Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

TomatoNLettuce

Soggy Member
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

My Kinks

  • I'm into..
    Bathroom Control
    Cuddling

Recent Profile Visitors

10,545 profile views

TomatoNLettuce's Achievements

  1. This is a remake of a 2013 video. The "messing" version people are thinking of is actually a re-imagining that Omoani made back in 2015, similarly featuring a student accident during graduation. It's called "ぎゅるぎゅる動画 卒業式" in this archive on their Ci-en page. This doesn't contain messing despite the scatology tag on DLSite, which appears to have been added by mistake given their last major animation was a messing one.
  2. There's far too little messing content to warrant an entire new section compared to diapers and furries. It's similar to free-peeing or adult-baby content. People who exclusively enjoy these topics already exclusively search for the tags... A tag blacklist feature would make far more sense to help filter those out. I believe they're working on it already.
  3. For future reference, there's no need to share poorly-censored content featuring children to "prove" anything, as that simply increases exposure to the content. If the Youtube playlist gets removed, the videos can still be re-discovered thanks to your screenshot displaying the title, uploader, views, upload date and thumbnail! You should only speak out publicly if your reports go unfulfilled.
  4. It takes a human with a tool to create art, no matter the tool... Even splashing a canvas randomly with paint is art, if only because a human was involved. The argument is that a separate gallery for art created with a specific tool is unnecessary since it can be tagged appropriately, which also applies for any medium like 3D renders or hand-drawn sketches. The problem with the spamming appears to be solved, so this suggestion thread is complete. I already made a thread for discussions a while back if you have anything more to add.
  5. I said they aren't affiliated with the website as in they are not representative of the community culture, not that there are no people like that here. If it's important to you and you're absolutely certain they're the same people, you should definitively call them out to the admins of this website to get them banned. This form of punishment may or may not improve their behavior, but it's the least we can do to foster a healthy community culture. You specifically mentioned that you don't care whether non-fetish material gets shared, which renders the entire complaint about hypocrisy moot. You want to stop creepy posts from hurting the fetish's reputation instead of hurting the unsuspecting original posters...
  6. TikTok came around when this website improved moderation, allowing videos to be properly checked instead of removed at the slightest mention of "unstaged", but have you considered the possibility that the community culture changed to be more willing, less strict, etc.? And now with Youtube's stricter policy and alternative video-hosting websites, Youtube videos generally don't get shared as often anymore. The perceived bias is a false impression. Just a reminder that people who go out of their way harassing others are not affiliated with this website or community. It's a morally-gray area to search for and share non-sexual content on a fetish forum even if nobody bothers the original posters, but the community is clear and consistent with where they draw the line. There isn't much we can do about harassment outside the website.
  7. Are the moderators aware that a very small number of users are spamming the galleries with dumps of AI-generated content? If there's a genuine demand for AI dumps then it makes sense to create a separate gallery to stop them from clogging the main gallery, otherwise it's simple enough to restrict or remove those users' uploads. Either way I believe it's important to deal with them for causing so much headaches in such a way that doesn't kill AI-assisted content completely. It's an open secret that one specific user is posting way more AI-generated content than others but I'm surprised we haven't done anything about it yet.
  8. There's one star in the solar system (the sun) and two hydrogen atoms in water (H2O). The post is correct, but intentionally worded to invoke confusion. Notably, some people may not know the difference between a solar system and a galaxy, especially if they aren't interested in astronomy. Although it makes sense for people to feel it's wrong at a first glance, it's rather unfortunate that many people's default response are to state it is incorrect without second thought and even insult others under their false assumption that the statement is obviously incorrect. However, the lack of effort in providing thoughtful comment is a consequence of how social media is structured for immediate gratification. I hesitate to lose faith in humanity because there's still a chance for us to regulate and improve social media and media companies in general. There doesn't appear to be much progress on this, though...
  9. For the sake of keeping things organized, I'm moving my response to an appropriate thread. The article in question is linked here for those who are curious. This response to the article strikes me as odd. Not only have you not specified which parts you disagree with, you criticized the art that he generated for the sake of spacing out his article instead of his actual argument. You go as far as to insult his art for being bland without considering the possibility that he had no intention of creating masterpieces and had fun generating them. His article doesn't even tackle the ethics of AI, instead bringing up an interesting perspective on originality, inherited skills, and forced hardship. It's a refreshing read, and I even recommend reading some of his other articles on topics such as the impact of AI on trust or our growing intolerance of errors. I'm really curious to hear what specific parts of the article you disagree with so I can understand the stance of a traditional artist on originality and anything else he brought up in the article.
  10. Thanks for not addressing my post... What about the part where I mentioned there was controversy calling photography and digital imagery "art", as in people genuinely didn't like to call it art back when the techniques first spread? Who decides what counts as an appropriate amount of "artistic skill" for something to count as art anyways? This quote from this article describes this better than I can, so I'll share it here: If AI is too easy to use to the point that it doesn't count, then prove it by generating a masterpiece. Apparently 3 users are spamming the gallery with AI art and people are calling to restrict all of AI art for all users, which is not a form of discrimination. Voicing my concern for this type of behavior makes me an AI evangelist, not responding well to criticisms such as "AI artists are lazy because I said so" and "AI artists are incapable of originality because trust me" and "AI is theft because this article explains it somewhere". If you must absolutely need me to say it outright, I'll say it: AI artists are not a marginalized group. I'll also admit that many AI artists are lazy and use AI for false endorsement and unsolicited porn. Note that the original post was all about dealing with spammers and I personally don't believe creating an entire section for them to continue spamming is a wise idea, but we kinda swayed from that. I created another thread specifically for AI discussion to stop cluttering the Feedback forum but that's not really working, so maybe I need to try harder... It's alright if you are no longer interested in engaging with me. Did you want me to comment about the article you posted? I read it and it's interesting, but there's no point writing about it if you don't wanna hear it.
