First off, let me be clear that I 100% agree this deserved to be deleted for being low-quality and off-topic. But why is the reason for deletion claiming it's an ad? It's a public preview of a paywalled comic, which shouldn't be against the rules on its own. Was it because of the "Growing tits pain treatment" text? Because it's pretty clear that's just the title. It's not like they're pushing some snake-oil product or anything.
First off, let me be clear that I 100% agree this deserved to be deleted for being low-quality and off-topic. But why is the reason for deletion claiming it's an ad? It's a public preview of a paywalled comic, which shouldn't be against the rules on its own. Was it because of the "Growing tits pain treatment" text? Because it's pretty clear that's just the title. It's not like they're pushing some snake-oil product or anything.
Well there's a slash in the reason 'low quality/ad' so if you don't agree with the latter just take the former for the reason for deletion (which you seem to claim to agree with fine enough). To me the plastering of brightly colored links and titles over the image in technicolor comic sans-esque font definitely give enough of an ad feeling. But regardless, you seem to agree it should be deleted, so I fail to see the reason to argue.
Well there's a slash in the reason 'low quality/ad' so if you don't agree with the latter just take the former for the reason for deletion (which you seem to claim to agree with fine enough). To me the plastering of brightly colored links and titles over the image in technicolor comic sans-esque font definitely give enough of an ad feeling. But regardless, you seem to agree it should be deleted, so I fail to see the reason to argue.
It's because I think the reasons for deletion should be accurate. I'm actually more concerned that the reason given for banning the user was for posting ads. Maybe the low quality of these uploads would be enough of a reason for the ban, but I think the feedback should reflect that.
It's not something I'd invest a lot of energy in, but if someone is banned for posting ads, I would expect that information to be actually true. It just seemed like a weird misunderstanding.
It's because I think the reasons for deletion should be accurate. I'm actually more concerned that the reason given for banning the user was for posting ads. Maybe the low quality of these uploads would be enough of a reason for the ban, but I think the feedback should reflect that.
It's not something I'd invest a lot of energy in, but if someone is banned for posting ads, I would expect that information to ba actually true.
Well I stated why I think the reasoning IS accurate. This absolutely looks like a low quality ad for content to me, as it clearly did to the approvers as well. There are plenty of examples of tastefully displayed text on an image that conveys information on the board. I don't see that here.
I agree though, it's not something I'm interested in investing a lot of energy into.
