[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.

I was wondering why a Certain Gallery Creator had abruptly changed his modus operandi recently...

He may be unforgiving, but he is up-to-date.

Can't you just ban cgc?

Though the person who it'll primarily be targeting seems to have changed his tactics, probably as a result of this news...

Plastering sample over everything and uploading incomplete galleries with random pages.

So we're more or less back where we started.

Not so, as was said earlier in the thread intentionally withholding content, in addition to the scanmark, would still qualify. Just because he's calling it a sample now doesn't change anything.

Can't you just ban cgc?

As much as he is a massive part of the problem, it extends beyond him.

Just because he's calling it a sample now doesn't change anything.

Awesome!

As much as he is a massive part of the problem, it extends beyond him.

That may be so, but you should still ban cgc for blatant trolling, at least.

oh this is real. Nice idea.

you should still ban cgc for blatant trolling, at least.

If being stupid and annoying was ban-worthy this place would be pretty empty.

Seriously, this is fantastic. Thank you. I'd been praying for this.

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.

I think the best way to deal with that would be to say that it only applies to galleries where their initial versions were created prior to whatever date this expunge reason gets codified.
There are some cases where I think resolution should NOT be deemed a deciding factor, such as for older works that were released in an age where lower resolutions were more commonplace/acceptable. So an additional clause might be something like:

CODE

size/resolution is NOT a valid expunge reason for content that can be determined to have been first printed/published prior to <some date>

Maybe a decent date to try would be 2012, when 1024x768 stopped being the most common desktop computer resolution and high-DPI phone screens started appearing. For stuff from comiket and other *kets, that should usually be pretty easy to figure out.
I really would not want this rule to apply to something from C45, for instance, that was scanned in 2005.
Perhaps the resampling reason should only be applicable for dojinshi/other print works as well (not CG sets released digitally).

I like option 2 more because I would like to see one particular bad actor hammered as hard as possible. But as an addict to older media, I do understand (and appreciate) your concerns about the "images for ants" problem.

If the subjectivity on 'intentionally down-sampled' is too much to leave to the masses, is there a way to limit it to more trusted users?
Tho I think for the most part this is fine anyway, it's rare for expunges to pass without the support of trusted users and their mod power.

I personally would be okay with a mod power rule, but I don't know if it needs to be as high of a bar as some "protected" tags.
...And I don't just say that because I've got 24 MP (one short). I just think something like 12-16 would hopefully be sufficient for this, given that there are plenty of higher power voters who can counter bad expunges. Just not low enough that the +6 brigade (old user accounts) can do it, if we go for this approach.
I also think most people act in good faith.

That may be so, but you should still ban cgc for blatant trolling, at least.

While that would bring me great pleasure, I don't think it's the right way to go about handling this.
As crappy as he is, at some point I still think that having something is better than nothing... but if it came down to it, I'd rather force him to either decide to contribute to the community in good faith or leave/stop posting voluntarily.

If being stupid and annoying was ban-worthy this place would be pretty empty.

Despite my frustration when I first joined, in general I think this place does a decent job handling things as a meritocracy without raising the barrier to entry to unattainable heights. The influence of money (while present) has been handled pretty well in terms of moderation power and generally how "trustworthy" people are deemed. It'd be a shame if it became a ban-happy hole in the ground like 4chan.

This post has been edited by dragontamer8740: Apr 24 2022, 00:59

Alright, thanks for the feedback. Unless someone adds some notable enlightenment to this thread, I'll go with Definition #2 with a minimum mod power of 20 to start a petition.

"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 degraded to the point where legibility is an issue."

Notes for the wiki:

"Degraded" includes any sort of intentional bad-faith sabotage of the core content, including but not limited to excessive downsampling, blurring, pixelation etc, as well as leaving out core content.

Scanmarks that do not obstruct content or promotional pages added after the content pages do not qualify.

Older low-resolution scans are exempt.

So the mod power requirement is only to start a petition, not to vote on them?

So the mod power requirement is only to start a petition, not to vote on them?

