Inkbunny

"	kadm wrote:
	The vast majority of 3D work has been disallowed on Inkbunny since creation, by intention.

"	kadm wrote:
	I think saying 3D art work will disappear from Inkbunny is hyperbolic.

These two statements are at odds with one another. If the 'vast majority' of 3D work is not allowed, but the policy was not properly enforced, then whenever you successfully enforce your policy, you will have eliminated the vast majority of 3D work currently on InkBunny, by intention.

Re: Attribution rules, I have no problem with requiring people to give credit where credit is due on the models they use. The provision about not using models ripped straight from copyrighted media also makes sense for legal reasons. The problem was always that since there was no 3D section of the ACP (due to renders being erroneously considered screenshots), the expectations on it were unknown. Nobody outside of IB's staff knew what was needed, yet administrative action was being taken regardless. That's been fixed, so now it's mostly a matter of clarifications and smoothing out the rough edges, like how if a model maker wishes to remain anonymous yet releases their model under a permissive license, it still can't be used on IB.

There's also the primary issue that Bacn has brought up in this journal:

"	Bacn wrote:
	2. These rules think of 3D art as a showcase for models, and not as images in and of themselves.

If InkBunny wants to remain firm in what it considers to be worthwhile 3D art, it can. It's your site and you can do whatever you want with it. But if IB magically got enough staff overnight to enforce the "you must have made the focal model yourself" rule (putting aside the attribution rule for the moment), how many submissions would be purged? What would be left? How many users would leave? And would InkBunny really be better off without them? These are the questions you should be contemplating because the community isn't arguing whether or not a broader scope of 3D art is allowed on IB, but whether or not it should be.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

@ Codelizard

"	These two statements are at odds with one another. If the 'vast majority' of 3D work is not allowed, but the policy was not properly enforced, then whenever you successfully enforce your policy, you will have eliminated the vast majority of 3D work currently on InkBunny, by intention.

Just going to pick at this a bit to ensure we're on the same page because I see these things as distinct statements.

The old policy (badly written, intermittently enforced due to staffing issues) disallowed almost all 3D content unless you made the models. But because we have been understaffed, this was only ever enforced as people reported things. Since the policy was unclear, we only really got reports from people that understood the policy from seeing explanations. And we'd occasionally act on adjacent people proactively, but for the most part, we'd act on a few instances and be done with it.

We have sufficient staff now that we could relatively trivially enforce the old policy. We could have simply said 'no 3D art'.

The new policy is at least going to allow some 3D artists to stay, and experience tells me that people will continue to stay where they can, if only for the specific types of content that we allow. There is another person working on a website, but if you've seen their draft, it's going to be essentially the same restrictions as what we've written, at least once we add provisions for animated and storyboard content.

We have enough staff to enforce the policy now. We've been notifying users for a few days of the attribution requirements and working through things. We acknowledge that some content will not survive, but as we view galleries and work through things, we're discussing what should stay and what should go. As I wrote above, I'm not a fan of policies getting more strict over time. I think in general it's best to start from a strict policy and then gradually loosen it, especially when Inkbunny has the tools to temporarily lock works, rather than deleting them outright. To my knowledge, we haven't deleted anyone's gallery outright while we're discussing expanding the rules. Several users have done it themselves, but we haven't. And if they change their minds or regret it, we'll make it easy for them to come back.

Fundamentally, I agree that a broader scope of 3D art should be allowed. Ultimately it will come down to what we can write clear, objective rules for, and that's why I want to engage with people.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	I want to hear specific problems

You didn't discuss the policy change with 3D artists, the people actually affected by the change.

Nobody announced the policy and enforcement changes before they started occurring.

You and other staff are attempting to sell the policy change as more lenient than the prior situation, when the ACP did not have any provision for 3D art previously and was enforced in a way that 3D art was allowed to exist to a degree it no longer is.

The new policy uniquely targets 3D art with regulations that have no analogues for 2D art or AI generation (I don't have to design my own CSP brush, but I do have to make my own character model).

The new policy is founded on a reasoning that is not applied to 2D art or AI generation (Code has generously provided an example of the "repetitive" justification).

The 3D policy in general is founded on a misunderstanding of 3D art that supposes that the model itself is the art and the scene is incidental to it - in reality, the reverse is true, as is the case with photography. The scene as a whole is the art, the subject itself is merely a piece of the art. 2D and AI are also not held to this standard.

