[quote name="wyraj" date="2021-10-14 18:32:15" ]
And healed scars should be fine too, that's the opposite of gore. We literally have scar apparel on this site, and I don't buy that the placement indicates self harm because people can (and do) do that all over their bodies, (trust me on this) not just the wrists.
[/quote]
Healed scars should be fine, yes. However I'm going to agree with staff on this and say the woodcarver skin scars were... too much. I know people self harm all over their bodies, pretty sure wrists aren't even the most common place to self harm either, but the popular imagery of self harm = cut scars on wrists. And that can be disturbing for some and I get why staff wouldn't want an official item to represent that.
Also as someone who did some carving the biggest scar I got from it was a huge stab in my leg (lol) so carving scars can also go anywhere. The person could have just changed the scars and resubmit their skin, no? At least I hope they did... scars in any other placement shouldn't be considered too much (unless again they represent the cliché "short cuts in a specific spot" associate with self harm)
Got to agree a visual guide of what is acceptable and what isn't would be a great help. Because I can also see why some people don't associate these scars with self harm.
wyraj wrote on 2021-10-14 18:32:15:
And healed scars should be fine too, that's the opposite of gore. We literally have scar apparel on this site, and I don't buy that the placement indicates self harm because people can (and do) do that all over their bodies, (trust me on this) not just the wrists.
Healed scars should be fine, yes. However I'm going to agree with staff on this and say the woodcarver skin scars were... too much. I know people self harm all over their bodies, pretty sure wrists aren't even the most common place to self harm either, but the popular imagery of self harm = cut scars on wrists. And that can be disturbing for some and I get why staff wouldn't want an official item to represent that.
Also as someone who did some carving the biggest scar I got from it was a huge stab in my leg (lol) so carving scars can also go anywhere. The person could have just changed the scars and resubmit their skin, no? At least I hope they did... scars in any other placement shouldn't be considered too much (unless again they represent the cliché "short cuts in a specific spot" associate with self harm)
Got to agree a visual guide of what is acceptable and what isn't would be a great help. Because I can also see why some people don't associate these scars with self harm.
[quote name="nekosysteme" date="2021-10-15 06:45:06" ]
[quote name="wyraj" date="2021-10-14 18:32:15" ]
And healed scars should be fine too, that's the opposite of gore. We literally have scar apparel on this site, and I don't buy that the placement indicates self harm because people can (and do) do that all over their bodies, (trust me on this) not just the wrists.
[/quote]
Healed scars should be fine, yes. However I'm going to agree with staff on this and say the woodcarver skin scars were... too much. I know people self harm all over their bodies, pretty sure wrists aren't even the most common place to self harm either, but the popular imagery of self harm = cut scars on wrists. And that can be disturbing for some and I get why staff wouldn't want an official item to represent that.
Also as someone who did some carving the biggest scar I got from it was a huge stab in my leg (lol) so carving scars can also go anywhere. The person could have just changed the scars and resubmit their skin, no? At least I hope they did... scars in any other placement shouldn't be considered too much (unless again they represent the cliché "short cuts in a specific spot" associate with self harm)
Got to agree a visual guide of what is acceptable and what isn't would be a great help. Because I can also see why some people don't associate these scars with self harm.
[/quote]
Using your reasoning, the accent should have been accepted because not all scars on the arm are from this sort of behavior. I have some from me being stupid with an X-acto knife and, for that, all I was trying to do was cut out certain shapes from cardboard (reusable spray paint stencil, effectively). That scar is down my arm. I have a couple others from needles (bad nurses >.>) as well. Just because a scar is across the arm does not mean something shouldn't be accepted, and someone shouldn't need to change placement over something so ridiculous.
Assuming the name was something related to wood carving, there is absolutely no reason to mistake those scars as anything else. If the skin or accent name isn't anything that makes the intent questionable, scars shouldn't be a problem. We have an apparel item which gives the dragon a scar across their leg, which is also a common self-harm place. Should we ban scars there too? No. It's unreasonably restrictive if scars are going to be banned.
