lasci_me said:
Basically:
No manipulating a real photo...
Think you can define "manip" somewhere in the rules? None of the images had been shopped, which I assumed was the definition of an image manip--an IMAGE that has been manipulated. I was not aware the addition of text was included. I was debating whether I should've even included my own tag on it or not.
I'm a bit calmer now and can explain my reasoning a little better.
I'm annoyed because once again, my day began waking up to find that something I'd worked on for a month that was being universally well-received was taken down without any chance for defense and without any comment by the acting moderator so that I'd know who to talk to.
I'm annoyed because once again, action was taken out of a bureaucratic hard-on for the word of the law rather than the spirit of the law and the best interest of the website and its community. This was not a low-quality project that threatened to overrun the search pool with low-quality photoshops, which is the reason the rule described exists. Deletion is not an automated process--the mods are already looking at images on a case by case basis, but it feels like common sense is not being employed.
I'm annoyed because each time this has happened, it has been frustrating enough to make me stop visiting the site completely for several days, and consider not coming back. This has been a very discouraging experience for a new member of the community.
It baffles me that text is not even considered part of the equation in judging whether an image belongs on the booru, regardless of how well it ties together with the imagery and brings it to the topic of hypnosis. Especially so since this is the only place I've seen where adding stories to images is a regular practice.
The "must have a visual representation of hypnosis" rule makes perfect sense for standalone images--otherwise the person viewing them (again, thinking about the SPIRIT OF THE LAW and the REASON THE RULE EXISTS in a pragmatic, applicable, real world situation here) wouldn't be able to recognize them as hypno pics.
Bodies of text are another story. Context matters. That's what the pendulum or the eye manips in a hypno pic add. Context. Text also adds context. If the imagery clearly ties in to the hypno-themed text, then the context is supplied, and there should be no issue for the viewer, regardless of whether there are visible manips present in the image. If there's just a body of hypno-text with an apparently unrelated image thrown next to it so it can be put on the booru, that's another story, and that should be addressed by moderation because it makes logical sense that this is not useful to the site viewer.
The rules need to allow for text images to do what they were intended to do. If no one is reading this and taking this seriously, who do I talk to to put this into effect? This is no longer about the original image, this is about a rule that does not make logical sense. An image should need SOME inclusion of hypnosis, but it should not have to be visual to be considered present.