As a result of said misunderstanding, the new policy requires 3D artists to possess either a skillset that is not related to the production of 3D art, or the financial means to buy a custom model, all for the privilege of uploading their art to a free website. Again, no other artform is held to this standard. I do not have to buy a license for a premium art program and a suite of custom brushes to begin uploading 2D art - I can just spend 20 minutes in MSPaint to produce something that exceeds staff's quality standards.

How's that for specific problems?

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	You didn't discuss the policy change with 3D artists, the people actually affected by the change.

We did in fact run drafts by a select few people in the 3D community. I don't really expect those people to speak up, because you'll probably just blame them. We had made enough changes in the new policy versus how we were reinforcing the old one that we were finding it difficult to discuss further changes without extra context, and most of us acknowledged (the announcement even does) that we'd be making more changes to allow content.

"	Nobody announced the policy and enforcement changes before they started occurring.

The site news item was posted before any enforcement of the updated policy began. We could have had a site banner as well, but it was a misunderstanding on my part that resulted in not asking for one. Sorry.

"	You and other staff are attempting to sell the policy change as more lenient than the prior situation, when the ACP did not have any provision for 3D art previously and was enforced in a way that 3D art was allowed to exist to a degree it no longer is.

We had an interpretation of the Screenshots policy which you do not agree with, but you cannot sit and pretend we had not been enforcing it that way for the entire life of the site. I do not care that you think we should not have. No matter how many times you say 'this doesn't apply to 3D', it does not change that we applied it to 3D. I'm just not going to engage with you if you cannot at least accept reality. It's not productive.

"	The new policy is founded on a reasoning that is not applied to 2D art or AI generation (Code has generously provided an example of the "repetitive" justification).

There are a number of motivations behind updating the policy. Mine personally is that the rules before were not clear, and disallowed too much. That's why I worked to expand what was explicitly allowed in the original revision, and keep discussing and modifying the rules to make the process less painful or more inclusive.

The 3D policy in general is founded on a misunderstanding of 3D art that supposes that the model itself is the art and the scene is incidental to it - in reality, the reverse is true, as is the case with photography. The scene as a whole is the art, the subject itself is merely a piece of the art. 2D and AI are also not held to this standard.

3D art using third party models takes things made by other people and utilizes them to create something more. But you are still taking something that other people made, and the vast majority of 3D artists submitting works to Inkbunny are not respecting the license or requirements of the pieces they are taking. That's definitely a part of the policy that is not changing. And while you may argue that AI does something similar, we require complete and total attribution for AI generators, to the point that someone can generate an identical piece. It is trivial to identify everything that went into AI works on Inkbunny.

As a result of said misunderstanding, the new policy requires 3D artists to possess either a skillset that is not related to the production of 3D art, or the financial means to buy a custom model, all for the privilege of uploading their art to a free website. Again, no other artform is held to this standard. I do not have to buy a license for a premium art program and a suite of custom brushes to begin uploading 2D art - I can just spend 20 minutes in MSPaint to produce something that exceeds staff's quality standards.

As I said in the comment you're replying to, there is a change in draft that will cover actual animated content and content that contains some sort of story or progression. Basically the only thing left out in the cold at that point will be completely independent single frame renders with no story and background, that also use only third party models with no modifications.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	We did in fact run drafts by a select few people in the 3D community.

That's not what you've said elsewhere. You said you didn't consult 3D artists, instead asking for them as part of a moderator recruitment drive and receiving no such applications.

"	Kadm wrote:
	The site news item was posted before any enforcement of the updated policy began. We could have had a site banner as well, but it was a misunderstanding on my part that resulted in not asking for one. Sorry.

Galleries were being removed as per updated enforcement before the policy change was made, and there was no notice that this change in enforcement was going to occur, nor was there any clarification on the policy in response to backlash at the time. It took more than six months to see anything.

"	Kadm wrote:
	We had an interpretation of the Screenshots policy which you do not agree with, but you cannot sit and pretend we had not been enforcing it that way for the entire life of the site.

It's not about what I think, it's about what I've seen on the site up until now. Whether the policy intended to functionally ban 3D art or not, it was not regularly enforced to remove 3D art, especially not 3D art made with unique models. That's just an observable fact. Any change to that is going to be stricter than prior enforcement.

And this is why I didn't believe you when you said you wanted to engage with people who have specific problems, because what I've done here is give you the chance to say, "Yes, we failed to enforce the prior policy the way it was supposed to be enforced, our bad." Gave you a chance to say something people might actually be able to respect a little bit. But you'd rather just call people delusional for having a problem with the way you people run your site.

"	Kadm wrote:
	But you are still taking something that other people made, and the vast majority of 3D artists submitting works to Inkbunny are not respecting the license or requirements of the pieces they are taking.