Even ignoring that, the skin and accent rules do not note that scars are not okay. Similarly, small open wounds are noted as fine but someone who, effectively, had a papercut in their accent was denied for that exact reason. My issue is the inconsistency and contradictory actions on behalf of those overlooking submissions. Of course, I also agree that things are far too vague because apparently intent does not matter here (when it should).
Crowbar has a perfect example of exactly how demoralizing making these sorts of skins and accents can be now, and the fact that it could be a waste of gems is exactly why I don't want to participate in my own flight's festival contest. If a scar can get something denied, why should I waste time or even gems if it's a festival reject? I'd rather do something for arcane because, at least for them, I can guarantee it can be printed as a reject if it's not chosen. They can have equally as gruesome and disturbing imagery in their own right, but the difference is it won't get rejected because, without looking at the rest of the accent, it won't "look like blood".
And I am not mocking anyone with that last statement either. I am putting emphasis on the fact that the entire accent - name included - should be taken into account for acceptance/rejection. Not just a very ultra-specific portion which looks like blood splatter out of context (which is supposedly allowed according to the rules but gets rejected?). I am sincerely confused and am [i]begging[/i] for actual clarification for the sake of myself and every other artist at this point. [i]Please[/i] edit the contradictory portions to be updated or tell us why these absolutely random things are getting rejected because, right now, it looks like people are being randomly targeted. I know that no one is being targeted, but surely staff understands why it looks this way to us without any sort of word as to what is going on here?
nekosysteme wrote on 2021-10-15 06:45:06:
wyraj wrote on 2021-10-14 18:32:15:
And healed scars should be fine too, that's the opposite of gore. We literally have scar apparel on this site, and I don't buy that the placement indicates self harm because people can (and do) do that all over their bodies, (trust me on this) not just the wrists.
Healed scars should be fine, yes. However I'm going to agree with staff on this and say the woodcarver skin scars were... too much. I know people self harm all over their bodies, pretty sure wrists aren't even the most common place to self harm either, but the popular imagery of self harm = cut scars on wrists. And that can be disturbing for some and I get why staff wouldn't want an official item to represent that.
Also as someone who did some carving the biggest scar I got from it was a huge stab in my leg (lol) so carving scars can also go anywhere. The person could have just changed the scars and resubmit their skin, no? At least I hope they did... scars in any other placement shouldn't be considered too much (unless again they represent the cliché "short cuts in a specific spot" associate with self harm)
Got to agree a visual guide of what is acceptable and what isn't would be a great help. Because I can also see why some people don't associate these scars with self harm.
Using your reasoning, the accent should have been accepted because not all scars on the arm are from this sort of behavior. I have some from me being stupid with an X-acto knife and, for that, all I was trying to do was cut out certain shapes from cardboard (reusable spray paint stencil, effectively). That scar is down my arm. I have a couple others from needles (bad nurses >.>) as well. Just because a scar is across the arm does not mean something shouldn't be accepted, and someone shouldn't need to change placement over something so ridiculous.
Assuming the name was something related to wood carving, there is absolutely no reason to mistake those scars as anything else. If the skin or accent name isn't anything that makes the intent questionable, scars shouldn't be a problem. We have an apparel item which gives the dragon a scar across their leg, which is also a common self-harm place. Should we ban scars there too? No. It's unreasonably restrictive if scars are going to be banned.
Even ignoring that, the skin and accent rules do not note that scars are not okay. Similarly, small open wounds are noted as fine but someone who, effectively, had a papercut in their accent was denied for that exact reason. My issue is the inconsistency and contradictory actions on behalf of those overlooking submissions. Of course, I also agree that things are far too vague because apparently intent does not matter here (when it should).
Crowbar has a perfect example of exactly how demoralizing making these sorts of skins and accents can be now, and the fact that it could be a waste of gems is exactly why I don't want to participate in my own flight's festival contest. If a scar can get something denied, why should I waste time or even gems if it's a festival reject? I'd rather do something for arcane because, at least for them, I can guarantee it can be printed as a reject if it's not chosen. They can have equally as gruesome and disturbing imagery in their own right, but the difference is it won't get rejected because, without looking at the rest of the accent, it won't "look like blood".
