@Provence rubbing it in with the "low quality" option again :p
I really dislike the fact even more so now that anatomy can be the single deciding factor in an image which was drawn at least trying to be a bit daring (with shading and detail done quite nicely). If this flag goes through, it's another one of this artist's 'first' deletions here.
Sigh... but what do I know, I'm just complaining. Won't bother appealing this time.
@Provence rubbing it in with the "low quality" option again :p
I really dislike the fact even more so now that anatomy can be the single deciding factor in an image which was drawn at least trying to be a bit daring (with shading and detail done quite nicely). If this flag goes through, it's another one of this artist's 'first' deletions here.
Sigh... but what do I know, I'm just complaining. Won't bother appealing this time.
You probably shouldn't try to make this out as a personal matter. It's at best just wrong, and at worst, will ingrain it as a real interpersonal rivalry, which would only bring up more conflict.
Besides that, in a previous argument, you argued that quality wasn't a reason for something to be deleted/not approved; that begs for more detailed reasons other than simply "it looks bad", and if someone gets hyper-strict with those new criteria, that's still part of what was argued for before...
I just disagree with their use of the "poor quality" option on select images that I know for a fact they've flagged, but it probably means very little anyway. Best to let the image speak for itself. There might be more flaws apparent that I can't see that are mentioned.
But hmm... did I argue that before? I probably meant to say that flagging/disapprovals require reasons that are more explicit the less obvious the flaws are in the image. Low quality should be a reason something gets flagged/deleted/unapproved (especially if the flaws are obvious), but users deserve warnings if they throw around the excuse too frivorously for images that they just plain don't like, whether that's in part because of the artist/artstyle, uploader, or both.
Anyways, I won't push it. He has his own way of doing things as do I (as I've been flagging a few images here and there for blatantly obvious flaws lately). I dislike it just as much as any uploader will dislike their uploads being flagged (Apollyon comes to mind), but that's all I can really do at this point. They're using the system as intended, and this is getting a deserved review that I don't have too much of a say in.
EDIT: Oh, you meant me arguing the use of "poor quality" as a disapproval option. I remember now. Basically echoed the same thing in my comment below.
Meh, then I suppose I'm just bothered by whoever it is. Sorry about that. Though I really dislike using that option for posts that have clearly been done with a lot of thought. The way I see it, that janitor's just basically saying "I really think this is bad" even though it may just be a masquerade effort to convince other approvers not to approve content they don't like.
It's true I have disregard for it, but I do pay some amount of respect when it's a particularly borderline image that it happens to. Just this -- poor quality? Particularly where, aside from the reasons stated in the flag? That's what always lingers in my mind. If I knew better, it wouldn't bother me as much but it does. :/