I've splitted out your post from the announcement as that's what the suggestion forum is for.
Since you find yourself the need to anonymize your email, I've taken the liberty of disabling your email notifications (you can do so yourself in settings as well).
Onto the suggestion.
You haven't actually mentioned the reasoning behind your suggestion. So, I can only make assumptions.
I will assume that you believe such actions will stop watermarks.
Let us then split it into two cases.
Case 1: Watermarks don't go away.
Would you then take your statement back or stick with it? It doesn't seem to bring any benefit other than to punish ourselves only for imposing such rules. So, obviously this is not the answer. The end just sucks.
I see this happening with groups who's been largely vocal against other readers prior to our existence or our increase in fame. The fact that methods of watermarking has evolved is something that can never truly go back. So, for them, at least, nothing would change. We'd simply stop hosting while other sites do.
Case 2: Watermarks do go away.
This however has dire consequences. Batoto was created because the scanlators were loosing too much power relative to the amount of work that they do in the world of scanlation. This yielded in abuses and was quite frankly demotivating for many scanlators. Though, I don't enjoy naming people, let's take Prozess as an example. He had quit scanlation as he was tired of all the abuse. Looking beyond the right to argue about it, ability to argue about or even who's right and who wrong, the end shows a loss for the scanlation community simply because there is less total workforce put in, meaning less scanlation. Prozess came back because he saw the opportunity to fight back. Should we work against him to limit his strengths, he'd simply go away again. While some might rejoice that watermark has disappeared, you have less scanlation that's actually done. So opposed to now of it being your freedom to not read watermarked scanlations, you will simply be unable to read them anymore. In this case, I do not see how anybody benefits either.
You could argue that someone else will take a specific comic, but the total empirical count of work force is undeniably less.
Conversely, I can't perceive any reasoning or purpose for people to start scanlation just because watermarks are gone, while there is a purpose to start scanlation because there are watermarks, a motive to create clean version.
I won't deny that Batoto was essential to the changing scanlation world to one with watermarks. Some of it was what we wished, though most of it was a butterfly effect of things we couldn't even imagine. But times are changing, I don't think a single policy change will turn back time to undo its effects -- which is likely what you are seeking.
Onto the specifics of the suggestion.
I don't think such strict forms of watermarking is actually what you're wanting. For example, watermarks on the trim of the pages. These are never complained about as they're off to the side and I'm going to assume you don't mind them either. But it goes against your height 6%. I can't imagine anyone holding a ruler to see if it's 5% or 6%. Removing the nitpick and going to a general idea of a small watermark, it's too easy to remove it then. The increasing watermark was a response to attempts to remove them. By making it very easy to remove watermarks, you might as well suggest for any watermarks causing a ban.
We also have to consider alternative forms then. With watermarks
banned, and the group chooses to put a credit page between every single page. That still passes the rule, yet that will probably annoy the readers even more. To those who feel the need to watermark will attempt to find ways to comply and to deliver their message. Would regulation truly even be the solution? Just as laws do not solve societal problems, I don't think us enforcing rules will even solve the issue. This was one of the reason Batoto had chosen to be a content neutral medium. To simply provide a fair and open ground. I currently don't see how censoring certain actions will come to a resolution.
Personally speaking, I do not like large watermarks. I do not like animated pngs for watermarks either. Both as a reader and as a operator of this website. As a reader, it annoys me. As an operator, it costs me more to deliver these gigantic things. On top of that, every so often I get an angry email saying I'm an asshole for putting watermarks when I never even encouraged such action, although we have given a page insert. But, I don't really have a solution where base problem, the source of watermark, can be solved. I think that's a goal the community must attempt to find. Perhaps we should seek ways to deliver the message without annoying the readers, or something much more creative.
Sorry for the long text wall.Also, as this topic is quite heavy in likelihood to go in the incinerator, I'd like to add a small note. Please try to keep this thread civil. Constructive criticism is welcome. Insults are not. If you don't know how to make constructive criticism without being insulting, please don't post. If you're wondering how, think back to when your teacher told you to write a constructive criticism on a piece. Moderation will happen just like anywhere else in the forum. Offending posts may be removed or edited as deemed necessary.
Edited by Grumpy, 16 March 2012 - 08:24 PM.
If you've messaged me for something and I haven't responded in a while. Please just message me again. I'm really sorry but I rarely do miss a few. >.<