Grima180 said:
Just so that we are all on the same page, could you lay out the QCC team's qualifications regarding mind break?
Ogodei-Khan said:
QCC is also actively watching posts, so it's not just reacting to the whims of anonymous reporters. If a flag is truly unwarranted, the image survives.
Semi-long not-quite-rant on something I'd like to see added to the QCC: spoiler
TL;DR: I'd like to see a QCC forum thread wherein the official decision for flagged images is shared, so that the QCC is more visible than a little red star under flagged images that may vanish quietly shortly thereafter
FallenMeteor said:
TL;DR: I'd like to see a QCC forum thread wherein the official decision for flagged images is shared, so that the QCC is more visible than a little red star under flagged images that may vanish quietly shortly thereafter
So, I've been part of the QCC for about 2 years. During that time I made a couple of suggestions - like the QCC discussing things a bit more, having a separate forum somewhere where we can talk with each other about the opinions we have and maybe change each others mind by argueing in favor or against a picture.

This is not how it worked. You see which picture is up for discussion, then you send a yes or no to the mod via dmail. Thats it. You don't see the decisions of the other QCC Members and the result you see only when it is made public to everyone.

There is no discussion, you don't need to give a reason, a REMOVE or STAY was enough.

Like some people discussed in this thread, there is also the case where Pictures get sent to the QCC even though it is not a Quality case, but rather a decision by the mods if it adheres to current rules (is it even MC?). That's something I complained about a lot, and it never changed. I always was strongly against the mods not putting their foot down in some of these cases (I am not saying they never did, but there were cases where they should have and didn't) and instead let the QCC take the blame for the decision.

It was alway a system that was meant to be flawed. Just think about this: Back then we had 5 members and there were cases where only 1-2 voted, any vote not given was a REMOVE and a draw meant REMOVE - there was little to no chance for your picture to not be removed when it was flagged (unless 3 people of the QCC all voted for it to stay) - gladly we changed that after some time.

Don't get me wrong. Vanndril always was big on the transparency of any decision the mod team made. I think he did a fantastic job.

The QCC wasn't about Transparency though. It was a tool to divert anger from mods to a single group. And it served that purpose well to this day.

The QCC was never truly meant to understand both sides (admins and artists) and mediate between them. The way we did things back then in the QCC (and I don't think a lot changed in the past months) was serviceable to the admin team, but did never succed in making people understand Quality requirements better and mediate between artist, community and admins in a way it should have. That was way better done by people actually posting comments under the picture, giving tipps to the artist how to improve their work,

And if a QCC member did that, it was almost clear that he voted against the picture, which in turn created more hate towards that member. Outspoken and active members that actually tried to improve the situation got so much hate it wasn't even funny.
Just FYI before this discussion goes any further, the QCC, as well as all mod activity, is discussed in a private Discord server now. We no longer do everything over Dmail.
Realistically I think this issue could be best solved with increased regulations, and clarification of current rules.

These rules being;

What counts and does not count as MC content

What level of "quality" must be achieved? Set a baseline with the "lowest acceptable" quality by giving example images. While this would still mostly be based on opinion, it should still be helpful to the QCC

How much must be changed for a manip to be acceptable? In the same vein, what is the required quality on manips?

Now, as far as what HME said above, the QCC does need to be better moderated if that's true. Decisions of a non-quality nature, that is "does this fit the site from a thematic standpoint?" needs to be directed to the admins ONLY, not the non-admin QCC members.
Mindcollector13 said:
Realistically I think this issue could be best solved with increased regulations, and clarification of current rules.

[...]

What level of "quality" must be achieved? Set a baseline with the "lowest acceptable" quality by giving example images. While this would still mostly be based on opinion, it should still be helpful to the QCC
A 100% sure way is basically impossible. There are some no goes, but other than that it's a case by case thing you can't describe by rules. The QCC basically is there to decide on cases that are on the edge and they do need some flexibility. But like I stated, people were and still are helping by giving tipps. It's just hard for people of the QCC to both vote on a picture and give them.

There are some things that can be done though. Make a help page with a detailed basic guide everyone can link to, with some pictures in it, advice on software, text formatting, example fonts etc.. A basic guide would serve in the beginning, which later could be expanded to an advanced guide and keep getting updated by the QCC every couple of months.
To clarify a few things:

The QCC's job is to review posts for quality reasons, not for whether or not they are MC. Deciding whether or not a post is MC is one of the responsibilities of the moderators. The QCC has not been involved in making these decisions since I became a mod a few years ago.

We used to have a QCC thread, but in the interest of speeding up the process (judgments could take upwards of a week to get enough responses, and sometimes never did), we moved to using Discord.