And I am not mocking anyone with that last statement either. I am putting emphasis on the fact that the entire accent - name included - should be taken into account for acceptance/rejection. Not just a very ultra-specific portion which looks like blood splatter out of context (which is supposedly allowed according to the rules but gets rejected?). I am sincerely confused and am
begging for actual clarification for the sake of myself and every other artist at this point.
Please edit the contradictory portions to be updated or tell us why these absolutely random things are getting rejected because, right now, it looks like people are being randomly targeted. I know that no one is being targeted, but surely staff understands why it looks this way to us without any sort of word as to what is going on here?
So I'm an Arcane player but Plague has been one of my favorite flights since I first joined and was one of three flights I had considered joining alongside Arcane and Shadow.
Reading through some of the responses here honestly makes me feel for skin/accent makers, both for Plague and other flights, who put so much time and effort into making skins and accents only to have them rejected due to inconsistent and vague guidelines. Some of the skins shown as examples of rejects honestly looked awesome too, especially that nocturne one with the eye in the torso, and didn't seem to be violating any of the guidelines.
I honestly agree with others here that staff needs to further clarify and put forth clear cut guidelines for what they do and don't want in regards to skins and accents. A visual guide as others have suggested would be immensely helpful I think. I can also see arguments for loosening some of the restrictions on gore. I'm a bit squeamish in regards to gore and body horror so I agree that major depictions of blood and guts shouldn't be allowed. But I also think that considering Plague's aesthetic and themes as well as the designs of both the Scarred Wasteland and the Plaguebringer herself, some mild blood or gore should be okay. At the very least the color red should not be singled out considering that it's Plague's primary color and doesn't automatically denote suffering.
End of the day, more clarification and clearer guidelines are needed to prevent further issues like the ones I've seen described here.
So I'm an Arcane player but Plague has been one of my favorite flights since I first joined and was one of three flights I had considered joining alongside Arcane and Shadow.
Reading through some of the responses here honestly makes me feel for skin/accent makers, both for Plague and other flights, who put so much time and effort into making skins and accents only to have them rejected due to inconsistent and vague guidelines. Some of the skins shown as examples of rejects honestly looked awesome too, especially that nocturne one with the eye in the torso, and didn't seem to be violating any of the guidelines.
I honestly agree with others here that staff needs to further clarify and put forth clear cut guidelines for what they do and don't want in regards to skins and accents. A visual guide as others have suggested would be immensely helpful I think. I can also see arguments for loosening some of the restrictions on gore. I'm a bit squeamish in regards to gore and body horror so I agree that major depictions of blood and guts shouldn't be allowed. But I also think that considering Plague's aesthetic and themes as well as the designs of both the Scarred Wasteland and the Plaguebringer herself, some mild blood or gore should be okay. At the very least the color red should not be singled out considering that it's Plague's primary color and doesn't automatically denote suffering.
End of the day, more clarification and clearer guidelines are needed to prevent further issues like the ones I've seen described here.
I agree with the general sentiment that staff contradicts themselves on what they accept or reject, Lykos. Most of the skins used as examples of staff rejecting skins for no good reasons appear as ok to me.
It really is that the scars from the woodcarving skin greatly ressemble the stereotypical self harming scars we see in the media, I find it weird that people say it's ridiculous to associate them when I find the association so obvious. So maybe you don't see it, (I understand not everyone would see it or even be disturbed by it) but others do, and the staff who rejected the skin probably did as well. It's not that far fetch in my opinion. Plus, it wouldn't be hard to change the skin for more subtle scars. It just feels like a poor example of a skin that was rejected "for no good reasons" and caused damage to the creator, since 1) I feel there was good enough reasons 2) it's a small edit.
However I honestly feel like all the other skins that were presented as examples should have been accepted and I see how they could cause trouble for the creator since the edit is generally a bigger one to do.
In my opinion even small/medium open injuries should be accepted as long as they don't reference (intentionnaly or not) sensitive subject like suicide or self-harm for example.
I agree with the general sentiment that staff contradicts themselves on what they accept or reject, Lykos. Most of the skins used as examples of staff rejecting skins for no good reasons appear as ok to me.
