For example, if a young human walks into their parents' bedroom at the wrong time, if said young human finds a suspicious stain on a mattress, or if said young human touches said mattress. I'm asking in the context of the uploading guidelines.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule because there's so much variation. Is the kid an off-screen character? A silhouette? Fully rendered? Are they oblivious? Aroused? And so on.

regsmutt said:
I don't think there's a hard and fast rule because there's so much variation. Is the kid an off-screen character? A silhouette? Fully rendered? Are they oblivious? Aroused? And so on.

I was gonna upload an animation, and, well, in it the kid is on screen, fully rendered, ambiguously oblivious, has no signs of sexual arousal, and for the most part that is not something he pays much attention to.

The animation has been on YouTube for over a decade and has over 23 million views. I guess it would have been taken down from YouTube already if was so objectionable. But i'm not sure about uploading it to here.

electricitywolf said:
For example, if a young human walks into their parents' bedroom at the wrong time, if said young human finds a suspicious stain on a mattress, or if said young human touches said mattress. I'm asking in the context of the uploading guidelines.

The exact wording as per the Uploading Guidelines is as follows:

• Underage Human & Human-Like Characters: Any submissions containing underage human or human-like characters involved in explicit sexual activities, or featuring those characters nude with visible genitalia and / or anus, are not allowed.
• "Human-like" means all humanoid fantasy races, especially ones that have more skin than fur, and either no or only very minor animal features, like tails, ears, claws, etc.
• This includes, but is not limited to, elves, orcs, vampires, dwarves, gnomes, "human but has a tail and animal ears", stylized humans like The Simpsons, and similar content.
• Visual appearance counts for what is "young" first and foremost, but canonical age may also count for borderline depictions.
• If the young character is uninvolved in any ongoing explicit activities themselves, or is not nude themselves, that is allowed.

The young human character should not be involved in any explicit sexual activities nor be depicted nude themselves.
For the scenarios you mentioned:

• Firstly, "if a young human walks into their parents' bedroom at the wrong time" would be getting involved indirectly, so not allowed.
• Secondly, "if said young human finds a suspicious stain on a mattress" would technically still be involved even if it is the aftermath, so this is a maybe but leaning towards no as well.
• Thirdly, "if said young human touches said mattress" is most definitely getting involved, so no again.

For the most part, we do not want to have any young human/humanoid characters getting involved in any sexually-explicit scenarios, even if they are not aware of it.
Moreover, I do not think we even allow breastfeeding or birth scenarios with humans, even if it is not inherently sexual in nature. Though I might be wrong on this
one.

What does the animation have going for it that would make it appropriate for this site, regarding non-humans being the central focus?
I mean if it's on youtube, you can link it here for people to judge with their own eyes

nin10dope said:
What does the animation have going for it that would make it appropriate for this site, regarding non-humans being the central focus?
I mean if it's on youtube, you can link it here for people to judge with their own eyes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SoahbnYwRk

electricitywolf said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SoahbnYwRk

Oh, this video. If you meant the part at 2:02, it is very brief and the boy does not even acknowledge it, so I will give it a pass.

My bigger concern though is if it meets quality standards. Since claymation/stop_motion videos are few and far between, it is hard to draw the line at where the standards are.
I would say "Wallace and Gromit" level of quality is the most ideal, but I wouldn't want to see amateur Lego stopmotion levels of quality be a common sight.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Oh, this video. If you meant the part at 2:02, it is very brief and the boy does not even acknowledge it, so I will give it a pass.

Okay, but what about 1:14 and 2:44?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Oh, this video. If you meant the part at 2:02, it is very brief and the boy does not even acknowledge it, so I will give it a pass.

My bigger concern though is if it meets quality standards. Since claymation/stop_motion videos are few and far between, it is hard to draw the line at where the standards are.
I would say "Wallace and Gromit" level of quality is the most ideal, but I wouldn't want to see amateur Lego stopmotion levels of quality be a common sight.

If photos of sculptures aren't acceptable here then idk why 'photos of sculptures played rapidly in a sequence to give the illusion of motion' doesn't feel like it would be allowed either.

regsmutt said:
If photos of sculptures aren't acceptable here then idk why 'photos of sculptures played rapidly in a sequence to give the illusion of motion' doesn't feel like it would be allowed either.

Especially if a set of images played in a powerpoint-esque format count as an animated post.

regsmutt said:
If photos of sculptures aren't acceptable here then idk why 'photos of sculptures played rapidly in a sequence to give the illusion of motion' doesn't feel like it would be allowed either.

Check the more recently approved posts on claymation or stop_motion.
As I have said, it is hard to draw the line at where the standards are, but the chances are they want very high quality animations.

electricitywolf said:
Okay, but what about 1:14 and 2:44?

1:14 is just fighting and 2:44 is probably meant to be peeing_on_self/death_piss (even though urine is shown as a different colour on 1:02).

I don't think those count as sexually-explicit activity, unless one of them show some sign of arousal.

Alright after watching the whole thing, this definitely constitutes being human-centric in nature or at best 50:50 with his hamsters. So I would say it doesn't meet guidelines on that ground.

nin10dope said:
Alright after watching the whole thing, this definitely constitutes being human-centric in nature or at best 50:50 with his hamsters. So I would say it doesn't meet guidelines on that ground.

There isn't a bare minimum non-human focus beyond elf ears and some ambient creatures?

regsmutt said:
There isn't a bare minimum non-human focus beyond elf ears and some ambient creatures?

The video is focused on a pure human boy.
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/11143#humans

So yeah, the bare minimum is being "furry-centric"

nin10dope said:
The video is focused on a pure human boy.
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/11143#humans

So yeah, the bare minimum is being "furry-centric"

There's no minimum amount of furriness. If it contains non-human characters it's fine.

nin10dope said:
Alright after watching the whole thing, this definitely constitutes being human-centric in nature or at best 50:50 with his hamsters. So I would say it doesn't meet guidelines on that ground.

nin10dope said:
The video is focused on a pure human boy.
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/11143#humans

So yeah, the bare minimum is being "furry-centric"

• "Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted."

I would say that the two hamsters getting abused is most certainly "part of the focus" of the entire story.

We are not talking about two ambient hamsters in the background here, we are talking about an entire story focused on the literal hell they have to live through under the boy's care.

regsmutt said:
There's no minimum amount of furriness. If it contains non-human characters it's fine.

there is extreme human focus, which is cause for deletions.

i haven't watched said video so ill leave that to y'all though.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• "Anything that does not contain anthropomorphic characters or animals as part of their focus will be deleted."

I would say that the two hamsters getting abused is most certainly "part of the focus" of the entire story.

We are not talking about two ambient hamsters in the background here, we are talking about an entire story focused on the literal hell they have to live through under the boy's care.

That's a good argument, I'll acquiesce to that
But yeah, regsmutt, literally the first sentence of the link: "Pure1 humans are only allowed as long as they are part of an otherwise furry-centric image"
furry-centric means that there is a minimum "...as part of their focus..."
Just picture an animation that's almost exclusively humans, but literally for one second there's a random furry in it, I highly doubt that would be permissible

nin10dope said:
That's a good argument, I'll acquiesce to that
But yeah, regsmutt, literally the first sentence of the link: "Pure1 humans are only allowed as long as they are part of an otherwise furry-centric image"
furry-centric means that there is a minimum "...as part of their focus..."
Just picture an animation that's almost exclusively humans, but literally for one second there's a random furry in it, I highly doubt that would be permissible

Not interested in debating the wording of the rule. Just browse human_focus to get an idea of how minimal non-human involvement can be. This is a very lenient rule and the hamster animation doesn't come close to breaking it.