In doing so, we lost some transparency in what posts are under consideration and what the decisions ultimately are. I may look into ways to bring some transparency back into the process without forcing the team to repeat themselves in Discord and on the site (perhaps through use of a bot).

It can sometimes be very difficult to decide what is and isn't MC (case in point: the whole Miraculous Ladybug thing that happened a little while ago). It's also pretty hard to come up with hard and fast rules that make sense when applied to many situations. That's not to say we can't try, though.
Dreamshade said:
To clarify a few things:

The QCC's job is to review posts for quality reasons, not for whether or not they are MC. Deciding whether or not a post is MC is one of the responsibilities of the moderators. The QCC has not been involved in making these decisions since I became a mod a few years ago.

We used to have a QCC thread, but in the interest of speeding up the process (judgments could take upwards of a week to get enough responses, and sometimes never did), we moved to using Discord.

In doing so, we lost some transparency in what posts are under consideration and what the decisions ultimately are. I may look into ways to bring some transparency back into the process without forcing the team to repeat themselves in Discord and on the site (perhaps through use of a bot).

It can sometimes be very difficult to decide what is and isn't MC (case in point: the whole Miraculous Ladybug thing that happened a little while ago). It's also pretty hard to come up with hard and fast rules that make sense when applied to many situations. That's not to say we can't try, though.
I haven't been on the site as often due to work, but what do you mean by "the M. Ladybug thing? "
averageguy17 said:
I haven't been on the site as often due to work, but what do you mean by "the M. Ladybug thing? "
I will try my best to explain.

When ladybug first started appearing on the site there was a huge flood of posts of nothing but ladybug and it got to the point where it was entire pages of ladybug, not only that but alot of those posts were really skirting on if it was even hypno [corruption in this case] at all considering to my knowledge the only thing that it had that was a sign at all that something was even happening was that the character had that butterfly symbol around there eyes or they were in a villain outfit otherwise they would be acting normally, it was this that cause an updating for the rules concerning corruption.

i hope this helped
Dreamshade said:
We used to have a QCC thread, but in the interest of speeding up the process (judgments could take upwards of a week to get enough responses, and sometimes never did), we moved to using Discord.

In doing so, we lost some transparency in what posts are under consideration and what the decisions ultimately are. I may look into ways to bring some transparency back into the process without forcing the team to repeat themselves in Discord and on the site (perhaps through use of a bot).
I've seen this thread in the past, back when I was just lurking, but I never knew until checking it right now that the posts get edited to reflect whether they were deleted or not (although with it only being links to the now-deleted image and a number, there's also no way to tell after the fact what the image WAS for informational purposes, just the list of tags and comments section). Or maybe I'm thinking of a different thread entirely, but this looks like the thread I'm thinking of. Either way, I agree that transparency was lost, but in a way even that was not as much transparency as I would like to see. As HME explained earlier, there was never a discussion or reasoning, just an entirely private yes/no vote. To me, that doesn't sound like enough information given out for artists/manippers/etc. to properly learn from mistakes and improve their artwork, or for flaggers to learn when something did not need to be flagged because its quality or MC was adequate to remain on the site.
Still I don't get it why posters who see their post flagged got butthurt because the artist is too lazy to use the eraser or coloring or decide that drawing in the fridge is a good idea which results in horrible shaky inking. While everyone and their mum know due past arts the artist could do better.

For me those things are -same as DeviantArt's Watermarking- clickbait-ish because the fault is not visible in the thumbnails and it's very frustrating to spot those when pic is in full view |=(>:C
Reading through the different mods's replies (which I appreciate for replying to this topic, btw), something seems glaringly obvious to me : there seems to be a lot of confusion on the user side of what is QCC territory and what is "mod, MC/no MC" territory. Since the final result is that an image gets flagged and taken down (or not) in either case, it gives the immediate impression (indeed, I don't think I was the only one to believe this) that QCC also takes charge of judging the MC content of images. As a result, threads like this one (and posters like me) make the mistake of conflating the two issues.

I don't really know what I'm suggesting, other than maybe try having two clearly different processes to visibly distinguish between what is a quality control issue and a subject matter issue. This would avoid confusion, help transparency, and get rid of half the replies for either topic.
Quick Question, while this thread has been mostly about images being removed whether they have hypnosis, what about the Quality of the art?

