SirMeo i havent really seen those comments yet (because i am too lazy to scroll too far) but yeah i agree, i think banning gore is gonna make shit worse 

nothing to say that hasn’t been said, but yeah, the new rules are so weirdly vague and hypocritical. there’s no way this won’t lead to a ton of erroneous reports and takedowns because someone’s art was falsely interpreted as fetish art. 
i don’t think gore should be banned, but it’s strange how much of that is allowed when it’s a common fetish as well. someone with a gore fetish could post detailed fetish art perfectly fine, but god forbid leather is shown, or a character’s “exaggerated proportions” slightly cross the invisible, unknown line. it just seems like this will be enforced based on what mods personally find “gross”, which i believe will lead to a lot of queerphobia, fatphobia, and ableism. 

@Akivaq

Sadly, while mostly people have just pointing out the hypocrisy, there have been people who have earnestly been calling out for gore ban, including a person who claimed that 90% of extreme gore is fetish material (despite the fact that extreme gore filter on this site mostly about detail, for example bloody enough steak with enough meat detail requires extreme gore filter)

while i think im mostly in the clear when it comes to the new guidelines, i do agree with most of the comments that it seems like the maturity ratings are vague. like, for example, the section that talks about fetishes, where it says "overly-exaggerated proportions, and extreme emphasis on certain parts of the body" is VERY vague and can be applied to characters and drawings that may not even aim to be fetish content. like, if i make a drawing with an exaggerated camera angle that may draw attention a body part simply because of the composition, how do i know if it may be interpreted as inappropriate when it wasnt my intention? if someone has a character with massive clown shoes, does that mean it has "overly exaggerated proportions" and may be in danger to be removed? how do i know my art might be in danger because someone interpreted it as something distasteful or it may be at the mercy of of a mod who has the OPINION that it falls under the category of fetish content?

personally i believe that if you're concerned about people drawing fetish content going unnoticed because they're SFW, the best option imo is just make another filter specifically for that. people who draw fetish content KNOW that they're drawing fetish content, and giving them the option to filter it seems more reasonable than putting vague rules that might apply to literally any artist in the wrong circumstances. you have an incredibly detailed guide for gore and body horror so that artists know what to tag and what applies to what; i dont see why the same cant be done for the suggestive themes guidelines.

as i said even though im mostly in the clear and even if im repeating the point that other comments have made i still think its important because the reality of the situation is that you cannot know for certain what objectively may fall into the SFW fetish category unless the artist explicitly said so (and unless it is one of the most textbook common fetishes that the internet knows of). if these guidelines still apply by the time artfight season starts then i guess i'll have to be a bit more careful as to what characters i draw and how, and i can only hope the rules get a revision next year.

Omg is the surprise wormston has for us a wormston plush??

SirMeo i absolutely agree with that you said, however i think the extreme gore part is not exactly that people want it to be banned, but showcasing the admin's hypocrisy. gore CAN absolutely count as fetish content to some people, but the fact that art where characters get disemboweled is allowed, but a character with a leather suit isnt showcases that they have.. extremely different standards for gore vs nsfw. 

i dont even understand why gore is more socially acceptable than sex anyway. of course i believe that no minors should be exposed to either of them, but i do think its a bit of a puritanical christian view to see a character getting their head blown off as less "innapropriate" than romance/lust between 2 consenting characters

I'm sorry I'm commenting again, but as admins actually read these comments + I have no access to Discord (they require phone verification to access the AF server and sorry, Discord is not getting my # :( ) this is the best place for me to write out my thoughts and have them potentially read by admins.

Like someone before me said (i'm sorry i'm too stupid to find the post again; if you recognize yourself, just know your comment was good), I think the administration has gotten caught up on trying to write a set of "perfect rules" that allow no loopholes and can be interpreted literally in every case, when that's not how much of moderation, let alone art community moderation works. You can't write a loophole-free set of rules that is also fair to users AND easy to understand. Like, it just isn't possible.

In my previous comment, I brought up some (canon) characters that no one outside the internet would consider inappropriate, but who could be considered too mature for Art Fight because they wear what can only be described as fetish-y clothing. For those who don't want to find my previous comment, the characters were LadyDevimon (she wears full leather with chains, and her design definitely accentuates her body shapes), Trinity from the Matrix (full on latex-y/rubber outfit) and Ripper Roo (straitjackets are absolutely fetish gear). My intention with these examples is to merely call attention to the fact that fetish is (at least in these 'softer' cases) dependent on context and intent, and unless there is some mindreading tech I'm not privy to, anything but the most egregious, explicit cases are clear.