Indeed, and you'll notice that at no point did I actually complain about requiring attribution, at least not anymore now that that particular bit of the policy has been toned down from its initial overly-zealous wording. It's the whole rest of the policy, and the foundation it's built on, that has problems.

"	Kadm wrote:
	Basically the only thing left out in the cold at that point will be completely independent single frame renders with no story and background, that also use only third party models with no modifications.

But, again, why is 3D art unique in this respect? It's perfectly acceptable to have repetitive, visually-indistinct 2D art or AI generations - I can draw one outline, color it in a bunch of different ways, and post 1000 variants of that independently and be okay. Why is that not unacceptable, but doing the equivalent with 3D art specifically is?

And, what constitutes "no story and background"? Because, if not you, then other staff have certainly expressed that the intention of the 3D art rules is that the model itself is the art and the scene it's in is incidental. That conflicts with the idea that "story and background" makes a 3D piece artistically valid. Y'all are supposed to be working together on this, you gotta be on the same page. You can't have someone on your team enforcing a rule one way, with that one understanding, and then other people enforcing it a completely different way because they understand it differently. We can't have a rule that's enforced depending on how each individual moderator thinks "story and background" changes the artistic validity of a piece.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	That's not what you've said elsewhere. You said you didn't consult 3D artists, instead asking for them as part of a moderator recruitment drive and receiving no such applications.

I could have written this better, but I specifically said animators, and what I meant by that was people with animated works. We ran it past a few 3D creators and got their feedback, but when the topic of animation arose, we determined we really couldn't make sufficient rules without more information. My bad for phrasing that as I did. That's an entirely separate thing from wanting people versed in 3D work involved as staff, which was something I've been hoping for as far back as the first time we recruited in 2021.

"	Galleries were being removed as.....

If you're talking about what was removed in April, that was the result of new staff finishing catching up on our backlog and starting to go through things. When they started cleaning things up, we decided we were good to rework the policy and paused enforcement. I'm not aware of any galleries that we left deleted or locked at that time. I'm aware of users that chose to delete their own galleries in response.

Enforcement remained mostly paused until we made the announcement of the new policy.

"	It's not about what I think.....

I think you're really pushing a semantic argument to it's very limits. I will be very clear.

Yes, we failed to enforce the prior policy the way it was supposed to be enforced, our bad.

But, and this is important, I don't think that our failure necessitates that we allow things that we don't want to on the site. I am perfectly fine admitting that we made mistakes along the way these last fifteen years. I was not always in a position where that responsibility should solely rest upon me (there are other staff members), but I am definitely responsible. I could have worked faster and done more. Sorry.

"	But, again, why is 3D art unique in this respect?.....

I mean actually, if you had a ton of 2D art that was the same linework and just hundreds of variations, we would probably insist that it only be one submission with multiple files, or at least severely condensed. That's part of why that functionality exists.

I think regarding the 'story and background' you may be conflating parts of the discussion around how the old policy views things. We're definitely going to be actively discussing enforcement of these cases internally for some time, and a lot of these decisions will be by consensus. We'll come to find a place everyone is good with that we probably elaborate on, along the same lines of improvements we've made to errata for the human art work policy on the site.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	I'm aware of users that chose to delete their own galleries in response.

Nope, you're not getting away with more lies here either, especially not when invoking me:

https://inkbunny.net/j/580056#commentid_2884820

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Your gallery was restored, and you had the ability to unhide the submissions for six months until you recently deleted them because you wanted to persist in a lie. You chose not to.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	I could have written this better, but I specifically said animators, and what I meant by that was people with animated works. We ran it past a few 3D creators and got their feedback

But there's still a major problem here: this is hand-picked people in some private conversation that nobody can actually confirm happened. You guys did not announce any pending policy change and solicit opinions from the affected community. You're only scrambling to adjust the new ACP now because, as it turns out, not getting those ideas first is a bad idea. You've even admitted yourself you didn't have enough information to make this change, but it was pushed through anyway. There was a solution to that all along, and nobody thought of it.

"	Kadm wrote:
	But, and this is important, I don't think that our failure necessitates that we allow things that we don't want to on the site.

Indeed not, but as you can see, that was never my point. My point was that you're lying to people and telling them that this new policy is more lenient than the prior.

That is not the case, objectively, and for multiple reasons. First of all, because any intention to prohibit 3D art was not enforced, and so it was allowed de facto. But it was in fact never prohibited de jure either. It was never possible under any honest interpretation to read the old ACP in any way that would lead one to conclude that 3D art was supposed to be prohibited. The only section cited that was supposed to have applied was the Screenshots section, but not a single person who understands what a 3D render is would ever think that 3D art would be classified as screenshots.

