filter update controversy aside..

my brain says "Seafoam vs. Stardust"
but my heart says "Arctic vs. Tropic"

also admins consider this comment about making the filter changes more obvious

ugh i wish artfight started now I can't wait 

was trying to stay out of this but i will say this, @ the staff, because i think its very important:

if youre going through with this as it is, you NEED to make a separate newspost about it with a clearer warning about the deadline. the current deadline is only ~5 weeks away, and has been posted at nearly the very bottom of a post in which the theme reveal is the obvious focus. the rules change isnt even in the title. i know dozens of people are going to read the theme reveal section and then click off because the rest of the post just looks like filler. if youre going to start taking stricter administrative action against these users, you NEED to tell them better!

I'm very excited - due to the bg and the hat I think this is going to be fossils versus crystals with an orange vs teal/blue theme
I think I'll probably pick fossils if that's the case

Being more awake and echoing sentiments of more good comments that have turned up, I guess my core problem with the fetish ruling is also just that like... honestly I just do not think it's feasible to try and define "fetish art" without catching potentially more niche art in the crossfire. I can understand why artfight wouldn't want to host fetish art between the young skew of the userbase and moderation strain, but I kind of just... don't think there's actually a feasible way to enforce it outside of just making a blanket statement about artist intent and handling blatant rule breaks on a case by case basis. I understand the desire to cover all of your bases, but the issue with fetish art in particular is just that there's literally no universal way to distinguish it outside of artist intent because it's just such a broad and nebulous concept. Drawing hard lines and boundaries can often be necessary in the moderation process, but in reality that's literally impossible in cases like this. I think that's what makes this tricky. But honestly, I think trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand will end up causing more headaches for both the moderation team and users.

Honestly in general I feel like there's always been a fear of any case-by-case moderation on artfight. I get why there's apprehension (especially about inconsistency), but I fear that going too far in the other direction has caused the guidelines to just become increasingly... nitpicky? Hyper specific? In a way that I've noticed just seems to be making everyone nervous to even post innocuous things that literally no other site would require filters on. I fear this might literally just be breeding more moderation strain by making everyone second guess what's even allowed. Moderation, especially with art is full of grey areas and there aren't always super cut and dry lines between art that is or isn't sexual in some way. The more you try to untangle and define it, the more you're going to catch in the crossfire.
I'm also seeing this especially with the gore section... again, the meat thing is extremely weird, but also the bit about transparent characters with visible organs being "extreme"? That's... literally not even gore. I'd argue it's way closer to body horror (which tbh I'm not a fan of requiring a sitewide filter either. but it would still make more sense than gore)

I fear that as long as the filter guidelines are so lengthy, complicated, and requiring so many hyper specific examples and diagrams, it will likely only bring more user confusion and moderation strain as a result. A lot of stuff in the filter guidelines would probably be a lot easier to handle with the ability to blacklist tags?
Just so we're clear, I understand wanting or needing very specific directions (I'm also prone to taking things very literally/needing specific instructions), but even I feel like the current system is made more confusing with all the specificity and arbitrary lines it has, not less. I understand the mods are volunteers of course, but it kind of feels like this is just adding work, not streamlining it?

Hope I'm making sense here. I think a lot of people are bringing up important points and I really hope they get taken to heart.

is this why we have filters for a reason so this doesn't happen? im very confused how people underage got around the filters and started flagging people's characters this is for ages 13 and up and people bellow 13 lie about their age and always find excuses to make sights like this for all ages to enjoy without having to worry about filters

With the vibes I'm getting from the whole situation, I wouldn't doubt that they'll just outright ban all sensual content PLUS gore, which will say byebye to a decent portion of artists on here I'd imagine. I know myself and a couple other friends won't be sticking around if there's going to be that much policing of an artistic space. IMO the owners need to either put their foot down and outright ban everything to sterilize the website, or utilize/fix the filtering/tagging systems that are ALREADY IN PLACE and push for people to properly tag their characters and content so the filters can actually do their jobs.

so why is lingerie allowed unfiltered as long as its not "posed" a certain way but not literal cartoon proportions, hand studies, or other things that someone could falsely flag as a "fetish"?

if a kid opens this site with their parents around, and there's art of someone in lingerie (which is literally underwear designed to be sexually appealing/alluring, per the dictionary definition of it) vs art of a large character looming over another with emphasis on say teeth, height, or a larger body type.... which one is going to get that kid in trouble? the image that looks like it's from an adult magazine, or the art that looks like something from Tom and Jerry?

Heck, which one would you rather your boss at work see? Someone in their underwear, or a motorcycle leather outfit? Someone in their underwear, or the personification of a country? Someone in their underwear, or a novice artist's beginner work?

Seriously, if the aim is to protect the children on this site and remove sexual content, there wouldn't be a convenient exception for as "long as it is not accompanied by a suggestive pose". 

texeoghea fully agree with you there!! Though as far as I can remember, this rule is NOT new and has been in place for awhile. Unfortunate how much emphasis they put on this rule update and then really all they did was make things more vague and confusing in many aspects. They should’ve waited until after the fight IMO.

i really think some of these new rules are a bit unnecessary. disregarding the fetish one entirely- the statement that shape brushes, like for trees or grass, result in a no background marker on an attack is a bit absurd to me. what brushes, exactly, would be banned? is it limited to natural shapes, or are brushes that create cities banned as well? and why? just because someone has a brush that makes grass doesnt mean that all effort is removed from the process, you would still have to put time and effort into creating something with those brushes. removing the ability to get points for something you put effort into just because you used assets feels very silly to me, especially if it were asset brushes someone made themself. i understand that using a photo as a background wouldnt gain any points, but i dont like the rule that you cant use asset brushes to make a background either. not everyone wants to strain themselves drawing very complicated and detailed things, some people's styles wouldn't mesh with that kind of technique, and i dont think any of those people should be inherently punished in some way via not being able to get points for it. that will just result in them not making any background at all to save themselves the effort, which will result in lower effort art, yet another thing that has been banned. what exactly qualifies as "low effort"? will the people who can't post anything "better" than sketches on paper taken with their phone be disqualified? these rules feel arbitrary to me. are there specific things mods are looking for when considering these rules? if there are users who are very competitive and serious when it comes to the points system, i feel like they are a minority in the userbase. the people ive seen on this site are here to have fun first, and win second, so this prioritizing of "quality" to the point of moderation seems counter-intuitive to me.

Am kinda tired of this topic, so have a hamster eating a carrot instead

Not sure if this is an oversight, but I noticed the Sensitive content filter guidelines rule on suicide related topics that ”healed scars of any kind don't require a filter” (emphasis mine) while the filters FAQ says ”Self-harm scars need a Sensitive Content filter.” These seem contradictory and would probably need a clarification on whether or not healed scars require a filter based on origin or not.

please dont remove my babies it isnt a kink or fetish i swear I just like giving them collars and stuff to match them. And some of my ocs have slightly reavling clothing but its just because they dress up like that for a reason. rethink this

I have some ocs with gore and I like gore and no one complained to me about it but now I fear my ocs with gore will be taken down and I don't want that

A lot of other people have already mentioned this and probably worded it better than I will, but I want to second my agreement on the new maturity rules being vague and problematic. Literally anything can be a fetish, and the new rules will only make fetish artists sneakier about posting their fetishes. As other people have said, why not instead allow mature content under a filter? Also as other people have said I'm worried perfectly innocent artists will be accused of violating the rules when they just have a particular style motif. Nonetheless guys I am very excited for Artfight this year, see ya'll at the reveal stream!!!!