Her face is misshapen and poorly drawn.
Posted under General
This topic has been locked.
post #566591 The other comics in the series made it through. Is there a reason this one in particular didn't?
Also, I'd like to appeal post #570332 as well.
post #559807
post #518278 (highres version of post #493127)
Btw some clarification for post #559811 that I appealed previously: It's a good scan and the full version of post #552396 and post #552395. Is there some reason it wasn't approved the first time?
Thanks for your time.
Fred1515 said:
Is there some reason it wasn't approved the first time?
It's one of those completely boring, bland and mass-produced moe pics we have thousands of. The same reason I don't approve generic CGs. Now, being a better/fuller copy of existing posts does make a case for it, but on its own, I wouldn't (and didn't) approve it.
葉月 said: It's one of those completely boring, bland and mass-produced moe pics we have thousands of. The same reason I don't approve generic CGs. Now, being a better/fuller copy of existing posts does make a case for it, but on its own, I wouldn't (and didn't) approve it.
Er, really? Is it because it looks slightly like a game cg style or something? You seem to have an unusually acute hatred for anything even approaching that look at all. It's a perfectly good image in my eyes, and I would have undeleted it myself if someone didn't do it before me.
jxh2154 said:
Er, really? Is it because it looks slightly like a game cg style or something? You seem to have an unusually acute hatred for anything even approaching that look at all. It's a perfectly good image in my eyes, and I would have undeleted it myself if someone didn't do it before me.
It's because it's bland moe, which I indeed hate. You can look at a thousand of such pics and it wouldn't change anything. They're all the same, and you wouldn't be able to tell if you've seen it the next day.
葉月 said: It's because it's bland moe, which I indeed hate.
Because this always bothers me: Moe is not an artistic style or technique. I wish the term wouldn't constantly get burdened with meanings it doesn't hold.
You can look at a thousand of such pics and it wouldn't change anything. They're all the same, and you wouldn't be able to tell if you've seen it the next day.
This is of course entirely subjective on your part, and is not specific to any one artistic style.
jxh2154 said:
Because this always bothers me: Moe is not an artistic style or technique. I wish the term wouldn't constantly get burdened with meanings it doesn't hold.
It's not, however, uncommon to use it pejoratively, as in "K-on! moe blobs". In this case it's the generic moe style, with plenty of slightly retarded smiles, scarves (or alternatively ribbons), extended hands on cloudy backgrounds and photoshop glitter. It's called "moe" because it has no value other than "it has smiling girls in idyllic settings, so it must give off warm and fuzzy feelings".
This is of course entirely subjective on your part, and is not specific to any one artistic style.
Obviously, but you can't deny the prevalence of this particular style. Just look at any galge.com post. They're indistinguishable.
葉月 said: It's not, however, uncommon to use it pejoratively
Which is hands down the single most unfortunate thing about anime/otaku fandom today and not something to be intentionally perpetuated by generally intelligent people.
Obviously, but you can't deny the prevalence of this particular style. Just look at any galge.com post. They're indistinguishable.
I just find it funny that, in my eyes, the first half dozen images there counter that claim. But if you paint anything with a broad enough brush, I guess everything looks the same. I've always preferred to see the differences in things rather than the similarities (hence I can enjoy a dozen romance shows as a dozen very different experiences where someone else will complain they're all the same. Oh well).
The parent image's filesize is ridiculously (and unnecessarily) large at 23 MB, and the other sibling image is just too small. This post looks like a fair median, as it has fairly large dimensions, but has a much more manageable filesize that won't choke your browser.
(and heh, jxh. I'm sorta the same way.)
jxh2154 said:
Which is hands down the single most unfortunate thing about anime/otaku fandom today and not something to be intentionally perpetuated by generally intelligent people.
I don't see how using a term which means more or less "appealing (or designed to appeal) to a given person's taste in ways evoking warm-and-fuzzy feelings" in the above meaning is in any way wrong. Moe doesn't have a single correct definition, it doesn't even have a definition.
I just find it funny that, in my eyes, the first half dozen images there counter that claim.
I will concede that right now the first half a dozen posts under the tag do not fit my definition above. Most, however, do. And we have no shortage of artists specialising in serial production of such pics, such as Suzuhira Hiro. And the link between this and CGs is not incidental, it's the same industry and usually any given game will have a run of boring, identical pics in all the mainstream mags.
But if you paint anything with a broad enough brush, I guess everything looks the same. I've always preferred to see the differences in things rather than the similarities (hence I can enjoy a dozen romance shows as a dozen very different experiences where someone else will complain they're all the same. Oh well).
I'm not saying everything ever has to be a unique snowflake with nothing in common with anything else. It wouldn't even be honest if I said so, given my fondness of Touhou. But I do require that things I approve have *something* worthwhile. Mass-produced glamour (which seems to be the equivalent term from photographic magazines if "moe" is so jarring for you) illustrations don't show anything other than perhaps one's mastery of photoshop and successful hiring of assistants allowing to increase the throughput.
Bapabooiee said:
post #419152The parent image's filesize is ridiculously (and unnecessarily) large at 23 MB, and the other sibling image is just too small. This post looks like a fair median, as it has fairly large dimensions, but has a much more manageable filesize that won't choke your browser.
Undeleted, but please make sure it's corrected to be the parent in this case.
葉月 said:
Undeleted, but please make sure it's corrected to be the parent in this case.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. Do you mean that I should (or should've) made that post the new parent?
If so, will do. But it's hard to know to do these things without a completely clear-set policy on parent/child post relationships. I always figured that in the case of identical images, the image that was first uploaded should usually be the parent.
EDIT: Nevermind, Roastbeef took care of it. And I think I get it. Bapa and his dumb questions.
Updated by Bapabooiee
Bapabooiee said:
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. Do you mean that I should (or should've) made that post the new parent?
Yes.
I always figured that in the case of identical images, the image that was first uploaded should usually be the parent.
No. The best copy should be the parent. Otherwise, what would be the point of undeleting that post?
葉月 said:
No. The best copy should be the parent. Otherwise, what would be the point of undeleting that post?
What about those cases where one of the two identical images' source link sends you to a 404 pages? Should the one with the working source link be the parent post despite being posted after it's near identical twin was posted?