That's my problem. That you and other staff are lying about how this new policy compares to the old, by lying about what the previous ACP said. It did not, in actual fact, have any wording prohibiting the uploading of 3D renders - as evidenced by the large number of 3D artists on the side, nobody seems to have interpreted it this way, except for staff who failed in their duty to make the ACP reflect the intended policy.

It doesn't matter what the intentions were, the actual real fact is that the ACP did not in any way mention 3D rendering, and nobody would ever logically interpret the old ACP in the apparently intended manner of "3D renders are screenshots", because they're not, and nobody who knows what a 3D render is would think they are. So you cannot honestly say that the new policy is more lenient than the old, unless you somehow believe that a 3D render is a screenshot. We know GreenReaper thinks they're on the same level. I would hope the other admins have more respect for artists than that.

"	Kadm wrote:
	I mean actually, if you had a ton of 2D art that was the same linework and just hundreds of variations, we would probably insist that it only be one submission with multiple files, or at least severely condensed.

GreenReaper seems to disagree with you on this. He's on record elsewhere having cited an account full of visually-repetitive posts as a specific example of something that's allowable, because the "it's not visually distinct enough" reasoning for banning premade 3D models evidently only applies to visual uniqueness between accounts, not within a single one.

So, one of you has to be wrong, which leads to another problem - the staff team doesn't seem to have one singular idea of what's acceptable and what isn't. That's a pretty serious issue when rules are being left up to interpretation. You guys should probably sit down and make sure you're all on the same page here.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	But there's still a major problem here: this is hand-picked people in some private conversation that nobody can actually....

I think you're reading this wrong. The news post we made clearly says we intended to make further changes. We all knew before we posted the policy that it would exclude some stuff we'd eventually want to allow. The backlash is not unexpected. Publicly, the vast majority of feedback we receive from 3D creators is 'you can't do that'. Not substantive, actionable stuff, just emotional response. I don't actually think the response would've been better if we had said we wanted feedback in advance publicly, especially if we had been clear that there were definitely going to be some people left behind.

I do really appreciate the people who have reached out to offer more than 'you can't do that'.

"	Indeed not, but as you can see, that was never my point....

Okay, let us assume for a moment that I concede all of what you said (for the record, I do not. Just because you use the word objective a number of times does not mean your view is actually objective).

But as a thought experiment, let us pretend that there was nothing at all before and everyone thought 3D submissions were allowed completely without restriction.

The new policy is now in place and you must deal with the reality of this. Even if I accept your subjective judgement and history, the fact of the matter is that the new policy is in place, and we have sufficient staff to enforce the policy. It will be enforced. We have said that we're open to expanding. You can keep pounding your version of history, or you can be productive.

I think it really stretches the imagination though to think that we would write a policy, explicitly say that we want to expand it, and then pretend that expanding it is a result of backlash. Obviously I cannot share verbatim but we were making adjustments and allowances for the policy until the day we launched it, trying to put more content in.

Regardless of what you believed, we sincerely believed in the policy as it was enforced (intermittently) since the time the site was created. We do not do this (updating the policy) out of malice, but out of a genuine desire to be more clear. We started from the point that we were already enforcing (and could have kept enforcing), and we're working from there.

Just because it's allowable does not mean we may not stipulate that it must be a single submission or at least condensed down. The thoughts are not exclusive.

We have a chat specifically for discussion of moderation action. There are things that we take individual action on as well, and inevitably GreenReaper can make his decisions and no one can stop him (though I may admonish strongly). It is inevitably his website to run, but if there is any question about how something should be handled, it generally comes up for discussion to reach a consensus. Note that our individual private comments are not a consensus and often contain our own thoughts. We have a special type of comment that is marked as a staff comment that is for more official things.

But overall I'm generally very comfortable with the level of communication that we enjoy. We have made mistakes, and when that happens we're generally quick to correct them.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	I think you're reading this wrong. The news post we made clearly says we intended to make further changes.

I read that perfectly well, and I don't care. You shouldn't be implementing new policy that hasn't received this feedback in advance. Whatever state the new ACP is going to arrive at, it should have been at that state before being made part of the effective rulebase, not in some scramble afterwards.

"	Kadm wrote:
	I don't actually think the response would've been better if we had said we wanted feedback in advance publicly, especially if we had been clear that there were definitely going to be some people left behind.

It doesn't matter if it would have been or not. That's just the way it's supposed to happen. And, since you're adjusting the new ACP in real time anyway, you would have gotten those changes done before the policy was actually put into effect.

