case: ([ Mori; ... ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2008-02-20 05:23 pm

[ SECRET POST #411 ]


⌈ Secret Post #411 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.


__________________________________________________



2.


__________________________________________________



3.


__________________________________________________



4.


__________________________________________________



5.


__________________________________________________



6.


__________________________________________________



7.


__________________________________________________



8.


__________________________________________________



9.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________



25.


__________________________________________________



26.


__________________________________________________



27.


__________________________________________________



28.


__________________________________________________



29.


__________________________________________________



30.


__________________________________________________



31.


__________________________________________________



32.


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36.


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________



41. [ repeat ]


__________________________________________________



42.


__________________________________________________



43.


__________________________________________________



44.


__________________________________________________



45.


__________________________________________________



46.


__________________________________________________



47.


__________________________________________________



48.


__________________________________________________



49.


__________________________________________________



50.


__________________________________________________



51.


__________________________________________________



52.


__________________________________________________



53.


__________________________________________________



54.


__________________________________________________



55.


__________________________________________________



56.


__________________________________________________



57.


__________________________________________________



58.


__________________________________________________



59.


__________________________________________________



60.


__________________________________________________



61.


__________________________________________________



62.


__________________________________________________



63.


__________________________________________________



64.


__________________________________________________



65.


__________________________________________________



66.


__________________________________________________



67.


__________________________________________________



68.


__________________________________________________



69.


__________________________________________________



70.


__________________________________________________



71. [ repeat ]


__________________________________________________



72.


__________________________________________________



73.


__________________________________________________





Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 150 secrets from Secret Submission Post #059.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 ] broken links, [ 1 ] not!secrets, 0 not!fandom, [ 1 ] too big, [ 1 2 3 ] repeats.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Thursday, February 21st, 2008.
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:23 am (UTC)(link)
uh, no. If they banned and kicked people for posting content they don't like, they'd be devart. OH WAIT.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
Or how about, if they banned and kicked people for posting content that's clearly against the rules (like, I dunno...traces, copies, het?) or for being underage members on a porn site, they'd be...gasp...responsible?

There's plenty of content they don't like, but as long as it's not in violation of the rules, it stays. SHOCKING.

Core of comment is thus: The creators of Y!Gallery are not responsible for your fun. Poor baby.

Wah wah wah, lurk moar.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:33 am (UTC)(link)
Dude, all I said is it would be nice if they were more flexible. As in, the rules could be more flexible. You're the one throwing a fit.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:40 am (UTC)(link)
There's the thing, though, and a major point I think you're missing. The rules can be more flexible, sure, but Y!Gallery, as the themed gallery it's intended to be, would cease to exist. That's why the rules are as they are.

I'm not throwing a fit, I'm actually kinda amused that people seem to not understand why a specifically themed gallery--shockingly enough--wouldn't want content that negates that theme. If you don't like that they insist content follows that them, go somewhere else. And if that somewhere else doesn't exist, make it. And if you don't have the resources to make it, then quit bitching. It's really that simple.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
No, actually, you're the one missing the point. You never asked which rule(s) I wish could be more flexible, you only assumed. I don't think that having a woman in a "featured or central position" in a picture that also features hot guys in any way makes the hot guys less important, as long as nothing sexual is going on. For instance group pics of, say, the main characters of Digital Devil Saga or another series that features several guys and one or two females. Saying that any females have to be in the background eliminates a lot of really nice group pics. If focusing on hot guys is the important part (which I think it should be), then women simply being present in the same picture doesn't exactly threaten that.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:56 am (UTC)(link)
No, hon, you're still missing the point.

Y!Gallery is a gallery for males and the male figure. Whether or not females are "threatening" the "hotness" of the picture or not, as you put it is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they are not male and therefore don't fit in with the intended content of the gallery.

(And DDS, with it's limited female cast was a really bad choice of example there, mihi. If you're going to talk group images, pick a series that has a lot of female characters, rather than two core ones. The example would be more effective with something where the gender ratio is more equal.)

FWIW, the particular rule you elaborated on is precisely the one I pegged as being the one to give you the greatest offense, so woohoo, go me, I guess.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
No, I chose DDS for exactly that reason. If the women are in the minority, there is no logical reason a picture should be rejected for their presence. But being in the minority is not enough, they have to be in the background. And that's just silly, I don't care what you say, it is.

Also, you use the term "offense" pretty lightly. I am in no way offended by this rule. I think it's silly.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 01:23 am (UTC)(link)
Give me examples, specific examples, of pictures that have been removed from Y!gallery simply because the women are not "in the background". The ToS clearly states that women are allowed, provided they are not the central focus.

This submission contains a woman, and is still quite comfortably on the site. The same is true of this (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/353085/) submission (oh no! boobs!) and this one.

