Since this is still going on, I'm gonna request the other admins' responses to this. @Hillside_Moose @NWF_Renim @Type-kun
Posted under General
Since this is still going on, I'm gonna request the other admins' responses to this. @Hillside_Moose @NWF_Renim @Type-kun
Personally, I find it weird that some people give so much attention to the patreon reward posts. Uploading them is not in any way worse than uploading scans from artbooks, doujins, magazines, or game cgs.
Yes, western artists are more likely to request their posts banned. But western artists are also much less important for Danbooru as a whole, if only because their art is but a tiny fraction of all our posts.
Damaging our reputation among Japanese artists is much worse than losing some western artists.
Blanket ban for all patreon reward posts is not a good idea. Some artists are perfectly fine with their patreon images being shared, after a certain amount of time has passed. Sometimes artists even share these images themselves, also after a period of time.
What do I suggest? Nothing in particular, we can just continue as before. Banning specific posts, rather than whole artists, has been possible for years. Perhaps we should make this information more visible somehow. To make artists aware that they can request removal of specific posts, or even all their patreon posts, rather than all their works.
I also think that we can add information about required delay before posting patreon reward images to wikis of associated artists. Same for artists who desire to fully ban their patreon rewards.
Banning Patreon rewards is Albert's decision, which he stated in forum #131022.
I do have a problem with the patreon_reward tag: It's completely meta. Unless you're a patron yourself, you wouldn't know if a randomly selected image is a reward or not. They do have some recurring traits (higher resolution, minor variations, uncensored, etc.), but these are all covered by existing tags and the parenting function. We don't need this tag at all if it's only going to create artist resentment and attract undesirables.
My stance remains the same as it was on the first page.
Provence said:
Question: Does it "count" when the artist is asking (in this case) Mikaeri to ban their work, or does this always have to go over Albert?
If they're not calling for a blanket ban I don't see why it matters who they contact unless albert's keeping a personal record of who asks for what posts to be banned.
Agreed with what Hillside Moose said, it's Albert's decision.
Provence said:
Question: Does it "count" when the artist is asking (in this case) Mikaeri to ban their work, or does this always have to go over Albert?
What Log said. If it's just specific works it should be fine if it's users who are contacted. Blanket bans, given the scale, should go to albert.
Heads up, I'm still considering a nuke on patreon_reward, seeing it's a meta tag that violates "tag what you see."
Hillside_Moose said:
Heads up, I'm still considering a nuke on patreon_reward, seeing it's a meta tag that violates "tag what you see."
Would this affect other source tags such as artbook and magazine scan?
Patreon reward is useful for indicating when the source isn't publicly accessible, same as the bad id tags. This saves people from wasting their time trying to determine whether an upload really is higher quality, or whether it's been upscaled and decensored by a third party.
And speaking of sources: I see many uploaders neglecting to add sources for their Patreon uploads. I suspect some are playing dumb intentionally. Just because you took something from Patreon, it shouldn't remove the requirement to source your uploads.
Hillside_Moose said:
We don't need this tag at all if it's only going to create artist resentment and attract undesirables.
Let's not be coy here. We're talking about removing the tag so that it's less easy for artists to find out that we're hosting their patreon rewards. That seems disingenuous when the stance is that they're fine to upload.
evazion said:
And speaking of sources: I see many uploaders neglecting to add sources for their Patreon uploads. I suspect some are playing dumb intentionally. Just because you took something from Patreon, it shouldn't remove the requirement to source your uploads.
I'll assume you're referring to me. I'm not playing dumb, I don't have some ulterior uploader motive. I didn't keep up with this thread and the stances towards uploading Patreon images and how they should be sourced. There wasn't anything listed in howto:upload or help:image_source, and patreon_reward is also totally blank, so I didn't fully know how to approach it and it's possible that the others you have in mind actually didn't know how to handle sourcing these.
Updated
patreon_reward -source:*patreon*
post #2700282
post #2719710
I'm not singling you out. I've seen a number of uploaders not adding sources, or using other sites as the source when that is not the original source. How to source Patreon uploads hasn't really been discussed, which is why I'm bringing it up now. It does create problems with determining whether an upload is an edit or not.
Apollyon said:
I'll assume you're referring to me. I'm not playing dumb, I don't have some ulterior uploader motive. I didn't keep up with this thread and the stances towards uploading Patreon images and how they should be sourced. There wasn't anything listed in howto:upload or help:image_source, and patreon_reward is also totally blank, so I didn't fully know how to approach it and it's possible that the others you have in mind actually didn't know how to handle sourcing these.
Well does anyone object to adding a source requirement to help:image_source for Paywall internet sources? I really doubt evazion was singling you out since there are dozens of such users.
Hillside_Moose said:
Heads up, I'm still considering a nuke on patreon_reward, seeing it's a meta tag that violates "tag what you see."
bad_id, md5_mismatch, pixiv_sample are all meta tags and nobody's tried to nuke them. This tag is fine imo. Just because a tag *might* invite artist resentment isn't a reason to nuke it when it provides valuable information.
On that note, does anyone think it would be helpful to have a list of metatags listed somewhere? tag_group:metatags, maybe? I don't know if it (or something like it) exists already, but if it does I'd like to know.
wiki #68316
(It's the only one I found after a quick wiki search).
Well, the title exist, but the content is completely empty.
So if we create one, the it would be good to seperate them into categories, like all bad_id tags into one, and stuff like md5 mismatch, patreon reward aregong into another category.
But yeah, such a wiki would be good.
Auto tags already have a wiki: help:autotags.
List_of_meta_wikis is listing all(?) such wikis.
I've read the arguments for keeping the patreon_reward tag, and fair enough, I'll leave it alone.
evazion said:
Let's not be coy here. We're talking about removing the tag so that it's less easy for artists to find out that we're hosting their patreon rewards. That seems disingenuous when the stance is that they're fine to upload.
Artists would find out regardless through parenting, uncensored, and the auto-tagged highres/absurdres. If they were really against their upload, they or one of their patrons would stalk the artist tag. I just don't like tags that don't convey information about the image itself, though I'm flexible enough to change my mind if given supportive arguments. I'm honest with my intentions regarding the tag's removal, so kindly keep your postmodern journalism to yourself.
evazion said:
patreon_reward -source:*patreon*
post #2700282
post #2719710I'm not singling you out. I've seen a number of uploaders not adding sources, or using other sites as the source when that is not the original source. How to source Patreon uploads hasn't really been discussed, which is why I'm bringing it up now. It does create problems with determining whether an upload is an edit or not.
If someone uploaded Patreon images directly from their hard drive, what would the proper sources be?