Because there are some images I'd love to post, but the art is rather plain.
http://hypnohub.net/post/show/57662

I'd like to revive this topic and perhaps once again request more transparency or community involvement in the deletion process.
Obscenario said:
http://hypnohub.net/post/show/57662

I'd like to revive this topic and perhaps once again request more transparency or community involvement in the deletion process.
It was investigated by two mods and both came to the conclusion that their was no mind control / hypnosis
Obscenario said:
http://hypnohub.net/post/show/57662

I'd like to revive this topic and perhaps once again request more transparency or community involvement in the deletion process.
Thats what I already did, no mind control as you can see.
Argonis said:
It was investigated by two mods and both came to the conclusion that their was no mind control / hypnosis
Sophia said:
Thats what I already did, no mind control as you can see.
I didn't realize that putting a blindfold over a hypnotized person's eyes suddenly eliminated the mind control from the picture. Should we perhaps update the hub's policies to say that the sub's eyes must always be visible or the image is automatically deleted? Eyes are the only thing that can ever indicate mind control, correct?

Signs of hypnosis in drawn content may be relevant to the source media or non-canon. For example, the Celine Flower in To Love-Ru is permitted, despite needing knowledge of the source to recognize the mind control aspect.
Further, did the source knowledge policy suddenly stop existing? I'm sure you could simply contact the artist or commissioner, each of whom happen to be a rather known members of the community, and ask if mind control is depicted. If the source and context of the image matter at all, that is. Perhaps this policy should also be deleted if it is no longer necessary.

I'd also recommend informing the community of the guidelines you're following to determine the image's validity, to prevent uploads like this in the future. After all, someone (the subject of the image, it would seem) clearly thought it counted as mind control enough to upload it. If it doesn't count, I'm sure we'd all like to know the criteria under which such things are judged. Apologies if I seem upset at the apparent disconnect between the opinions of the moderators and those of the community at large, but not feeling adequately represented in the decisions will do that.
Yeah, I can’t help but feel this is getting ridiculous. We’re seeing images deleted and flagged for deletion, often just because they go into a direction slightly different than baseline swinging pocket watch “yes master I am hypnotized” stuff, and it’s getting more and more frustrating every time it happens.
Triple: sometimes I think that there are people who just flag pictures as no mc just because they don't see that type as actually mind control, I do remember there was one guy ages ago ranting about how corruption shouldn't be included as MC, but I don't remember what happened
111 said:
Triple: sometimes I think that there are people who just flag pictures as no mc just because they don't see that type as actually mind control, I do remember there was one guy ages ago ranting about how corruption shouldn't be included as MC, but I don't remember what happened
I am kinda fuzzy on when that was but i feel even if more then three mods or all the mods even the admin himself says no hypno it would still not be enough for some people but we do take the time to look at every flagged post so its not like we scoff at it or anything.
As Argonis said, it seems like an unfortunate case of "You can't please everyone"

Just because someone does make Hypnosis themed works doesn't mean all of their stuff is hypnosis, and realistically if the mods deigned to leave every questionable image up then rather than you guys getting upset that they're gone it would be a few different people being upset that they're still here.

Honestly probably best to just let the mods do what they do, however you may take that.
Triple: I know that I just think some people don't think about it when they flag some pictures I seen a lot of pictures that have hypnosis flagged for no hypnosis (personally I think that might be because the anonymous flagging)
Most of my ire came from the fact that someone paid money for a hypnosis commission that was summarily deleted with seemingly no input from either party responsible for its creation. However, the image has been redrawn to make the mind control unmistakable and isn't likely to be removed again so I've calmed down significantly.

I still believe the context of the original was sufficient to establish MC, which is why I feel more clear guidelines would be useful to point to in questionable cases. At the very least a rule of thumb or example to measure new images against so there's some measure taken against the inherent subjectivity of what does or does not count.
I'll admit it's a flawed system but we are only human. We just have to make judgment calls on somethings, and we don't always agree on some of it.
I admit to only skimming this thread but as far as what qualifies as MC, something that was consistently permitted in 2016 was re-posting something from another website where the image barely shows MC at all, as long as the accompanying MC-loaded text (also from the source website) was included in the description. Generally in such cases the MC story is written and given to an artist as a commission, and then the artist draws a snapshot from the story. Without the story the image wouldn't be allowed on this site, but as long as the story is included then the broader work, all visible from the post's page, is sufficiently MC.

I don't know if things still work that way, but I hope they do.

Sorry to throw more shades of gray in the mix but "context" really is everything.
greasyi said:
I admit to only skimming this thread but as far as what qualifies as MC, something that was consistently permitted in 2016 was re-posting something from another website where the image barely shows MC at all, as long as the accompanying MC-loaded text (also from the source website) was included in the description. Generally in such cases the MC story is written and given to an artist as a commission, and then the artist draws a snapshot from the story. Without the story the image wouldn't be allowed on this site, but as long as the story is included then the broader work, all visible from the post's page, is sufficiently MC.

I don't know if things still work that way, but I hope they do.

Sorry to throw more shades of gray in the mix but "context" really is everything.
That's sort of my thing, I do the story to go with the art, but I usually get a glow effect added in. Cause it'd be weird for me as a mid to have to deem my own stuff as not MC enough