[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1954

File: 1540404898832.jpg (121.52 KB, 800x700, 8:7, 80a796e95bdabea6b78bb4ef0a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

You got more to say on this topic? Say it here!

 No.1955

File: 1540408222585.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

I'd still like to see a toggle-able option, for the switch. Doesn't matter as much, at least if LP's right on the whole no real enforcement for non-tagged items. But, it'd still be a nice convenience to have, and one that had been mentioned before a few times in the original discussion of the lot.

 No.1956

File: 1540418593344.jpg (125.13 KB, 1280x1761, 1280:1761, pinkypoleinnocent.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1955
Two things:

1) it's "lp" not LP, fyi.  

2) the rule that was voted in is to delete the image with emphasis on most lenient.  There was an alternative option to delete the image and warn the poster, labeled "strict", that was not voted in.  Therefore I believe other than any hurt feelings over the image being deleted, you would only be punished for posting if it was clear you had posted something offensive on purpose or repeatedly etc.

3) let's argue.:pinkie2:

 No.1957

>>1955
I think a majority of your pictures are clearly SJW, so wouldn't it be more convenient to have it default to that than to NSFW?

>>1956
>1) it's "lp" not LP, fyi.  
Is it "Ip" or "lp"?  :-)

 No.1958

>>1957
My problem is, as said, I've not got the ability to tell between the two. The line is not clear enough for me.
So, I'd rather avoid images being deleted, which is a much worse result is vs simply not having prudes see my sfw images.

 No.1959

>>1958
Mods will mark your images correctly, not delete them. There is no correlation between your skill at marking things and things being deleted.

 No.1960

File: 1540430584752.png (3.01 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, cgadine.png) ImgOps Google

>>1959
Fair enough, then. I guess it doesn't much matter after all.

 No.1961

>>1955
>>1960
E.g., let's consider these two images.  Is it really not clear to you that they are SFW?

 No.1962

File: 1540454567602.jpeg (10.43 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images (16).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>1957
as long as you call a lost pony for dinner...

>>1961
But which is SJW?

 No.1963

File: 1540515595279.jpg (3.09 MB, 3000x1688, 375:211, adineshower.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1961
A better example of one I wouldn't be sure about is more something like this

 No.1964

>>1963
OK, well ones like that that you aren't sure of, you can mark NSFW.  (Even though I think that one is most likely safe.)  But the first two that you posted in this thread are clearly non-risque, so I don't think you should have trouble marking them as such, no?

 No.1965

File: 1540516878644.jpg (5.82 MB, 2500x1688, 625:422, annarom.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1964
My problem is the original photo that's got me in trouble was also one I personally considered rather tame, not too dissimilar from this one of Anna, for example.

But, since they say it's just going to be changed to NSFW if there is a problem, it's not much to worry about. All flight what I think could be, and just post as normal otherwise.

 No.1969

File: 1540746252341.jpg (112.76 KB, 450x360, 5:4, 1463000616054.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Feature request: Please add an indication of whether an image has been marked as NSFW.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]