.

@user_429955: > skylightcrystal said: > > post #3579664 > >...

2019-08-07T10:29:00-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

post #3579664

Can we make please make it clearer that simply being a self-upload is not a reason to flag an image? Preferably by including it in the list of things that are not valid flag reasons... Everywhere else already makes it clear, but it seems to not be getting in to some people.

To whoever flagged the post - I suggest you actually read through the rules (/static/terms_of_service) before trying to claim that something breaks them.

I flagged the image after asking if self uploads were outright not allowed. @NWSiaCB wrote this in comment #1932557:

They should not be approved, and I'll flag those that are, but unfortunately not every approver sees it as their responsibility to actually enforce the rules, so I can't guarantee they're 100% deleted.

@Lacrimosa: > iridescent_slime said: > > This, please....

2019-08-07T07:44:33-04:00

iridescent_slime said:

This, please. 99.9% of self-uploads are complete garbage, no doubt, but on occasion some of them are pretty decent. If an image is of good quality and doesn't violate any other rules, flagging it is at odds with Danbooru's purpose as all you're really doing is removing good art from the gallery. Flag bad images for being bad, but flagging them solely on the grounds of being self-uploads is spiteful, dickish behavior that has no place on this site.

I think that's a misconception that came to birth after topic #12829 was opened.
The topic is pretty clear that we should punish the uploader, but it never mentions that "good" stuff should be flagged (look especially at forum #114821).

@iridescent_slime: > skylightcrystal said: > > post #3579664 > >...

2019-08-07T03:17:31-04:00

skylightcrystal said:

post #3579664

Can we make please make it clearer that simply being a self-upload is not a reason to flag an image?

This, please. 99.9% of self-uploads are complete garbage, no doubt, but on occasion some of them are pretty decent. If an image is of good quality and doesn't violate any other rules, flagging it is at odds with Danbooru's purpose as all you're really doing is removing good art from the gallery. Flag bad images for being bad, but flagging them solely on the grounds of being self-uploads is spiteful, dickish behavior that has no place on this site.

@skylightcrystal: post #3579664 Can we make please make it...

2019-08-07T02:44:36-04:00

post #3579664

Can we make please make it clearer that simply being a self-upload is not a reason to flag an image? Preferably by including it in the list of things that are not valid flag reasons... Everywhere else already makes it clear, but it seems to not be getting in to some people.

To whoever flagged the post - I suggest you actually read through the rules (/static/terms_of_service) before trying to claim that something breaks them.

@Lacrimosa: post #3541553 Flags on this post get ridiculous.

2019-08-02T17:59:11-04:00

post #3541553
Flags on this post get ridiculous.