"	Kadm wrote:
	The new policy is now in place and you must deal with the reality of this. Even if I accept your subjective judgement and history, the fact of the matter is that the new policy is in place, and we have sufficient staff to enforce the policy. It will be enforced.

But this doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. You and other staff have claimed that this new policy is more lenient than the prior. Both in writing and enforcement, that is objectively not true. The fact of the new policy is largely irrelevant. What's at issue here is the presentation of it as an improvement over before. It is objectively more restrictive than what the prior ACP was worded to say, and no amount of genuine belief in the prior ACP is going to change that it never said anything about 3D renders.

Literally the only thing I want out of staff on this topic is to just stop saying prior ACP prohibited 3D. Stop saying that this is anything other than an addition of rules that didn't exist before, and a tightening of a situation you thought was getting out of hand. Because that's what this is, and if you were presenting at as such, that'd have been respectable. But you haven't been. You've been lying.

"	Kadm wrote:
	Regardless of what you believed, we sincerely believed in the policy as it was enforced (intermittently) since the time the site was created.

Which once again leads to another massive problem with administration here. You guys will enforce rules that are not actually written down and that directly affect what people are allowed to even post. People were posting 3D art because staff are the only ones who ever thought you weren't allowed to do that. You can't have rules on a site that are enforced on the basis of an entirely made up meaning that exists nowhere in the text.

That's not a criticism of the current ACP. That's a criticism of how the entire staff operates, and until you acknowledge that that's what happened, the site will never be safe. Until someone's ready to admit that staff don't care about what's written down and will enforce rules based on what they want them to say instead of what they do say, everyone's work is at risk of deletion at all times based on what a moderator felt like that particular day. That's no way to run a site.

"	Kadm wrote:
	Note that our individual private comments are not a consensus and often contain our own thoughts.

But, again, if you're enforcing based on what any individual staff member thinks the ACP is supposed to say, rather than what it does, which is what you've said you're doing by virtue of defending the prior ACP as prohibiting 3D, this cannot be possible. You cannot have your own independent thoughts as staff. You must all be on the same page or something is critically wrong with the way the site is run, because if the rules aren't enforced strictly upon what they actually say, you'll have stuff getting removed arbitrarily because one random moderator interpreted the rules in some new unique way that nobody else agrees with but has no recourse.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	Regardless of what you believed, we sincerely believed in the policy as it was enforced (intermittently) since the time the site was created.

And because it wouldn't fit in the other comment, this is another gigantic problem when it comes to regulating 3D art, because it means the whole team was in agreement in their belief that 3D renders are screenshots. This is not true. This was never true. They are different things, and IB staff is and has been wrong. Factually. Objectively. I don't care if you don't like that I'm using that word, but there is objectively a difference between a 3D rendered scene and a screenshot of a video game.

The IB staff believe otherwise, but no 3D artist agrees with you. That's, again, why 3D art was posted, because literally not a single person would ever have read the old ACP and assumed that "screenshots" was referring to 3D renders, because they're entirely different things.

But if all IB staff genuinely believed it, then that means that you honestly believe that working for twelve hours to compose a scene, and spending another twelve rendering and processing it, is equivalent to loading up Second Life and pressing Print Screen within five minutes. You believe that there is no difference in the process or result between those two things, because both of them arbitrarily look similar by virtue of containing a 3D model. And you believe this genuinely, apparently.

But you know what? I genuinely do not give a single fuck what anyone genuinely believed, because if the staff genuinely believed that 3D renders are screenshots, then not a single person on staff has ever understood what a 3D render is. And that's why people are mad. Because nobody on staff even knows what they're making rules about. If you're going to continue conflating them with screenshots, then you have no business regulating them, and, honestly, you'd be better off just banning them entirely. Which is what you guys wanted in the first place; you've said the original intention was to not allow 3D, even though the rules never said it wasn't allowed.

And the thing is, someone on staff recognized this, even if only because people got mad about the change in enforcement a few months ago. Someone on staff actually does recognize that 3D renders and screenshots are not the same thing. Someone on staff figured out that you needed to have rules about 3D art if you wanted to actually enforce rules on 3D artists. Someone on staff figured out that you didn't have any rules about 3D art, because you only had one about screenshots, and 3D art doesn't fall under that category.