My personal opinion is that "fetish-y" content should be filtered, not removed, and if someone is really pushy/inappropriate about requesting or forcing fetish content on others it should be dealt case-by-case basis... as you would with any case of someone being inappropriate, the fetish part is kinda superfluous here, because if someone kept drawing spiders to an arachnophobe [who has "no spiders" in their permissions], you would also crack down on that, right?
But I understand that my personal opinion might not be what you're going for, so I'm writing the thing below to make you consider making the "no fetish" as lenient as possible, because it's really, really, really, really hard to define what is fetish content or fetish gear. It's already been talked about - by me and others - that non-traditional attraction, whether it's attraction to body parts that are not 'vanilla', or just types of people that veer too far away from what is considered 'conventionally attractive', gets easily fetishized even when it's not displayed in a way that is any more inappropriate than attraction to conventionally attractive thin abled cis bodies.

Consider gags. I think most people would agree that many, in most contexts, they are fetish-y. So it's a no-brainer that when writing a list of "fetish things not allowed" they would go on that list, right?
Now, consider Nezuko from Kimetsu no Yaiba/Demon Slayer. For most of the story, one of her defining character traits is that she is wearing a "muzzle" that is... well, it is visually a bit-gag. Yet, the character is not considered "adult rated." Demon Slayer, the manga, was serialized in a magazine aimed at adolescents, and the anime rating changes depending on region, but it's not generally considered adult only in any region. Merchandise and advertisements featuring her are appropriate in all-ages settings. You don't need to go to the adults only section of a store to buy a figurine of her.
Would Nezuko be appropriate for Art Fight? This is a character who, when depicted as in canon, is not fetishized despite wearing an item that is closely associated with fetish content. If she is, why? If she is not, why not -- and also, have you considered, that if she would not be appropriate, Art Fight would be operating on stricter guidelines than most of the media guidelines do (and i guess if they want to do so, it is their right. but i just want this be given some thought.)

There are other character examples I could bring up. Charlez M. Schultz did not design Pig-Pen as a filth fetish character, but he might get caught up in a harshly implemented purge. So many characters use whips as their weapons.


I also hope we really, really, really aren't thinking of banning "extreme gore," despite the suggestions of some people. If you read the filtering rule, "extreme gore" is not only "amount" of violence/blood/harm, it's also about detailing. According to the filtering guide, the same wound can be moderate gore OR extreme gore depending on how much detail was put on it, the filter is not just for "lots of gore and blood and violence and depravity" I agree that perhaps extreme gore maybe could be something underage users shouldn't post/see, though.

next time, think about implementing these types of rules dear god, this isnt a good look especially with the money laundering incident that happened a year ago 

thanks for putting the huge change youre making in policy and filtering at the bottom of your post that at first glance seems to only be about the art theme reveal. surely this wont confuse people or anything. its not like people are going to only look at the date for the reveal and then click off because theyve seen what they needed to and completely miss the whole bit abt ur updated guidelines. great job guys!!

im really excited for this year’s artfight, but…

IM SO CONFUSED WHAT??

i havent interacted with this site in a while and i feel so lost help

Attention!!!:
I believe that drawing canon Characters in attacks with OC's will be okay depending on the company the canon character is from! Just look for a statement from the company that says you can or not.

I have found this statement from SEGA that may help people who want to draw canon Sonic characters with Sonic OC's (add it to the description of the attack when uploading)!:
"We never give explicit permission to use our intellectual property. We reserve the right to take necessary actions when our properties are used inappropriately, maligned or distributed for profit. However, in North America and Europe we typically will not take action on Youtube videos or similar content. Monetization of Youtube videos is not something we consider, but we will demand the removal of any leaked footage as well as content that uses our properties in a malicious or inappropriate way. We will also not typically take action against works for personal use, school projects, portfolios, etc, as long as the work is not distributed for profit and our ownership of the copyright is acknowledged."

