So post #1486842 was approved but this wasn't??

The breasts here are proportionate to "Lv 6" in that post. It even goes up to "Lv 10"

PL@G said:

So post #1486842 was approved but this wasn't??

post #1486842 was probably approved because it's hilarious.

_cf said:

post #1486842 was probably approved because it's hilarious.

Can a post bypass any uploading rules if it's "hilarious"? Doesn't seem right....

PL@G said:

Can a post bypass any uploading rules if it's "hilarious"? Doesn't seem right....

An obvious spoof on grotesque breasts is a very different thing from grotesque breasts presented as if they were meant... seriously, for lack of a better word.

Flagging this for being "grotesque"? Stop being so vanilla.

The "well X post is worse, so this should be fine too" argument has been tried many times before, generally without success, seeing as posts are judged against approval criteria, not other posts. (Any approval system operated in this manner would be worthless, as every single approval would be a single point of failure - let one past and now your standards are permanently changed, defeating the point of setting up the criteria on which the approval system was based in the first place.)

In any case, the question at hand is not what who considers "grotesque" in general, but in relation to the ToS under the "Prohibited Content" section, which says (emphasis added):

Grotesque: Any depiction of extreme mutilation, extreme bodily distension, feces, or bodies that are far outside the realm of normal human proportion (for example, breasts that are larger than three heads in size or penises that are larger than two heads in size).

By area only (i.e. pixel count) counted conservatively in GIMP, the one visible breast is about 2.2x the size of the head. This means that by volume, it's already more like roughly 5x by itself, when I suppose I don't have to point out that these generally come in twos.