Or that, yeah. It's already like a day job, if you want me to spend any more time, it's time to start talking about my wage.
Posted under General
From what little I've seen so far, a big part of the problem is caused by contributors that frequently post stuff that would have been left unapproved and subsequently deleted if a regular user had posted them.
I only posted something like post #457305 because I lurked and saw something like post #328041 (no disrespect to john1980) and thus assumed that it's ok (just bringing this up as an example, I'm not complaining about it being deleted or anything)
This may sound like the usual "there-are-worst-posts-than-this-so-why-not-this-one" argument, but how can someone know what is expected of him, if not by looking at other posts?
That's just what I think, anyways; I might be wrong.
And since I bumped this, might I ask about artbook scans? I have many highres scans (a few with some paper texture/scan artifacts) of various stuff, but since I got many deleted posts, I thought I'd ask first.
Thanks, and sorry for bumping this after all this time.
Fred1515 said:
This may sound like the usual "there-are-worst-posts-than-this-so-why-not-this-one" argument, but how can someone know what is expected of him, if not by looking at other posts?
That is a valid point which we're trying to address; pool #713 is the first step towards rectifying problems with sub-par contributor uploads. The problem is that there are inevitable fluctuations in what's accepted, and it's impossible to give an objective standard to predict what will and what won't be approved. Still, erring on the side of not-porn is generally a good idea.