Link to article where SEGA's statement was found: https://lastminutecontinue.com/articles/in-depth/in-depth-sega-fan-content-takedowns/

space_momo__ because the mods require every piece of art to be made from scratch. It would be unfair to pump out 50 shaded fullbody attacks with the only difference being the colors. Even if there was a category for base edits with a lower point value, it still would be unfair because you get badges for certain amounts of attacks. Plus it would just take away the fun of getting completely custom drawings of your OCs, and possibly flood the event with low effort attacks.

I'm a little baffled and I'm not sure how this kind of thing will be properly enforced. How would you be able to tell what's fetish content and what's not? There have been many instances on the internet where people have misinterpreted content as being fetish art when it hasn't been. Hell, people who draw fat characters get accused of fetishising them all the time. If someone draws a giant character in a scene interacting with the world/characters around them is that fetish content? Some people will think it is, some people won't. As a lot of people have said, it can be hard to gauge what is or isn't fetish art and not all fetishes involve explicitly sexual acts. It just feels like a case of "people personally find it gross/weird therefore we shouldn't allow it at all," when disallowing alternative expressions of attraction because people find it gross is...bad. I'm not sure we should ban extreme gore altogether, either. Total censorship isn't the solution here. Though, if it's not already, I implore you to please make it easier for minors to avoid this. It just feels like a bit of a double standard to allow gutspill and skin being flayed but someone wearing a pup hood and just standing there is considered too explicit to be allowed on the site. I've been to pride events and met people in pup masks, stuff like that is a big part of queer expression to some people. This kind of stuff has already been up for debate for a long time. I think allowing lingerie with suggestive themes so long as it's behind a filter but then completely banning fetish gear in any context is a bit strange. A collar/harness is okay because it's not "weird", but it has the same connotations does it not? Or does it only become suggestive once a leash is added? If I incorporate leather into a character's outfit at what point would it stop being fashion and be considered fetish? Where is the line drawn?
So long as filters are used appropriately and it isn't drawn against the other artist's wishes I don't see an issue. I know you guys are already working on this, and I can only really repeat the same concerns a lot of other users have, but I felt that it was important to voice my opinion regardless. 

CozyCritter aaaaa your designs for the team badges are all really cool!!! Amazing job, I love them!! 

This'll be my first Art Fight this year, and someone please please correct me if I'm wrong, but... are minors allowed to view/create content with an extreme gore filter?  Because if so, I am begging staff to reconsider that.  Extreme violence will get movies and video games rated R/M+ for a reason; it can negatively impact children's development just like exposure to sexual NSFW can.  Moderate gore is one thing, and so is a lot of "fake" gore—this is a 13+ site, and it can still be filtered out by anyone who doesn't want to see it—but I... really, really don't think we should be freely exposing 13-year-olds to hyperrealistic dismemberment.  _{Ofc they could still lie about their age as with anything else, but at that point it becomes a problem between them and their parents, and that's never an excuse to not take measures to protect kids.}

Everything I want to say re: the vagueness of the guidelines has already been said here, and I won't comment on that right now since staff are working on clarifying things.  But I do want to echo the sentiment that Art Fight should either go totally kid-friendly/general audiences and ban all suggestive AND gore content, or just continue to allow gore and non-explicit suggestive/fetish NSFW works behind the filter system.  _{I'd also like to add that it seems to me like the filter system is super well-done!  There's maybe a few tweaks I'd make to categorization—as others have mentioned in this thread, you don't want to be caught viewing lingerie art at work or school lol (your boss/teacher probably isn't gonna buy the "but it's nonsexual" argument), and unharmed transparent characters classify as body horror moreso than gore—but I do appreciate how thorough and customizable it is.}

I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what I'm feeling, but there is something... very uncomfortable to me about openly allowing extreme gore and violence, but putting a tight rein on anything too suggestive/fetishy where it's consensual and no characters are shown being hurt?  And children shouldn't be exposed to either imo.

edit--clarifying bc I can't tell if people are referring to my comment from earlier: I'm not a fan of gore, but I'm not actually asking/hoping for it to be banned.  As long as it's properly filtered, it's perfectly easy for me to avoid on my own, and my preference would be to just keep everything behind the filter system.  But I think if the new rules are the result of staff pushing to create a more kid-friendly environment, then it'd be hypocritical to ban/restrict one thing and not the other.