It really is that the scars from the woodcarving skin greatly ressemble the stereotypical self harming scars we see in the media, I find it weird that people say it's ridiculous to associate them when I find the association so obvious. So maybe you don't see it, (I understand not everyone would see it or even be disturbed by it) but others do, and the staff who rejected the skin probably did as well. It's not that far fetch in my opinion. Plus, it wouldn't be hard to change the skin for more subtle scars. It just feels like a poor example of a skin that was rejected "for no good reasons" and caused damage to the creator, since 1) I feel there was good enough reasons 2) it's a small edit.
However I honestly feel like all the other skins that were presented as examples should have been accepted and I see how they could cause trouble for the creator since the edit is generally a bigger one to do.
In my opinion even small/medium open injuries should be accepted as long as they don't reference (intentionnaly or not) sensitive subject like suicide or self-harm for example.
[quote name="nekosysteme" date="2021-10-15 10:25:14" ]
It really is that the scars from the woodcarving skin greatly ressemble the stereotypical self harming scars we see in the media, I find it weird that people say it's ridiculous to associate them when I find the association so obvious. So maybe you don't see it, (I understand not everyone would see it or even be disturbed by it) but others do, and the staff who rejected the skin probably did as well. It's not that far fetch in my opinion. Plus, it wouldn't be hard to change the skin for more subtle scars. It just feels like a poor example of a skin that was rejected "for no good reasons" and caused damage to the creator, since 1) I feel there was good enough reasons 2) it's a small edit.
However I honestly feel like all the other skins that were presented as examples should have been accepted and I see how they could cause trouble for the creator since the edit is generally a bigger one to do.
In my opinion even small/medium open injuries should be accepted as long as they don't reference (intentionnaly or not) sensitive subject like suicide or self-harm for example.
[/quote]
^^^ Agree on this. I don't think it's just the placement of scars on the Woodcarver skin either, it's the multiple lines close together that brings to mind self-injury IMO. However this is another reason we need more detailed guidelines, to know what staff interpret as self-injury so there's less guesswork when making a skin/accent.
nekosysteme wrote on 2021-10-15 10:25:14:
It really is that the scars from the woodcarving skin greatly ressemble the stereotypical self harming scars we see in the media, I find it weird that people say it's ridiculous to associate them when I find the association so obvious. So maybe you don't see it, (I understand not everyone would see it or even be disturbed by it) but others do, and the staff who rejected the skin probably did as well. It's not that far fetch in my opinion. Plus, it wouldn't be hard to change the skin for more subtle scars. It just feels like a poor example of a skin that was rejected "for no good reasons" and caused damage to the creator, since 1) I feel there was good enough reasons 2) it's a small edit.
However I honestly feel like all the other skins that were presented as examples should have been accepted and I see how they could cause trouble for the creator since the edit is generally a bigger one to do.
In my opinion even small/medium open injuries should be accepted as long as they don't reference (intentionnaly or not) sensitive subject like suicide or self-harm for example.
^^^ Agree on this. I don't think it's just the placement of scars on the Woodcarver skin either, it's the multiple lines close together that brings to mind self-injury IMO. However this is another reason we need more detailed guidelines, to know what staff interpret as self-injury so there's less guesswork when making a skin/accent.
!! signature under construction !!
That brings up another question for me: is there a difference to staff between self-harm and bodymod scarification? A dragon with symbol-shaped scars or brands for occult or tattoo reasons could have done it themself(self harm?) or had it done to them unwillingly(past suffering..?) or willingly(how would you convey that?), so where's the line? Are scarred tally marks on a gladiator accent allowed? If not, why are skins with "ritual scars" allowed? Is it a matter of subtlety? Taste? Perceived intent? By whose perception?
There are countless dilemmas like this that come with the current rules, and I think treating them on a case by case basis is only going to result in contradictions and confusion. Even if the rules are reworked perfectly these grey areas may still exist. All I can think as a possible fix is using the skin help thread to get a mod to say "yeah should be fine" before you spend gems to submit it, and hope it stays that way when it's reviewed.
