README: The purpose of this forum and how to complain to the System Admin.
[Return]
User | Message |
---|---|
MichaelYick admin |
#16
works on my machine
https://booru.cavemanon.xyz/index.php?q=rss/images |
test_user user |
#17
>This forum is exclusively and only for complaints about the booru
I'd like to complain about the latest decision about not allowing GVH-related artwork to be uploaded. The purpose of a booru is for fans to be able to find, share, and discuss media. Hosting such a service is a good faith gesture from the staff/devs, rewarding the community that cheers them on and consumes their products. And obviously, good faith has the be extended from both ends. The users can't expect to be able to upload pics from, say, DOOM or QUAKE, not unless it was a snoot, wani, or exit crossover. It's a good deal for everyone involved. Everyone is happy. So long as the community gets to find, share, a discuss the media that they care about. But as soon as it can't be that, and has to be media that the staff cares about, then it suddenly becomes a collection of images not for the fans but for the staff, and then it's the users providing a service, begrudgingly so, by collecting and uploading the pictures in the first place. Disallowing any subset of media that the users strongly feel about and expect to be able to share on a good faith basis will force them to do so somewhere else. And suddenly, the whole purpose of the booru is lost. I'd like to ask for a reconsideration of the GVH fanart ban, or making the purpose of the service more clear and honest. |
MichaelYick admin |
#18
We plan on issuing a correction to our ruling sometime soon, and it'll be announced via the Blotter once out. The phrasing of the ruling was vague, and anyone who complained about this fact was right to. Cavemanon blundered in this area very hard since we didn't make our intents clear. Our intents will be made clear once the new rule-set drops.
I personally hosted the booru primarily out of fun and experimentation and secondarily out of a desire to archive content related to Cavemanon. This is the goal and still will be the goal, as the ruling (even in its flawed state now) is just an interpretation of an already existing rule: All content should be related to Cavemanon or its projects. The current rule doesn't go into detail about things users care about: namely cross-over content, OCs, and images that have been uploaded in the past. Because of that, it's flawed and will be rewrote to be far more comprehensive for users of the site. Still, thank you for your well-mannered post on the subject (and anyone else who has supplied constructive criticism, as we're listening to this). **ALSO, ANYONE WISHING TO HAVE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE BOORU ADDRESSED SHOULD MAKE NEW THREADS AND NOT JUST REPLY TO THIS README THREAD. IT HELPS US KEEP THINGS ORGANIZED AND LETS DEVELOPERS EASILY SEE THERE ARE NEW THREADS** |
test_user user |
#19
I recommend a poll put forward for the community to decide. To state the obvious, a blind vote would mean little because the community is already in an uproar, so it would probably be best to do a Google survey or similar, where you can have the users read a clarification as to why this is even an issue that needs to be sanctioned against.
But if I may, the users' expectation from this service is very likely "we get to post snoot content and we acknowledge the existence of Exit665", and not "Cavemanon content". This is why I asked for a clarification not only about this one rule, but the nature of the booru altogether. |
test_user user |
#20
Also - and I couldn't find a way to edit my previous post, sorry for doubleposting like a noob - the community outcry wasn't about the vagueness of the rule, it was the effect of it. A rewording means little for anyone who isn't a grammar nazi. Whatever pros and cons were weighed before making this decision, a new factor is clear now due to the reaction of the community: you risk alienating your fans. |
MichaelYick admin |
#21
>A vote
ill bring it up with the guys internally about the subject. No promises on this however. >clarification of the nature of the booru altogether. We have had people internally toss this around, and it's what I personally believe the crux of the issue is: People using this booru have a different perception of what this booru should be than Cavemanon's administration. I'll bring up adding a description to this site to more solidly explain what this place is, since some users may be confused by our intentions. Sorry if a lot of this is gay and vague corpro-speak, but I rather get a lot of the conclusive stuff ran by others before saying anything site-changing. Much of the worst parts of this entire ordeal were caused by Cavemanon's administration speaking too soon, and without thinking everything through. The original rule was pushed out in a bad state because of a lack of talk, so do expect this to be dealt with in a timely, but non-immediate manner. |
MichaelYick admin |
#22
>A rewording means little for anyone who isn't a grammar nazi
The actual specifics of how intensively the rule is applied will be effected by this. Currently, the rule is a vague, blanket ban that can be interpreted in multiple ways, which is not how I like to do administration. I suggest people just wait for the clarified rules to come out to make up their minds on the subject. |
test_user user |
#23
>crux of the issue
I completely agree. However, it's undeniable that for years now the booru has been used by the users in a way that was comfortable with them. The original assumption to always be allowed to post snoot stuff was reasonable and never challenged. In fact, snoot's and Cavemanon's history had a firm chapter under ABIB's iron rule and therefore the freedom to post what we want was a hugely important issue. Whether this aligns with the wishes of the staff or not, it's clear that this is the wish of the community. |
test_user user |
#24
A rewording means little for anyone who isn't a grammar nazi >The actual specifics of how intensively the rule is applied will be effected by this. Can I get a clarification on how the rule was affected compared to the previous "blanket ban" version? Other than the rephrasing. |