@ichiban iceychan 1517
That’s what I’ve done in the past. I mean - the badge is for you, the artist, not for the tag. But it has to be done by hand, so if someone doesn’t batch them together just remind them.

@Ciaran
ah ok

i ask becuase a friend of mine has enough images under their tags to be awarded the first milestone badge but the images are separated between two different artist tags she uses lol

@ichiban iceychan 1517
Nominate them in the badges thread, and mention that it’s across two artist tags.

@Ciaran
okie

Is there away we can make this place more welcoming and inclusive for people with mental disabilities and lgtb community and make rule to respect them.

@Background Pony #3416
We’ve had that rule for a long time. It’s rule #0. If you run into violations such as comments insulting others for their (perceived or real) conditions or identities, please report them so staff can deal with it accordingly.

Are partially visible penis sheaths considered safe, suggestive, or questionable when there’s no other questionable features?

All three ratings have non-trivial numbers of images with sheath tagged (safe has the most, then questionable, then suggestive).

@Fwelin
Sheaths don’t have a one-size-fits-all rating. Partially or fully visible sheaths on non-anthropomorphic animals are fine for “safe” as long as it’s not brought to viewer’s attention by means such as framing, posing, view angle, amount of detail, or level of realism (the more realistic the character overall is, the better chances are that a wee bit of a sheath detail will not elevate the rating; _{I think a tracing of a horse photo as a MLP character should not have a different rating than the original would}). This is so that stuff like recoloured perfectly mundane irl horse photos and unedited show screencaps don’t end up being non-safe.

Obviously added focus would be able to bring the rating up to suggestive through explicit.

I don’t think it’s ever been established by staff whereabout the lines between safe, suggestive and questionable sheaths lie, but I’d dare to say that at least featureless little bumps between the legs such as >>2607480 would be “safely” safe. (Incidental, and matching the cartoony style for the rest of the body: simple contour, no inner detail.)

I surmise that we’ll probably end up with the same rules as with anus (explicit unless simplistic enough).

@Fwelin
@saby
From the tag guidelines:
Suggestive: “Prominent low-detail sheaths or anuses (outline or hole-free shape only, like a star or circle; non-shading contrast can count as forming lines)”
Questionable: “Moderately-detailed genital shapes, sheaths, or anuses (hole-free shape with an outline, like a star/dot/line in a bump; non-shading contrast can count as forming lines)”

For the most part, actual practice is pretty similar, but here’s some examples of where things stand currently:
Safe:

Suggestive:

Questionable:

Explicit:

Essentially, some sheaths are allowed in Suggestive when the inner detail is just a tiny dot, and “prominence” rarely kicks in (that ShiningDance image is one of only a handful affected by it).
Also note that this actually an active area of review, as about a week ago, I started discovering images missing the “sheath” tag, and from there found ratings oddities that I brought up with other staff.

I was just about to report a dupe from >>2030573 (merged) to >>132105, but I see that this report had already been rejected once. From what I can tell, the images are identical (the diff is completely black). Why wouldn’t this dupe have been accepted?

@Background Pony #699F
Likely a misclick, I checked over and saw no difference or reason to have them separate so I have now merged them.

What was the reason why some oc:jade sapphire images were removed for not being pony related? More to the point, what made her NPR enough to be removed compared with other equine OCs?

@PUBLIQclopAccountant
Please note you’re asking about 1 image 6 years ago. 1 image 4 years ago. And 1 image a year ago.

Arguably, the deleted images are not that different from the ones still on the site. They probable could be restored.

So, are you ever going to fix the fact that banned people can post and edit without an account? OR just leave that open to abuse ad infinitum? Because if you want to leave it open I’m more than happy to keep throwing it back in your faces.

@Background Pony #21E6
It’d just introduce an extra step of making an account from non-banned IP. What’s the point anyway. Just slows down abusers by what, 3 minutes?

Oh look, I’m still here. That was really effective, wasn’t it? Didn’t even take 3 minutes.

Maybe instead you should simply require all people to have a registered account before they post. That might actually be slightly more effective.

I mean, that’s what I’ve been trying to get you people to do for years. It’s the logical thing to do to stop people from abusing the system. Instead you seem to prefer putting up with the bullshit instead. I honestly don’t get it.

In a world where the usage of VPNs grows every more popular, and the number of VPN suppliers and their servers is ever increaseing, banning IPs does NOTHING to stop the antagonistic elements. Most of them won’t even spell it out for you like I do. Then you also run into the problem that you will inevitably ban some of your own rule-abiding users because the VPN server they use also happens to be one an antagonistic element chooses to use for that day.

So again, banning IPs is pointless. Forcing people to create accounts before they can post or edit anything will at least slow it down, and become enough of a hassle for some to not want to bother.

@Background Pony #21E6
You comically underestimate the willpower of assholes and obstinance of retards.

People regularly make dozens of accounts to downvote a single image, create a new account each day to send a PM each day to the target of their butthurt over a single comment 7 years ago, set up different accounts to mass vandalize tags hoping the account switching won’t trace back to their main,…

Forcing account creation for simple site interactions would only inconvenience legitimate users that don’t feel like setting up an account for a pony image site just to say “this is cute!”; on the other hand anyone with bad intentions will not be deterred one bit by the extra few seconds, and the most moronic of them all will have been guided into having an account which now makes their shitting up of the site a whole lot easier for them, and not one bit easier to moderate.

Just because you have a strong opinion on something doesn’t mean you’re right about it. You may have a lot of experience in being an asshole, but the site mods have a lot more in dealing with them.

Then you implement a period, say three months or so, where a user can only fave images, maybe comment. No up/downvoting, no adding images, no editing tags. The legitimate users will be annoyed but understanding. I would think having to wait three months before they can implement their assholish behavior would drive off most as being too bothersome.

You say you have a lot of experience dealing with them but from my perspective, the assholes are winning because you refuse to address them in a more permanent fashion.

I must admit I don’t know how to feel that I, the rule-breaking antagonistic asshole, have more faith in the well behaving, rule-abiding site members than the staff does…

@Background Pony #21E6
You do realize that such “minor annoyances” are exactly the kind of thing to push a previously good-faith user into black hatting, right?

@Background Pony #21E6
You clearly have no idea what some of our users are like