Several posts from the artist nippachi (hg 0603) has been repeated flagged, with three users approving them (user #1141717, @loom, and @momone). Two of those approvers have thousands of active approvals with very few deleted.
The posts from that artist (post #9132677 in particular) has been a hot topic in the Discord server, which would explain the following events for anyone familiar with the fish post (post #7412460). @loom got a negative feedback for approving post #9132677 (the feedback seems to be deleted now I may be blind). user #1141717 got a negative feedback by Provence for reapproving said post after they've been talking in the Discord (not sure about this part). user #1141717 then deleted his account and nuked his Discord messages (which makes writing this a bit harder). @loom then got banned for a day for continuing to approve from that artist and his recent antics in the Discord. Another approver @momone has been caught in the crossfire after approving two posts and has been banned for a day, even though they are not active in the Discord and isn't aware of these flags and negs.
I'm going to guess the overzealus moderation actions is to prevent another fish post from happening. As the uploader of said post, I did not want these events to occur and it is really disheartening to see other people getting negged and banned because of it. I believe the negative feedback for user #1141717 is unwarranted and is unfortunate to see him leave the site. @momone shouldn't have been banned in the first place over approving two posts. At best, a warning via a DM would've been sufficient. @loom does deserve the ban, but only because he has been begging for negative feedbacks and is trying to cause a stir.
I'm creating this thread because this discussion is happening solely on the Discord server, and I believe more attention is needed because I don't believe some of the negs and bans were warranted.
I agree with your assessment about momone. I think they should’ve exercised better judgment when deciding to approve the post, but I don’t see any actual pattern of low standards. There are only a few posts they approved that were deleted for poor quality (and about 20 or being AI-generated), with the latest one before this being 6 months ago. I don’t think infrequent incidents like this are worthy of a negative, let alone a ban. Unless there’s more to the story, I think the feedback should be removed even if it’s too late to do anything about the ban.
I did see others mention loom’s negative behavior, so I’m inclined to believe that approval was done in bad faith.
I’ll need more context behind the conversation that eventually led to user #1141717’s apparent ragequit before I can form an opinion on that.
I don’t know anything about what happened on Discord other than what you already mentioned.
Whether or not the posts are approved is the system working as intended, as the posts aren't objectively low-quality and are just an art style most people won't like;
It doesn't matter that the user is an approver or whether they chosen to skip the user on upload or not;
All negative feedbacks and temporary bans related the post are unwarranted;
@loom deserved a ban, but only for encouraging misuse of feedbacks.
I agree, also with loom deserving the ban for stirring shit, but the original neg they got over a single post is also ridiculous and shouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes, doubling down after that is dumb, but a reaction to the neg does not suddenly make it a valid one in the first place.
HyphenSam said: @loom got a negative feedback for approving post #9132677 (the feedback seems to be deleted now).
Slight correction: The original neg that seemed to spark this whole thing is still present. The negative feedback that was deleted was sent from loom towards hankpropaniac basically parroting the neg he got from Bionicman, iirc. Which to me at the time seemed like he was taking the piss.
This whole thing seems stupid to me. That artist has art that I think would have at least had a chance to be approved if they went through the queue, so why did they seemingly go out of their way to pick the worst looking ones? Imo an Approver should know better than to upload/approve art of that quality, and as someone not privy to whatever storms are raging in the Discord, it's hard not to imagine someone was trying to stage some sort of protest or just cause trouble. I don't think being aware of the situation matters, they shouldn't be approving posts that look like something that would be "grandfathered" now if they had been uploaded 12 years ago.
The instant bans seems a little much, though, besides Loom who apparently was asking for it.
Slight correction: The original neg that seemed to spark this whole thing is still present. The negative feedback that was deleted was sent from loom towards hankpropaniac basically parroting the neg he got from Bionicman, iirc. Which to me at the time seemed like he was taking the piss.
Other way around. Hankpropaniac sent the now-deleted feedback to loom.
I just saw the ban for momone and honestly, this is one of the dumbest bans I’ve seen in a while. As Sam already pointed out, momone barely has any deletions, and if he wasn’t even aware of the recent discussion, this ban is completely unjustified. I seriously doubt he was just approving stuff “for the lols”. This kind of action totally undermines the work of approvers. Mods and admins can’t keep telling us the flagging system exists to keep quality in check, and then go and ban someone just because they personally disagreed with a couple of their approvals. That’s just stupid. And let’s talk about the ban reason. “Poor approval standards”? For someone with over 15,000 approvals? Come on. I looked at the deleted ones and besides the two flags, found maybe one image that’s actually questionable. If you're just annoyed, fine—say that. But don’t hide behind a nonsense excuse. Approvers already do a thankless job sifting through thousands of uploads. Now we’re supposed to be scared to approve anything unless it’s perfect, because someone might randomly decide it’s ban-worthy? If you can’t clearly explain why this was a ban and not just a warning or normal feedback, I really don’t see how you plan on making fair decisions going forward.
I'll remove the ban to @momone, I think a warning should've at least been given to the approver first. I think the intent behind it was to avoid a repeat of post #7412460.
Frankly, it's really gotten annoying how some approvers have been letting through absolutely terrible posts as some sort of inside joke. I don't see how anyone could justify approving post #9132677 when it's got 15 poor quality disapprovals (as of now) on it. There's zero justification behind the approval of a post like that, and even if done ironically it makes me seriously question the taste of someone who'd approve that. I mean, come on, look at it.
