Now Viewing: [Tagging] Gardeners Guild: Discuss Tagging Here!
Keep it civil, do not flame or bait other users. If you notice anything illegal or inappropriate being discussed, contact an administrator or moderator.
Quote
Posted on: 09/23/11 12:41AM
Jerl said:
Wrong
Actually the things I said was right... That I didn't include the things you mentioned had nothing to do with my actual post since it answered how motivators and magazine were similar.Wrong
Jerl said:
Motivators are both image macros, and extremely unfunny attempts at being funny.
While a magazine cover might not have text superimposed for any humorous effect, it both have text superimposed and the image can be viewed as a caption in a way. So it it has a similar creation structure to that of an image macro.Motivators are both image macros, and extremely unfunny attempts at being funny.
Jerl said:
These two are the exact reasons why motivators aren't allowed; in fact, one of them is specficially quoted in the Terms of Service.
Actually only one is mentioned (the screencap one) the other one seems to be just an addendum.These two are the exact reasons why motivators aren't allowed; in fact, one of them is specficially quoted in the Terms of Service.
This part however is the part that is important: "Upload the high quality image instead."
The other "they are not funny" I think, should be interpreted as -- "stop uploading images of lower quality just so you can spam the site with your western jokes".
Which brings us back to the whole "higher quality" reasoning. If the images are obscured by the text or otherwise cropped to fit the magazine cover -- while an unchanged version of the image already exist... then the magazine cover could be argued to be of lower quality. At least in the cases where the original image can be found.
Jerl said:
(including resizing, jpeg artifacting, watermarks, and scanning differences of course).
Including? Don't you mean excluding? Also, you forgot cropped images.Jerl said:
We generally tend to keep all forms of an image that aren't exact duplicates
We generally tend to keep all forms of an image that aren't exact duplicates
(including resizing, jpeg artifacting, watermarks, and scanning differences of course).
Posted on: 09/23/11 08:47AM
Yavie said:
This part however is the part that is important: "Upload the high quality image instead."
The other "they are not funny" I think, should be interpreted as -- "stop uploading images of lower quality just so you can spam the site with your western jokes".
Which brings us back to the whole "higher quality" reasoning. If the images are obscured by the text or otherwise cropped to fit the magazine cover -- while an unchanged version of the image already exist... then the magazine cover could be argued to be of lower quality. At least in the cases where the original image can be found.
Jerl said:
Wrong
Actually the things I said was right... That I didn't include the things you mentioned had nothing to do with my actual post since it answered how motivators and magazine were similar.Wrong
Jerl said:
Motivators are both image macros, and extremely unfunny attempts at being funny.
While a magazine cover might not have text superimposed for any humorous effect, it both have text superimposed and the image can be viewed as a caption in a way. So it it has a similar creation structure to that of an image macro.Motivators are both image macros, and extremely unfunny attempts at being funny.
Jerl said:
These two are the exact reasons why motivators aren't allowed; in fact, one of them is specficially quoted in the Terms of Service.
Actually only one is mentioned (the screencap one) the other one seems to be just an addendum.These two are the exact reasons why motivators aren't allowed; in fact, one of them is specficially quoted in the Terms of Service.
This part however is the part that is important: "Upload the high quality image instead."
The other "they are not funny" I think, should be interpreted as -- "stop uploading images of lower quality just so you can spam the site with your western jokes".
Which brings us back to the whole "higher quality" reasoning. If the images are obscured by the text or otherwise cropped to fit the magazine cover -- while an unchanged version of the image already exist... then the magazine cover could be argued to be of lower quality. At least in the cases where the original image can be found.
No, image macros aren't against the rules because of text superimposed across them. They're against the rules because they're image macros and they are unfunny. Just like western artists aren't disallowed because their work is often poor, but rather simply because they're western artists. Just like paysites aren't against the rules because of the watermarks that they slap on their images, but rather, simply the fact that they're paysites makes them against the rules. There is no deeper reasoning behind image macros being against the rules; they're against the rules because lozer doesn't want them here, and that makes them against the rules. And specifically what he doesn't want here are image macros.
I'm going to be straightforward: we don't care about text being superimposed on images. What we care about is whether that text is stupid.
Yavie said:
Jerl said:
(including resizing, jpeg artifacting, watermarks, and scanning differences of course).
Including? Don't you mean excluding? Also, you forgot cropped images.Jerl said:
We generally tend to keep all forms of an image that aren't exact duplicates
We generally tend to keep all forms of an image that aren't exact duplicates
(including resizing, jpeg artifacting, watermarks, and scanning differences of course).
Yes, that was my mistake. Sorry about that.
Posted on: 09/23/11 12:39PM
Another quick question: If someone crops a demotivational picture (so that you can't see the text), can I still delete it for being a demotivator?
Posted on: 09/23/11 12:40PM
it's probably poorly compressed or a screencap so sure, I guess.
Posted on: 09/23/11 12:46PM
This is the post in question, if it helps: post #853280
I've seen a few other people try that as well.
I've seen a few other people try that as well.
Posted on: 09/23/11 12:49PM
By the order of our superior Deusexclamus, you can kill them.
Posted on: 09/23/11 02:16PM
BlueBaroness said:
This is the post in question, if it helps: post #853280
I've seen a few other people try that as well.
This is the post in question, if it helps: post #853280
I've seen a few other people try that as well.
Drama story:
I found the original non-croped version on Pixiv. Then I uploaded it to Gelboorou. Only after that did I find out that the artist was from Taiwan. Now I have to delete my own upload.
*Sigh.*
post #1293054
Posted on: 09/23/11 03:36PM
jedi1357 said:
Drama story:
I found the original non-croped version on Pixiv. Then I uploaded it to Gelboorou. Only after that did I find out that the artist was from Taiwan. Now I have to delete my own upload.
*Sigh.*
post #1293054
Drama story:
I found the original non-croped version on Pixiv. Then I uploaded it to Gelboorou. Only after that did I find out that the artist was from Taiwan. Now I have to delete my own upload.
*Sigh.*
post #1293054
Well
Except for how you don't, and none of us would delete an image that good.
I already said "Don't" to you twice now. Stop being masochistic. What you're doing is bad.
Posted on: 09/23/11 04:07PM
internetlovemachine said:
Except for how you don't, and none of us would delete an image that good.
Except for how you don't, and none of us would delete an image that good.
None of us? All of Kid's other works have been deleted from Gel and not by me. 30+ of them.
Add Reply