Someone on staff knows that what you're saying isn't true. So I have no idea why you're telling me that all of the staff were in agreement on your genuine belief that 3D renders and screenshots are the same thing, when obviously someone on staff recently looked at the prior ACP and said, "Wait, this doesn't have any rules on 3D art, that's why people are getting mad about the enforcement we're doing." Someone on staff looked at the prior ACP and said, "Wait, why are we nuking 3D artists' galleries? There's nothing in here that says what they're doing isn't allowed."

Someone understands.

But it's not you, apparently. You'd rather defend the prior ACP. You'd rather keep saying it prohibited 3D art, because you genuinely believe that 3D rendering is the same as taking a screenshot.

I've given you many chances to admit that you and other staff were mistaken in your prior belief. You've doubled down at every opportunity, so I have no reason to believe you or anyone else on staff is actually going to treat 3D artists fairly going forward, because you still believe that their work takes no more effort and has no more artistic merit than pressing Print Screen.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Okay, so I can just assume that you have no actual feedback that would inform policy going forward? Just complaints and semantic arguments about a now defunct policy. Because I'm not going to respond to that blob of words, especially the parts that are your fanfiction about how this process worked. You have a grievance, and your feelings, perhaps even a bunch of 3D creators feelings are hurt. I'm sorry about that. But nothing is going to change about your hurt feelings.

The intent when we made the site was that people that made models and avatars be able to display them, and not much more than that. We're changing that now, allowing 3D content a space that it did not officially have before. The only mention of models and avatars in the ACP before was specifically disallowing display of them if they weren't by or for you. There are rules now, and they are relatively clear.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	Kadm wrote:
	Because I'm not going to respond to that blob of words

Of course you're not. You can't. You cannot stand on the merits of what has transpired, so you're shutting it down. Again. Thanks for playing.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

You're welcome to continue complaining all you like. I'm sure at least some 3D creators will start complying with the new requirements, and we'll see those users exist for the first time in a sanctioned, well defined manner.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	Kadm wrote:
	Because I'm not going to respond to that blob of words

I don't deal with feelings. I deal with facts.

The fact is, you asked for specific problems people had. You asked for detailed grievances.

And, in fact, I provided you specific problems. I detailed my grievances as thoroughly as I am able within 4000 characters. And the fact is that you have rejected every attempt at rational conversation. You are unwilling to face the facts I have presented. You have been provided with exactly what you asked for, and are unwilling to engage with it. You wanted detailed problems, and now you won't engage because I went into too much detail.

The fact is, you are either unwilling or unable to engage in rational debate. You were given every opportunity to engage honestly, and have rebuffed them at every turn by attacking my character and lying about myself and my position. It is clear that you do not have any interest in addressing this or any topic in a constructive manner, and therefore I will not be wasting any further time on you.

I will not be responding again except in receipt of a sincere apology for your behavior throughout this thread and elsewhere.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

I am sorry. There was not a space officially for 3D creators on Inkbunny before this. We did not scope 3D works outside of custom models when we created the site. We have long recognized this as an issue, but not had the bandwidth to deal with it. We did now, and we're making space for 3D creators. We recognize that 3D art is more than just a screenshot. I'm sorry that you were hurt by the previous enforcement.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	I think you're reading this wrong. The news post we made clearly says we intended to make further changes.

Irrelevant. You're removing galleries under what is there currently. Nobody really cares that you'll be changing the policy to get even more galleries later.

"	Publicly, the vast majority of feedback we receive from 3D creators is 'you can't do that'. Not substantive, actionable stuff, just emotional response.

Artists are emotional that years of work is being removed suddenly, out of nowhere, with no timed warning and no actual remedy. That reaction is normal. The claim that the feedback isn't substantive or actionable Is false. The actionable feedback is "you can't do that." You cannot abruptly delete years of work without warning. You cannot enforce a policy retroactively that wasn't published. You cannot claim this was always the rule when the ACP contained no such restriction.

If the question is "What action should we take," the answer has always been consistent: Reverse this.

That is the fix. Every artist involved has been saying this.

"	I don't actually think the response would've been better if we had said we wanted feedback in advance publicly, especially if we had been clear that there were definitely going to be some people left behind.

So the process is this:

Consult no one, give no advance notice to anyone, remove an entire medium of artwork, then point to the shock you created as justification for not consulting anyone.

That isn't "the response wouldn't have been better." That's manufactured confusion. That's a situation created by the lack of communication, then used as retroactive justification. The problem here is not the artists' reactions. The problem is deliberate absence of transparency that guarantees the reaction.

My point was that you're lying to people and telling them that this new policy is more lenient than the prior.

That is not the case, objectively, and for multiple reasons. First of all, because any intention to prohibit 3D art was not enforced, and so it was allowed de facto. But it was in fact never prohibited de jure either. It was never possible under any honest interpretation to read the old ACP in any way that would lead one to conclude that 3D art was supposed to be prohibited.

