[X] My Assistant

We have been discussing adding a new expunge reason targeting works that have been intentionally defaced or degraded by the uploader or someone else in the chain. This was primarily triggered by recent galleries that had ads injected into the content, but it is also intended to address other undesirable behavior that results in content no one really wants.

Previously, expunging such galleries might have made them unlisted and undiscoverable, but after the last expunge and upload system revamps, expunged galleries can only be disowned, not deleted/unlisted, which makes this change feasible.

There are currently two competing definition for this expunge reason:

CODE

Content has been defaced by adding content-obstructing scanmarks, censorship or advertisements beyond what is present in the original artist release. (Scanmarks that do not obstruct content or promotional pages added after the content pages do not qualify.)"

-or-

CODE

"Content has been defaced by adding content-obstructing scanmarks, censorship or advertisements beyond what is present in the original artist release, or has been intentionally downsampled to the point where legibility is an issue. (Scanmarks that do not obstruct content or promotional pages added after the content pages do not qualify. Older low-resolution scans are exempt.)"

I'm leaning towards the former, simply because the threshold for "images for ants" will always be subjective and cannot be defined in hard numbers, but obviously, it will also make it not address some undesirable behavior.

I'd primarily want feedback on whether you think the "intentionally downsampled" clause will cause more problems than it solves, but feel free to discuss the addition in general as well.

So low quality cgc uploads?

So low quality cgc uploads?

Everything that has a "low quality" scanmark plastered onto them will be covered by both versions.

Everything that has a "low quality" scanmark plastered onto them will be covered by both versions.

Sounds good to me.

Note that this also covers galleries such as these ones:
- http://ehentaihip.com/g/2183549/91885d63f4/
- http://ehentaihip.com/s/ea66062ca2/2185359-24
...in which a valid content page is obscured by some ads.

We never had any ruling against these galleries, so those expunge petitions filed against "dddolls" ads galleries are actually all technically invalid atm. We won't be DXing them for obvious reasons, but we still need to patch this hole up.

Note that this also covers galleries such as these ones:
- http://ehentaihip.com/g/2183549/91885d63f4/
- http://ehentaihip.com/s/ea66062ca2/2185359-24
...in which a valid content page is obscured by some ads.

We never had any ruling against these galleries, so those expunge petitions filed against "dddolls" ads galleries are actually all technically invalid atm. We won't be DXing them for obvious reasons, but we still need to patch this hole up.

Awesome.

I vote for first option, "intentionally downsampled" is hard to define and I know some (rare though) artists would sell the digital works with trash quality. Downsampled galleries could still be replaced once original ones are uploaded.

I think intentionally downsampled is easy enough to define.

For digital, it's just if the person downsizes what the artist released. Maybe add a small note that it's fine to downsize if the longest edge stays above or at 3000px

For scan, again easy. Minimum DPI 150 giving a b10 book a minimum height of 1500px. 72 DPI in today's age is intentionally downsampling

This post has been edited by Cipher-kun: Apr 18 2022, 11:34

The issue with objectively defined criteria is that they can be easily circumvented. Say if you define everything below *some objective threshold* as expungable, certain trolls will just bump it up to *some objective threshold* + 1 unit, and we are back to square one again.

So if we pick the second option, objectively defined criteria might not be feasible. For the ruling to be effective, it has to remain subjective to some degree (which is the main issue of option 2).

The issue with objectively defined criteria is that they can be easily circumvented. Say if you define everything below *some objective threshold* as expungable, certain trolls will just bump it up to *some objective threshold* + 1 unit, and we are back to square one again.

So if we pick the second option, objectively defined criteria might not be feasible. For the ruling to be effective, it has to remain subjective to some degree (which is the main issue of option 2).

Trolls will always troll. So if the minimum they can troll to is of an accectable quality, then the issue is moot.
Having a minimum they have to obide by, is better than allowing them to go as low as they wish.

This post has been edited by Cipher-kun: Apr 18 2022, 11:33

Trolls will always troll. So if the minimum they can troll to is of an accectable quality, then the issue is moot.
Having a minimum they have to obide by, is better than allowing them to go as low as they wish.

Then comes the second issue with option 2: We can't be too overzealous with quality control either. This expunge category is targeted against clearly intentional sabotaging attempts, not ensuring upload quality. Whatever criteria we settle with has to tolerate the "bad™ but not malicious" scans as well.