  11. This is precisely how discrimination starts... You make an appeal to tradition, be it "this is not a real art" or "this is not a real gender", alongside blanket statements such as "they are all lazy" or "they all seek attention" in order to hinder any sort of innovation and exploration of new artistic expressions or identities. Do you not remember the controversy behind photography and digital imaging? What about graffiti, surrealism, or dadaism? I hesitate to be swayed by broad generalizations driven by emotion rather than specific improvements focusing on the issue at hand. I am comfortable with your opinion, but not your disparaging remarks. I should apologize for my poor comparison. AI artists aren't an oppressed group and I didn't mean to imply that. However, the situation I presented is still a good example of unintentional censorship without malice in mind. This article is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Here's an important quote for those who didn't read past the title, though I must warn you it's the punchline and you may want to read the whole article instead: Never mind your inability to quote from the article to prove your point, you didn't even read the article...
  12. This is such a diminutive, archaic outlook that I can't take this claim seriously... Of course an uninitialized AI can't create coherent images without references, just like how a baby can't create coherent images without experience or how an expert can't improve without study. Although AI tools lack many common sense and intuition, humans can use their own while working alongside AI tools to create proper, real art. This outlook completely falls flat for AIs trained on data with permission. Wouldn't it be rude to claim photographers just have to click a button to create a photo? Some people don't put in intent and skill, but others do, so it's simply false to claim nobody puts in any effort. This also doesn't take in consideration that new AI tools have been created with more features which requires more skill and intention to use effectively. I'm comparing a sequence of hand strokes to a sequence of words, which both come from humans. They are comparable acts, both requiring different but relevant skill. You're gonna be very upset to learn that humans use references when drawing, either explicitly or from experience, are occasionally careless when drawing ("Meh, this hand looks good enough"), and start out with no drawing skills, yet they can still create art. The pencil doesn't create the art, the human does, using the pencil as a medium. The same is true with AI tools, which have no consciousness nor intention to act as an author. Humans still create art from the heart or to create a message using AI. Thank you for your thorough response! I'd like to remind you that there were no masters of paintbrushes or cameras back when they were first created, so current AI tool quality and limited expertise should not be seen as a deliberate feature. Notably, the inability to translate your full intentions in reality doesn't disqualify any work as being art, especially since the human brain cannot conceive every single pixel anyways. Sometimes you undo a stroke you sketched, or rerecord a take on the piano, or retake a photo, or regenerate an image; that's intuition at play, which isn't always visible in the end product, and you gotta find the balance between being picky and completing your art in a reasonable time no matter the medium. I similarly don't like when AI artists call themselves experts despite their limited skills, much like a musician calling themselves a guitar player despite only knowing Wonderwall. I haven't encountered this often, but I recommend dismissing those people anyways. Those who are passionate enough become artists, even if they are physically incapable of improving. Your train of thought has good intentions behind them, but consider a forum with an uptake of LGBT content whose users worry will overtake their gallery so they vote to create a new section of the website to get rid of it, effectively shadow-banning an entire community. We should allow everybody to stand as valid and equal artists in the same gallery. There's a large enough demand for diapers and furries to justify their own section, but the spam from literally only 3 users is not indicative of a new trend to prepare for. If anything, it's a sign that only a select few people actually care. A blacklist tagging system would work much better for those who don't want to see this kind of content. I'm noticing a concerning trend of completely dismissing the fact that 3 users alone are bringing the gallery to its knees. We'd have the exact same conversation if 3 users spammed literally anything else, including some strange justification for hating on the content instead of the spam.
  13. I'm curious... What makes a sequence of hand strokes art but a sequence of words not art? They're both used to guide a tool to match the artist's intention, though none is without imprecision.
  14. And also spam punishment served out to accounts flooding the gallery with non-AI art? The issue isn't the AI, it's the spam. You're twisting the narrative to make the problem seem more severe than it is. Literally just restrict 3 users and perhaps add tag blacklisting to filter out art you don't wanna see. Your original post only mentions the creation of a separate gallery, and you haven't even called the flood of AI content by these 3 individuals "spam" within this entire thread. In fact, you spent most of this thread complaining about AI art in general instead of complaining about the specifics of the spam happening in the gallery. It's almost like you hate AI art and you waited for this excuse to kick up a fuss instead of solving the problem at hand...
  15. Thank you for reading my post where I acknowledged their personal feelings on the matter and expressed surprise that they have such a strong emotional stance without realizing the context behind all this spam, rendering their proposition unusual. Yes, spam is annoying whether it's by 3 users or 3000 users. Yes, spam does not belong in the gallery no matter what aesthetic value it may or may not have. Yes, restricting these users from posting spam this frequently would solve our problem. I must admit, I'm shocked you so casually accept the fact that merely 3 users are causing this many headaches, no less how 1/5th of all art in the first 50 albums of the gallery was posted by a single user. Is this not a red flag?
×
×
  • Create New...