These women are not in the background (and in the case of one, she's only half-clothed, and another is--gasp--interacting!), so I find your accusation that pictures will be rejected if women are not 'in the background' to be ridiculous.
(http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/388900/)
(http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/388326/)
()

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 01:34 am (UTC)(link)
It's kind of hard to provide specific examples of things that are not on the site anymore. I've been on the site for years, furthermore, so asking for me to remember specifics of every "sorry my pic got deleted, it was reported for estrogen" incident I've seen is a bit much. They kinda blur in with the "just slightly too anthro" or "too sketchy" ones.

And all that those pictures still being there means is that no one has decided to report them. Like eBay and LJ, y!gallery relies on reports/complaints.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 01:54 am (UTC)(link)
Then, please, upload some examples to Photobucket (or Imageshack, or Tinypic, I'm really not picky as to provider). I'd like to see them. I'm not asking for every one, just a few. Three or four.

I'd also like to note that this example (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/353085/) (and I do apologise for my HTML oops above) has been on the site since late 2007. Here (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/145743/) is another image with a female in it (rather prominently!) from 2006, if you'd prefer something a little older than last November. This one (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/154280/) has a female rather clearly in the foreground with a second in the back. And here (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/147688/) are another pair of females. And a third (http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/179203/) pair of women, clearly involved in the action, this time. These pictures have not been taken down precisely because they do not violate the ToS.

A picture being reported does not mean it is removed from the site, besides. It only means that it's been reported. A great many reported pictures (and I'd be glad to link you to some of those, as well) were wrongly reported, and promptly restored by the moderators.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 02:00 am (UTC)(link)
Honestly, that's a lot of work over one small comment I made that you decided to make a big deal out of. It was a relatively neutral comment, and frankly I wish I hadn't made it because you and the other commentor are pitching fits and giving me a headache. There's a lot more people in this post who feel a lot more strongly about this issue than I do, one way or the other, so please go argue with them. I'm done. I'm way too old for this kind of thing.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 02:05 am (UTC)(link)
Really, I'm not asking much. You made a statement. I countered it. You made a new claim. I asked for proof, while providing proof of my own counterclaim. It takes five minutes at best (even coding all those links didn't take me but five minutes, and that was even while making dinner and being otherwise distracted), and honestly, the fact that you can't even give me one example is hurting your argument. I hardly consider asking you to back up your arguments 'pitching a fit'.

Re: 56

[identity profile] srsfnbsns.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 01:31 am (UTC)(link)
You think it's silly... Guess what? It's not your site! You don't have the right to post whatever you want. As wodhaund has pointed out, it's a themed gallery. That theme is males. They want you to post males. They're being generous with allowing the occasional female in. I don't know why you feel that you are ENTITLED to be able to post whatever you want. You're not. It isn't your site. It's a site that allows you the privilege of posting your male themed art into a receptive environment. If you don't have a lot of that, don't post there. It's really simple.

I think you're taking it too personally, like you're being snubbed or something, but that's not it. Let's provide an example. You join a landscape gallery. You can only post landscapes there. But you have this gorgeous landscape photo with a person in it, thus making it a portrait. Should you post it? Should you feel insulted if you do and it gets taken down? No, because the point of the gallery is landscapes and a pretty as your picture is, it's a portrait. It's nothing personal, it's just business.

Re: 56

[identity profile] roseargent.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
That's a heck of a big assumption you're making, there. I don't post females on the site because, guess what? I don't post anything on the site. It's kind of hard to feel "snubbed" when I'm, you know, not an artist; I'd love to be able to draw, but I can't, and I don't think anyone needs to be subjected to my stickfigure art. I'm on y!gallery to look at art, that's all. I'd like to be able to look at art that happens to involve the occasional female, as long as the men are still the main focus. That's all there is to it.

Re: 56

[identity profile] srsfnbsns.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 02:13 am (UTC)(link)
Wow. Ironic. You don't even post, but you're arguing to have people post to your tastes. That just makes you sound like more of an entitlement whore. It's not Roseargent's personal eyecandy gallery.

Re: 56

[identity profile] wodhaund.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 02:08 am (UTC)(link)
Totally unrelated, but honest to god, even though I'm 9000000000000% sure you're using a sock puppet, your icon and your username (and your offered cookies) are cracking me the hell up, SO IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER JOURNAL, YOU SHOULD TOTALLY ADD ME WITH IT isweari'mawesome.

Re: 56

[identity profile] srsfnbsns.livejournal.com 2008-02-21 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Over 9000000000000?!? Hmm, the odds are good that you're correct.

I'm probably not as interesting in rljl. I don't want to ruin your illusions of my awesomeness D=