"	Okay, let us assume for a moment that I concede all of what you said (for the record, I do not. Just because you use the word objective a number of times does not mean your view is actually objective).

His view being objective is what makes his view objective. BottleOfSake is correct. Reasons below.

"	But as a thought experiment, let us pretend that there was nothing at all before and everyone thought 3D submissions were allowed completely without restriction.

There was nothing at all before. There were no restrictions on 3D renders in the ACP prior to Nov. 24. Here's the archived ACP and a correct interpretation for reference- be sure to "ctrl+f" the terms '3D' and 'render' in the ACP and note that both terms have zero hits:
https://wiki.inkbunny.net/w/index.php?title=ACP&old...
https://inkbunny.net/j/580056#commentid_2884820

"	The new policy is now in place and you must deal with the reality of this.

That's fine. But you don't get to use a new policy as absolution for what happened beforehand.

You and the staff still have to deal with your reality:
You wronged me and many other artists.

Policy created after does not rewrite what happened.
It doesn't turn past actions into justified ones retroactively.

"	You can keep pounding your version of history, or you can be productive.

The irony is remarkable.
The group currently doing the most damage to the site is lecturing some who is offering clear, reasoned criticism about being "productive." As a pejorative, no less.

Calling an honest, documented retelling of events "his version" of history does not make it less true.
Dismissing criticism as unproductive does not make it less valid.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	There was nothing at all before. There were no restrictions on 3D renders in the ACP prior to Nov. 24. Here's the archived ACP and a correct interpretation for reference- be sure to "ctrl+f" the terms '3D' and 'render' in the ACP and note that both terms have zero hits:

Lemme just ask, is there another digital medium that uses models or avatars? Or would it be reasonable to infer that when we wrote Screenshots, the intent was that mediums that used models or avatars were what we meant?

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Video games, such as Second Life or VRChat. Which is something that one can take screenshots of. The restriction of which is valid under the Screenshot policy.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

At the time the site was made, we intended SL and Gmod. And when the question came to SFM, we determined it was 'other software', which is also mentioned in the same section. You can be offended, but that's what we considered applied, and that's how it was enforced. Surely you saw it over the years.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

"	Kadm wrote:
	At the time the site was made, we intended SL and Gmod. And when the question came to SFM, we determined it was 'other software', which is also mentioned in the same section. You can be offended, but that's what we considered applied, and that's how it was enforced.

See, now you're running in circles. But I thank you for proving my point for me. I've already made this perfectly clear in the link attached to the very thing you're quoting:

"	3D RENDERS. ARE. NOT. SCREENSHOTS. A render is not something you hit "print screen" on. It takes hours to compile. It is a generated image, explicitly not a screenshot. It does not fall under this policy, it never did. Enforcement of it, as such, was arbitrary, inaccurate, invalid.

Segments from old ACP, re: "Screenshots:"

"	No screenshots from games or other software unless they show your own artwork or creations.

"	No screenshots from games or other software

"	Your creations in the screenshot must be original and not just modifications of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the software or that you purchased from other creators.

"	Your creations in the screenshot must be original

"Screenshot" is the subject. "Screenshot" is the point of reference. Not "games or other software." Not "standard avatars, models, templates."

At no point is any medium outside of specifically screenshots mentioned, even in allusion. It doesn't matter what program it's from. It only matters whether or not it is a screenshot. And 3D renders are not. That is an objective fact.

"Screenshots means 3D renders." > Why?
"Because that's what we intended." > Where was that written?
"It wasn't, this is how we interpreted it. > Then how were users supposed to know?
"Because we enforced it that way." > Based on what written policy?
"Screenshots." > But 3D renders are not screenshots.
"Screenshots means 3D renders."

That loop is the problem here. You cannot enforce an unpublished interpretation and then, years later, point to your own private enforcement history to justify that the interpretation must have been correct all along. That's exactly what arbitrary enforcement means.

"	Surely you saw it over the years.

That's not an argument. A policy is not made legitimate by staff silently deciding that their personal interpretations are the real one and then selectively enforcing it without any kind of transparency. If a policy cannot be understood by reading it, it is not a policy. As I've said to you elsewhere:

"	Your policy only applies in so much that it is policy. Policy cannot mean what it does not say. To willfully misinterpret policy, as an enforcer of policy, amounts to arbitrary enforcement, which has no legitimacy.

If enforcement requires secret internal definitions, then it is not legitimate. That's the issue here.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	If enforcement requires secret internal definitions, then it is not legitimate. That's the issue here.