It's doubly frustrating when a post like that is flagged and then immediately approved again. The queue exists to filter that shit out. If multiple approvers are routinely letting posts like that through there's something seriously wrong going on.
I frankly disagree with both my ban and negative feedback. For the negative feedback, I echo the sentiment @ANON_TOKYO shared. As for the approvals, I'm not here to argue that the posts should be active, as I am well aware that the moderation queue is responsible for deciding this. But, @Hankpropaniac57, @Dogbooru@user_1141717, and @momone are all approvers involved in approving or uploading this artist. I think we can agree they all acted in good faith, and I personally believe that I was too. Had it just been me approving these posts, then I would agree with receiving negative repercussions.
For the negative feedback begging: After two silly feedbacks from an admin and moderator, it's not too crazy of an assumption for me to think I'm permitted to be dumb with feedbacks. I don't think it's fair to say I was "misusing the feedback system" or "trying to stir". I thought I was just having fun at the expense of nobody but myself. All that said, I do genuinely apologize for the annoying begging and post approvals. I'd just like to move past this now.
This kind of action totally undermines the work of approvers. Mods and admins can’t keep telling us the flagging system exists to keep quality in check...
An adjacent discussion that was had in the Discord regarding all this was how the approvals of nippachi (hg 0603)'s art (at least the offending ones) ran counter to the recent trend of older Danbooru posts being flagged, quoting: "Oldbooru stuff is mercilessly destroyed with flags for "poor quality", arguing that the quality bar has risen and suddenly we see this in the list of active posts;" which ends up raising a discussion as to who is engaging in that flagging and what their personal standards of quality are, and, more importantly for me, the relationship older posts in general have with the queue, whether it be flagged or appealed.
I argued that most approvers do not go back and look at older posts that are due to be approved or not, especially so if they're only using status:pending, because it biases towards newer posts as opposed to older ones (because it doesn't actually include status:flagged or status:appealed). I gave the example of post #3395032, which, despite its obvious quality, only received attention from four approvers and was then rebanished to status:deleted (only getting approved by AngryZapdos as a consequence of that discussion). As a result, any post older than three days on Danbooru is skewed against getting reapproved upon getting flagged, and similarly so when getting appealed, and I'd argue those engaging in this trend actively take advantage of this fact. NiceLittleDan went through a bunch of posts as a consequence of this discussion and found how posts such as post #58 got flagged with the nebulous 'quality check', functionally targeting Oldbooru just for being Oldbooru, not for being actually bad in quality (with that specific post even getting the approval of NNT in discourse).
All of this functionally also undermines the work of approvers, because now they're also being arbitrarily held up to the standards of flaggers who are knowingly or unknowingly taking advantage of the fact that approvers don't look at older posts, thereby banishing tons of perfectly fine posts from years past to status:deleted. We can't reasonably assume that all approvers are interested in looking back at older posts, which means requiring a change in mentality on the behalf of flaggers.
Just going to give my own opinions regarding this. And the first one is to the submitted art responsible for this whole mess.
First of all, post #9132677 is definitely not something I would up on this archive. It looks like a pentablet doodle from someone who is still at baby steps with making artworks in general, let alone digital art. While the basic composition is there, the execution is naturally botched, understandable for such levels of proficiency. Even if it is meant to be a work of satire or something that best belongs in a discussion board for keks, it would be very hard to justify keeping this on status:active, even if you place this right next to something like post #5334247 or a monochrome lineart rkgk.
And this yap is already straight out of a practicing artist who should know fully which goes and which shouldn't go.
Honestly, we shouldn't try to incite bloodied debate floor discussions with these submissions moving forward.
Second, I must agree that the sanction on momone was rash because it was apparently done to prevent a repeat of a prior controversial upload's saga. There is recognition about the mistake and nnt, on record, had admitted that a warning dm should have been the best course of action instead. However, this neither absolves loom for the (re)approving of the post in question despite the writing on the wall, nor does it bring nth color back and present this as an apology after they've left in protest. Although we do have reached consensus and resolution to some extent.
I'll remove the ban to @momone, I think a warning should've at least been given to the approver first. I think the intent behind it was to avoid a repeat of post #7412460.
Frankly, it's really gotten annoying how some approvers have been letting through absolutely terrible posts as some sort of inside joke. I don't see how anyone could justify approving post #9132677 when it's got 15 poor quality disapprovals (as of now) on it. There's zero justification behind the approval of a post like that, and even if done ironically it makes me seriously question the taste of someone who'd approve that. I mean, come on, look at it.
It's doubly frustrating when a post like that is flagged and then immediately approved again. The queue exists to filter that shit out. If multiple approvers are routinely letting posts like that through there's something seriously wrong going on.
Tbh. that might have something to do with the influx of approvers. They might be well-suited by taking a look at their uploads and favs, but that should not be the only thonhs putting into consideration. I think one also need to look at how they treat the site in other things (tagging, forum and Discord activity and how they argue). That leads to people becoming approver that might be ok from a first-gla ce, but they lack the seriousness to properly execute the task given to them.
loom said:
Can you elaborate on the "writing on the wall"? I don't understand. I don't really know what everyone means when they say I "double downed".
It means all the signs were there for you to know not to approve it, but you still went on regardless.
