BUR #66917 has been rejected.
create implication tos_compliance_edit -> third-party_edit
ToS compliance edits are in their nature third-party edits.
Posted under Tags
BUR #66917 has been rejected.
create implication tos_compliance_edit -> third-party_edit
ToS compliance edits are in their nature third-party edits.
In most cases, a ToS compliance edit is just removing an inset and doesn't affect the actual image. While these are technically third-party edits, I don't think they should be tagged as such as long as it's done cleanly. It's like how we don't add the tag on every cropped or stitched post because there are some cases in which it is appropriate to make those edits.
Third-party edit has been a loaded tag for a long time and used as a reason for flags, but the sentiment has slowly shifted for some very specific exceptions where there is no alternative. This implication would both shine light on that boundary and bring more attention to this tag. +1
Third-party edit gives a red warning in the modqueue which will lead to a lower chance of approval for anything tagged with tos compliance edit. The reason why I voted neutral instead of negative is because it seems people tag them together in practice anyway.
A wiki change might be necessary to prevent that if we decide against this implication.
Updated by richp2k
it could be a second-party edit though
artms said in forum #468596:
I feel like that applies here too. They're non-destructive edits, and you can barely tell anything was there to begin with for half of the posts under the tag
they can definitely be destructive (see the massive black square in post #11814521), but they're non-destructive in spirit of course.
wingdings said in forum #468634:
they can definitely be destructive (see the massive black square in post #11814521), but they're non-destructive in spirit of course.
Noticable != destructive. post #11814521 isn't destructive because none of the actual art was modified. "Does it modify the art's original pixels" has been used against similar implications (topic #27481, topic #19092, forum #347423). While I don't fully agree with how far this argument has been taken for things like rotated, I do think it holds some water here. Cases where the removal of the inset inadvertently does touch some of the art's actual pixels can be separately tagged third-party edit. I specifically left a small gap between the art and the blanked out area in post #11800731 for this reason.
trapster77 said in forum #468593:
it could be a second-party edit though
RAM crisis is hitting us all it seems, you can't even read anymore.
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #468649:
RAM crisis is hitting us all it seems, you can't even read anymore.
I think trapster77 is referring to things like commissioner uploads, which, assuming the uploader edited it, would make it a second-party edit instead of a third-party edit. It probably wouldn't happen very often, but the fact that it can would be enough of a reason on its own to reject the implication even without considering whether or not the edits are destructive.
The bulk update request #66917 (forum #468582) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.
Blank_User said in forum #468688:
I think trapster77 is referring to things like commissioner uploads, which, assuming the uploader edited it, would make it a second-party edit instead of a third-party edit. It probably wouldn't happen very often, but the fact that it can would be enough of a reason on its own to reject the implication even without considering whether or not the edits are destructive.
Thank you for translating it into something that makes sense in the discussion. As you said though, such a conclusion would avoid deciding whether we're calling this truly an "edit", but doing that is probably important for tagging.
Normally this BUR expiring would indicate that the decision is that they aren't edits, but recently a lot of BURs have been expiring without discussion again, so that's not a very good measure.
richp2k said in forum #468591:
A wiki change might be necessary to prevent that if we decide against this implication.
Wiki page updated, and removed third-party edit from all posts.