Is foreshortening and focal perspective being taken into account at all or does that not apply here for some reason?
We do not need comments that mirror the passive-aggressive attitude of the appeal on this post. Please find merit in the post to comment about instead of attacking the flagger.
We do not need comments that mirrors the passive-aggressive attitude of the appeal on this post. Please find merit in the post to comment about instead of attacking the flagger.
You have an odd idea of what passive-aggressive is, especially in the face of ignoring another comment right above mine that directly attacks another user.
My question only addresses the flag reason and it is sincere one: The only way for the flag reason to be valid is for it to disregard the context of the illustration. Unless there is something I missed?
Lets not even talk about how the first flag is able to compare waist:hip ratio when there's no visible waist at all due to perspective.
You have an odd idea of what passive-aggressive is, especially in the face of ignoring another comment right above mine that directly attacks another user.
My question only addresses the flag reason and it is sincere one: The only way for the flag reason to be valid is for it to disregard the context of the illustration. Unless there is something I missed?
Lets not even talk about how the first flag is able to compare waist:hip ratio when there's no visible waist at all due to perspective.
If you dropped your vendetta against the flag reasoning, it wouldn’t be passive-aggressive anymore. I’d also recommend being specific instead of making vague comments about the flag.
If you dropped your vendetta against the flag reasoning, it wouldn’t be passive-aggressive anymore. I’d also recommend being specific instead of making vague comments about the flag.
There is nothing vindictive, passive-aggressive nor vague about my question. Quite the opposite, actually.
If you can offer any insight about the issues with this image that can help me understand it, that'd be constructive and welcome. If nothing else, I'd prefer not to have my comments wildly interpreted with malicious intent.
Flagger: this is a bad hip-waist ratio and completely non-anatomica , Appealer: Nuh-uh actually it's good
You: [comment worth even less than the flag, the appeal, and any comment that followed]
Unless you have something to actually add about the flag or the appeal @chinatsu, consider staying out of the comments entirely and keeping things like this to yourself.
You: [comment worth even less than the flag, the appeal, and any comment that followed]
Unless you have something to actually add about the flag or the appeal @chinatsu, consider staying out of the comments entirely and keeping things like this to yourself.
@Apollyon I dare to question why you are attacking the first flagger on this post? I thought flags and appeals should be seperated from the person who performed the action, especially when you aren't able to see who flagged the post (Ignoring something implies to me that the flagger is at fault). Howto:Deletion Appeals:
Be Polite. The Deletion Appeal process follows the same rule policy of politeness which the other Forums and Comments follow.
Saying the flagger ignored something to pull through your point that the image is still good enough is "senseless aggravation" to me (howto:comment).
There are tons of way to express concerns about the flag without mentioning the flagger, much less attacking, since if that's done toxic environment is created and this helps no one. It only inflicts further frustration for everyone.
And before I make it sound one-sided: @chinatsu 's comment doesn't really help, either.
There is nothing vindictive, passive-aggressive nor vague about my question. Quite the opposite, actually.
If you can offer any insight about the issues with this image that can help me understand it, that'd be constructive and welcome. If nothing else, I'd prefer not to have my comments wildly interpreted with malicious intent.
The anatomical problems are explained in the flags. There’s no further explanation required. Please stop taking factual statements I make as personal attacks on you.
The anatomical problems are explained in the flags.
Thanks. But that doesn't address my question at all nor does it offer any additional insight.
Please stop taking factual statements I make as personal attacks on you.
You misunderstood me. I don't feel personally attacked by you. What I meant was that your accusations about my comments being made with malicious intent towards the flagger are way off the mark.
All I did was ask a simple question about the flag rationale to seek further clarification. It accomplishes two things: The answer can further strengthen the flag reason and I can learn something from it. People do it all the time when flags seem especially confusing to them, so I don't see how my conduct here can be interpreted as ill-spirited.
Thanks. But that doesn't address my question at all nor does it offer any additional insight.
You misunderstood me. I don't feel personally attacked by you. What I meant was that your accusations about my comments being made with malicious intent towards the flagger are way off the mark.
All I did was ask a simple question about the flag rationale to seek further clarification. It accomplishes two things: The answer can further strengthen the flag reason and I can learn something from it. People do it all the time when flags seem especially confusing to them, so I don't see how my conduct here can be interpreted as ill-spirited.
@Squishy The problem I have with your question is that you already seem to have in mind that the flag (written by me) ignores something. Meaning your first half-sentence already doubts the credibility of the flag. I think that's what @ceres considers as extremely off-putting. I can't tell if that happens on other images as well, but maybe you might want to slow down a bit, since your questions are more like suggestive questions .
@Squishy The problem I have with your question is that you already seem to have in mind that the flag (written by me) ignores something. Meaning your first half-sentence already doubts the credibility of the flag. I think that's what @ceres considers as extremely off-putting. I can't tell if that happens on other images as well, but maybe you might want to slow down a bit, since your questions are more like suggestive questions .
Your flags are ignoring the perspective and foreshortening that's been taken into consideration. There is no visible waist to make a waist/hip comparison, so that flag is needlessly petty, and the smallish arms/head is because her upper torso is further into the distance compared to her lower torso forcing a size difference by way of visual perspective. On top of that while her neck isn't visible, just like her waist, her head doesn't look "disconnected" to her body at all.
also, your passive aggressive responses are really not helping, Acting like a smartass never solves anything.
Ah, okay. That clears things up. I apologize if my question seemed rude or insulting, that was never my intent.
As I mentioned earlier, I raised attention regarding foreshortening and perspective because (for me) that would explain why the upper anatomy is drawn the way it was in relation to the ass focus. I could only see what the flag rationale was getting at if I disregarded those two things. I also left an open ended remark incase there was something else I overlooked and to avoid making a leading question.
To be clear, I -am- doubting the flag by asking if a factor was missed in the evaluation. That should be a reasonable concern to raise given my above explanation. I certainly would not take offense if people did the same to me by highlighting something I might have missed. Flaggers are people too and aren't infallible.
For what it's worth, I don't think there was a better way for me to word the question. I certainly would if that means I can get answers and not off-put other people.