Okay. Then it's legitimate now, right?

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Owner

https://inkbunny.net/j/580509#commentid_2885112

"	The new policy is now in place and you must deal with the reality of this.

Kadm wrote:

"	If enforcement requires secret internal definitions, then it is not legitimate. That's the issue here.

Okay. Then it's legitimate now, right?

Nice pivot. But sure.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Okay. See the apology above in the thread. I don't believe there's any making it up to you. Your gallery was restored, and you chose to re-hide it and eventually delete it because you were mad. Can't fix that.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Kadm wrote:

You mean this, to BottleOfSake? Yeah, lying further in an apology does not make an apology. There was no official space for 3D creators on Inkbunny? Yes there was, and it's called The Inkbunny Philosophy: https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/The_Inkbunny_Philosophy

"	We strive to create a community that is open, vibrant and growing. We consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority.

No one has the right to harass anyone for their tastes or the content of artwork they post on Inkbunny. Inkbunny encourages a community where people of all artistic interests can co-exist, focused on furry art and fiction. The community attitude is one of acceptance of the widest possible range of views and ideas, as long as they do not encourage hate and intolerance.

Furthermore, in response to your "apology":

"	We recognize that 3D art is more than just a screenshot.

Yet you keep bringing it up. You keep saying that the actions of the past were justified based on the interpretation that 3D renders were considered screenshots. Either this was just or unjust. It cannot be both, or either depending on what's convenient.

Kadm

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Even if it was unjust, there's nothing more you're going to get beyond an apology and assistance in restoring anything that was removed. We're not going to allow more content than we feel comfortable with moderating just for the sake of making you feel better. The Philosophy is what it is, but we have a number of content restriction in the ACP. No human art. Limited photography. Rules against tracing. Rules against just taking other people's work or characters and using them on your own. The Philosophy does not cancel out that we have restrictions.

Bachri

5 months, 2 weeks ago

link

"	Kadm wrote:
	there's nothing more you're going to get beyond an apology

I haven't gotten any apology, from you or anyone else at any point during this saga, but thank you for at least thinking about it.

"	Kadm wrote:
	We're not going to allow more content than we feel comfortable with moderating just for the sake of making you feel better.

You really don't get what this is about, do you? Let me spell it out.
https://inkbunny.net/j/580056#commentid_2884827

"	Whatever man. Go blast some more 3D artists and show how unwelcome we are. Just stop lying to people or I'll keep having to highlight it for them so they aren't blindsided like you tried to do here.

I'm not doing this because I'm angry. I'm angry, sure, but that's not the reason. If it were just about me, I'd still be silently stewing over in Discord and trying to rebuild.

I'm doing this because what happened to me is still happening. I'm doing this- finding the lies by you and other staff members- to make sure the people you're affecting know the record. To let them know that there's a history of this administrative abuse. You can stop me right now by just abstaining from lying to people. That's all you have to do; just stop lying and I'll stop correcting the record.

And as long as I'm on this line:

"	Kadm wrote:
	We're not going to allow more content than...

Strawman. Never asked you to allow more content, only for honesty about past enforcement and consistency.

"	Kadm wrote:
	The Philosophy is what it is...

The Philosophy is the foundation of Inkbunny, its identity, its promise to its userbase. It exists specifically to set expectations about the community's values. It exists specifically to frame how things work on this site.

It's shameful that you do not seem to appreciate this.

"	Kadm wrote:
	... but we have a number of content restrictions in the ACP. No human art. Limited photography. Rules against tracing. Rules against just taking other people's work or characters and using them on your own.

The difference being, these are all clearly written in the ACP. They exist as explicit rules that users can actually read. They have no hidden interpretations that I can see. They don't rely on the personal intent of the staff. They don't rely on retroactive interpretation.

"	Kadm wrote:
	The Philosophy does not cancel out that we have restrictions.

Who said it does? Please, point out where I said that the Philosophy overrides the ACP. I don't think I did.
I believe that what I said was that, in response to the claim that 3D artists never had a space prior to the new policies, the Philosophy is what creates that space given its insistence on freedom of expression for all artistic interests. This is not in conflict with the ACP.

This is yet another reframing of the discussion.

But that's enough from me. I've made my point several times throughout this chain, I feel that it's run it's course and is no longer of use toward my intent. If you want to answer in what way I claimed that the Philosophy overrides the ACP (it does not, by the way) then feel free. Until then, you'll probably next see me if I should spot you lying to people again.

sharmee

3 months, 4 weeks ago

link