You could take away the CnC part of that message and still keep the infraction. Posts like that deserve to be infracted based on the rules of the other boards, not because I "take my role too seriously." or whatever reassurance you need.

I'm not Arctic, all I ask is for you to talk about the OP, and explain. If you need compliments like "dank man" to keep making artwork, I have no words.

Wibbles is a great place for you to get your "this is good!" fix.



What are your guys' opinions on posts like

in response to "I LIKE THIS"

I'd say get your paws off the infract button. Also, it's silly to argue about the existence of the rule when you have people being infracted for it and CnC is specifically stated as the reason for the infraction. "Posts must be constructive and put forward input" = "Posts require CnC", at least in the eyes of your fellow mods TyZi.

Anyway, clearly nobody likes the current level of enforcement. It's actually scaring people away from posting there, so some action does need to be taken. Let's try turning it back into a place that people wanna visit.

Suo suggested earlier that thread authors could have control over whether or not they demand CnC. As Moop said, a lot of artists are happy to receive non-critical feedback. Since there are already tags in Art, I think it would be fine if people could just indicate in the OP whether they demand CnC from posters.

I guess my main point here is that there's no harm in posts like those, if it makes the poster of the art feel good and want to share more, who are you to say they 'deserve' to be infracted?

This isn't some professional art forum for seasoned vets to hone their craft, it's a subforum of a small community where (mostly young) people just want to share what they've done and see if others like it. Maybe you only want constructive input on your art but this isn't about what you want. If the majority of people who post in art agree with us then it would be pretty arrogant to brush them all off as idiots you have no words for.

What's the big difference between what I said and the example bod gave that you thought was so laughable? It was in response to someone who made a balloon parrot while riding a unicycle, not exactly something where I can pick out my favourite part and say that I liked how the red brought out the green blah blah

When it comes to 'thanks' posts, eh, they act mainly as bumps but I personally have no problem with them.

Instead of getting rid of the rule, re-word it so my fellow mods don't misunderstand

We should let people in Off-Topic decide whether people need to explain their answers to questions, too, right?

We should make every rule optional.

You're being purposely obtuse. This semantic 'misunderstanding' doesn't matter when the end result (people being scared away from the board due to overmoderation) is the same.

That's the issue.

I'm in agreement with Suo that we should let the thread authors determine this - If they want this strict enforcement they can request it.

Tyzi is against this change because he gets a sense of power when he infracts people for making posts that don't keep up with the art board's over-moderated standards.

Authors are just going to get discouraged if they get little to no replies due to people not wanting to scan their posts to make sure they aren't going to get infracted for posting them. I can guarantee that there would be a lot more posts if there was an option for a " "CnC" tag as suo suggested, and I'm positive most people that post art in the art board would make it so you don't need CnC in your posts, because CnC is constructive criticism, and a lot of people tend to criticize art while not giving anything to build on, which is counter productive for the artist, as well as discouraging.

We already spoke on this, and if it works, by all means go ahead. Wouldn't change the way I moderate the board myself.


I wish this was the case, considering I infract people for forgetting to include programs more than anything.

if you think posts like this one are acceptable then haha well

i'd like to make it clear that i don't infract people for not making deep art reviews or anything like that. i just want people to explain why they like or dislike the art posted in the thread and, when i infract them, i ask them to do that instead of just saying "cool" or "bad" (uh, check moop's infraction?), especially when they don't seem to understand the rules. you can take a look at the board right now and you'll most certainly find a bunch of posts that are like "i (don't) like this, x is good/bad". we simply ask people to explain why they like or dislike something and i don't know why that's apparently so hard. even if someone posts amazing, perfect art, you can still explain why you like it.

almost all boards in this forum have a post quality standard. for example, what if you make a thread in the music board and everyone just decides to post "lol i like tihs sonbg "? you won't have any discussion and the thread will be a clusterfuck of useless posts; nothing decent will come from it. discussion and cnc is a little bit more important in the art board because people are posting things they made, so they want to hear opinions that might help them improve.

some people (honestly, not a lot) don't wanna hear cnc, though, and get pretty aggressive when their art is criticized. that's where the [cnc] tag comes in, making it optional, although i believe that could make rules a little bit more subjective.

btw, about the whole cnc & me deal: i've explained it already, up there, but i was literally just stating what's in the rules. if you reword it to "you must explain why you like the artworks etc etc", the infraction will still be valid for the same reason, so nothing changes, really. feel free to reword it though i guess

If the tag won't change how TyZi or Arctic enforces what we've been talking about though, then what's the point of it? The over-moderation problem remains.


For this to work they will need to agree to relax their standards in threads that don't have the [CnC] prefix. Else the change is superficial and this is all for show.

If that's the case, then we will just mark this thread "Will Not Be Implemented" and move on.