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.