I have been mulling over option 2 for a while now (I do kinda want it to be a thing), but I just can't think of a way to A.) ensure it is effective at preventing malicious downsampling, while B.) ensure that it doesn't turn into the "not high enough quality" expunge category either.

Note that we do already have minimum image quality requirements in place, but it's not really that effective at preventing a certain someone from trashing the galleries. elgringo once ruled one of those galleries as being too "low quality" (I forgot the exact criteria he used), but that certain someone's reaction is just slightly bumping up the quality a bit. At the time, we considered raising the requirements to counter that, but that potentially risks over-killing other uploads.

Bottle line is: I'm not really against having an objective minimal requirement in place. I just don't think it's gonna be effective without diving into the elitist route.

What about some of those racial/palette swapped edgelord rewrites that always rustle someone's jimmies?

They're malicious but in a kinda fun way.

What about some of those racial/palette swapped edgelord rewrites that always rustle someone's jimmies?

They're malicious but in a kinda fun way.

Probably shouldn't throw those in imo, since they are even more of a nightmare to define.

We already have a clause which stops people from making images too small to be legible, but I suppose some more protection against purposeful downsampling would be good in my eyes. With that said I don't really have a preference over the two definitions as they both address the main issue pretty well.

I am assuming this would not be applied retroactively?

I am assuming this would not be applied retroactively?

Considering the nature of these content, I'm leaning towards this being applied retroactively unless it bundles with an automatic ban.

(Otherwise, we technically will have to ignore or DX those older "dd dolls" spam crap)

For digital, it's just if the person downsizes what the artist released. Maybe add a small note that it's fine to downsize if the longest edge stays above or at 3000px

It's undesirable, but if someone downsizes a known 3500px digital release to a 2500px one, I don't think it's worthy enough to expunge based on that alone (assuming we don't have a replacement or better res already uploaded). The reason for doing so might be innocent enough (not everyone knows there are ways to reduce filesize to suit e-h upload limits other than resizing). The most important part of the downsampling option is

or has been intentionally downsampled to the point where legibility is an issue

It's really important to note here, this isn't about maintaining pixel perfect quality (though obviously such is preferred, and is already handled by the replacement expunge rules), it's only about discouraging and preventing intentionally very bad uploads.

I'm a supporter of the option, but it does have many issues, since there are no good numbers to make it objective. It would work if we could trust people to vote on it with an honest belief that it was done intentionally to make it hard to read (and when the content is relatively difficult/impossible to read), but we all likely know the answer to that one. The potential saving grace is that there's an expunge tracker, and users can vote both ways.

We already have a clause which stops people from making images too small to be legible

The tiny image clause isn't usually enforced. And for good reason, considering it's under forbidden. If we allow for this, it should be more formalised under the defaced option. If we don't go for that option, I think the tiny image clause should also be potentially removed.

I support the first.

2nd one would just be used to expunge most scanlators first uploads because they didn't know how to get the original resolution raws yet (or in my case, fucked up in some other way, but I did fix that one at least, unlike most "first uploads"), adding ammunition to the gatekeeping efforts aimed at those people already.

If it isn't so bad that it's extremely difficult to read or not legible at all (any honest attempt at uploading shouldn't be that bad), it wouldn't be expungable. It's not aimed at preventing normal bad scans. I'd like to think honest scans wouldn't get targeted, and wouldn't get missed to downvote the expunge even if they do, but there's a thread for appeals in those cases.

No one wants a "I think this upload is a bit meh I could do it better" expunge with option 2, it's purely for including galleries that hold basically little to no value.

If it isn't so bad that it's extremely difficult to read or not legible at all (any honest attempt at uploading shouldn't be that bad), it wouldn't be expungable. It's not aimed at preventing normal bad scans. I'd like to think honest scans wouldn't get targeted, and wouldn't get missed to downvote the expunge even if they do, but there's a thread for appeals in those cases.

No one wants a "I think this upload is a bit meh I could do it better" expunge with option 2, it's purely for including galleries that hold basically little to no value.

I agree with what would be ideal. But I also know the people most likely to be targetted with "bit meh could be better" are those who have no idea they can stand up for themselves in the thread either. If the MTL crowd/inexperienced translators don't know how to get original resolution they probably don't fully understand how the expunge system works either.

This post has been edited by Glovelove.: Apr 18 2022, 19:18

What does this have to do with mtl/rough translation?