We have been discussing adding a new expunge reason targeting works that have been intentionally defaced or degraded by the uploader or someone else in the chain. This was primarily triggered by recent galleries that had ads injected into the content, but it is also intended to address other undesirable behavior that results in content no one really wants.
Previously, expunging such galleries might have made them unlisted and undiscoverable, but after the last expunge and upload system revamps, expunged galleries can only be disowned, not deleted/unlisted, which makes this change feasible.
There are currently two competing definition for this expunge reason:
CODE
Content has been defaced by adding content-obstructing scanmarks, censorship or advertisements beyond what is present in the original artist release. (Scanmarks that do not obstruct content or promotional pages added after the content pages do not qualify.)"
-or-
CODE
"Content has been defaced by adding content-obstructing scanmarks, censorship or advertisements beyond what is present in the original artist release, or has been intentionally downsampled to the point where legibility is an issue. (Scanmarks that do not obstruct content or promotional pages added after the content pages do not qualify. Older low-resolution scans are exempt.)"
I'm leaning towards the former, simply because the threshold for "images for ants" will always be subjective and cannot be defined in hard numbers, but obviously, it will also make it not address some undesirable behavior.
I'd primarily want feedback on whether you think the "intentionally downsampled" clause will cause more problems than it solves, but feel free to discuss the addition in general as well.