That's the plan anyway, but if the petitions end up being swarmed by low-power accounts that might be changed.

Think the exemption for older low resolution stuff is redundant when looking for bad faith anyway, even new stuff is going to come out at low resolution when you have the best intentions and bad/dated raws to work with (which is where, from what I understand, where the CGC drama started in the first place, throwing a tantrum for over a year because his good-faith uploads were being treated as intentionally bad and becoming the villain he was treated as anyway in response.)

MP20 sounds fair, tbh 25 wouldn't have been as bad as I interpreted it either if it still only applies to starting the petition but either way we'd just have to see how it goes and tweak if needed.

This post has been edited by Glovelove.: Apr 27 2022, 01:52

Thinking back on it, I uploaded a pixiv gallery a while back that was LQ since that's just how it was.

Legible, but LQ.

This post has been edited by Jigsy: Apr 27 2022, 03:37

Thinking back on it, I uploaded a pixiv gallery a while back that was LQ since that's just how it was.

Legible, but LQ.

Since it is how the original images originally were it does not fit in the description of the expunge reason, that state that the images have to be downgraded in some form. Uploading a image how it already was from source is not downgrading it.

Since it is how the original images originally were it does not fit in the description of the expunge reason, that state that the images have to be downgraded in some form. Uploading a image how it already was from source is not downgrading it.

Well yeah that's why I already brought up that "Older low-resolution scans are exempt." should be completely redundant to even bring up if intentionally bad is to be the target, unless Tenboro intended to either protect older intentionally bad uploads or hunt down future galleries where quality wasn't really a choice or accidentally messed up, and I don't think either of those is the case.

Well yeah that's why I already brought up that "Older low-resolution scans are exempt." should be completely redundant to even bring up if intentionally bad is to be the target, unless Tenboro intended to either protect older intentionally bad uploads or hunt down future galleries where quality wasn't really a choice or accidentally messed up, and I don't think either of those is the case.

Some old scans are so bad that by modern standards it looks like they would have had to have been intentionally made that bad
Not to mention their trip around the internet before ending up here probably means they lost some more quality along the way.

This post has been edited by Cipher-kun: Apr 27 2022, 08:50

Some old scans are so bad that by modern standards it looks like they would have had to have been intentionally made that bad
Not to mention their trip around the internet before ending up here probably means they lost some more quality along the way.

Fair enough I suppose. As long as the other methods (like purposefully obnoxious scanmarks) still apply it shouldn't be a huge issue.

On another note, I've realised that because the ads are crammed in pretty much every space that didn't have core content to cover (in this example at least, there are also cases where this uploader plastered them all over the page in ways that do cover core content) this would dodge the latest definition given by Tenboro despite clear intent to ruin the reading experience to shill some dodgy website.
http://ehentaihip.com/s/bf78d2c881/1798745-4
Luckily, all this guy does as far as I've seen is finding translations that have not been uploaded yet and paste his ads all over them before uploading so theoretically a replaced expunge should be possible for most if not all of his uploads if his sources are tracked down, it just feels like an oversight that defaced technically wouldn't cover it.

This post has been edited by Glovelove.: Apr 28 2022, 05:34

Fair enough I suppose. As long as the other methods (like purposefully obnoxious scanmarks) still apply it shouldn't be a huge issue.

On another note, I've realised that because the ads are crammed in pretty much every space that didn't have core content to cover (in this example at least, there are also cases where this uploader plastered them all over the page in ways that do cover core content) this would dodge the latest definition given by Tenoboro despite clear intent to ruin the reading experience to shill some dodgy website.
http://ehentaihip.com/s/bf78d2c881/1798745-4
Luckily, all this guy does as far as I've seen is finding translations that have not been uploaded yet and paste his ads all over them before uploading so theoretically a replaced expunge should be possible for most if not all of his uploads if his sources are tracked down, it just feels like an oversight that defaced technically wouldn't cover it.

Well, that is annoying, but being annoying is not part of the description on which uploads are to be expunged, so they can stay, I imagine.

This has now been added.