That brings up another question for me: is there a difference to staff between self-harm and bodymod scarification? A dragon with symbol-shaped scars or brands for occult or tattoo reasons could have done it themself(self harm?) or had it done to them unwillingly(past suffering..?) or willingly(how would you convey that?), so where's the line? Are scarred tally marks on a gladiator accent allowed? If not, why are skins with "ritual scars" allowed? Is it a matter of subtlety? Taste? Perceived intent? By whose perception?
There are countless dilemmas like this that come with the current rules, and I think treating them on a case by case basis is only going to result in contradictions and confusion. Even if the rules are reworked perfectly these grey areas may still exist. All I can think as a possible fix is using the skin help thread to get a mod to say "yeah should be fine" before you spend gems to submit it, and hope it stays that way when it's reviewed.
Absolutely agree that we need clear guidelines with pictures and a help forum to pre-validate skins before spending gems. Maybe even one could submit the skins without a blueprint and then buy a blueprint if accepted? The way skin submission currently work could use some revision.
Absolutely agree that we need clear guidelines with pictures and a help forum to pre-validate skins before spending gems. Maybe even one could submit the skins without a blueprint and then buy a blueprint if accepted? The way skin submission currently work could use some revision.
[quote name="nekosysteme" date="2021-10-15 14:10:17" ]
Absolutely agree that we need clear guidelines with pictures and a help forum to pre-validate skins before spending gems. Maybe even one could submit the skins without a blueprint and then buy a blueprint if accepted? The way skin submission currently work could use some revision.
[/quote]
I think this would helpful, maybe people could also start the skin submission process before the skin is completed? Like get a dialogue going of [for example] "Would a scar across a dragon's eye be acceptable?" and then get a yes, no, or something inbetween [ex: "Yes, as long as it's not blood red"]. Of course this would be more workload for skin mods so I understand if it would be difficult to implement.
nekosysteme wrote on 2021-10-15 14:10:17:
Absolutely agree that we need clear guidelines with pictures and a help forum to pre-validate skins before spending gems. Maybe even one could submit the skins without a blueprint and then buy a blueprint if accepted? The way skin submission currently work could use some revision.
I think this would helpful, maybe people could also start the skin submission process before the skin is completed? Like get a dialogue going of [for example] "Would a scar across a dragon's eye be acceptable?" and then get a yes, no, or something inbetween [ex: "Yes, as long as it's not blood red"]. Of course this would be more workload for skin mods so I understand if it would be difficult to implement.
!! signature under construction !!
I got a cat whos favorite toy is my arms and hands. As a result i got some scars. I wont show the resent onces but they can be quite big and red.
Do I suffer? No! They barely hurt. But they are red and therefor on a dragon they would indicate suffering??
I dont get it. I really dont.
It's the staffs game and they can do as they please but I will never understand their reasoning.
Ive given up on making any suggestion and when I run out of active lairspace I prob will find another game
I got a cat whos favorite toy is my arms and hands. As a result i got some scars. I wont show the resent onces but they can be quite big and red.
Do I suffer? No! They barely hurt. But they are red and therefor on a dragon they would indicate suffering??
I dont get it. I really dont.
It's the staffs game and they can do as they please but I will never understand their reasoning.
Ive given up on making any suggestion and when I run out of active lairspace I prob will find another game
NO LONGER ACTIVE.
I LEFT FR AND GIVEN AWAY MY STUFF.
Full support! The dragons themselves, as do some familiars, site art, depict the very type of gore that is being rejected. I believe FR needs to incorporate filters, the same way other sites do, that people can choose to bypass, or not, if they are sensitive. This can be applied to everything, Jaguar/Rosette, multi eyed dragons, etc.
But, to decline skin art based on the colorations, or detail, bothers me a great deal, when the dragons themselves can be bred to depict the very type of gore in question.
[url=https://www1.flightrising.com/dragon/71864476][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/rendern/350/718645/71864476_350.png[/img][/url]
Full support! The dragons themselves, as do some familiars, site art, depict the very type of gore that is being rejected. I believe FR needs to incorporate filters, the same way other sites do, that people can choose to bypass, or not, if they are sensitive. This can be applied to everything, Jaguar/Rosette, multi eyed dragons, etc.
But, to decline skin art based on the colorations, or detail, bothers me a great deal, when the dragons themselves can be bred to depict the very type of gore in question.
