If the end product can still be scaled up or down without the pixels showing because of the transformation (meaning it looks the same big as it does small), then it's still a vector to me.

personally i don't really mind if something isn't a 100% vector, but to keep it simple i do think the gallery should be 100% vector..

Personally, I think that whether or not something is "Vector" should depend on the creation of the piece, not the effects applied to it after it's finished. If you did the whole piece in Illustrator with vectors (which I find impressive because I am so bad with Illustrator ), and then just applied some effects, I would absolutely still call it vector. Just because, at the end of the project, you went to a menu and clicked on "Gaussian Blur," that should not cancel out all the vector work in the piece.

I agree with =carpenoctem410, most of recent vector programs have raster effects, but it doesn't remove them from the "vector" category.

I think those effects are acceptable. Illustrator for example is a vector program, and if it offers these effects, it should be ok to also use them. But that's just my opinion, and I don't do vectors myself

I know some vector artist who use raster effect from time to time, and it doesn't make their work appear less vector. The computer does the blurring and the feathering, it doesn't diminish the effort the artist out in his, or her work. I think it is only beneficial.

there was a debate?

I'm not a vector artist but it should be 100% vector
or there can be a subcategory for that if it needs. like how Fractal gallery recently got subcategory for fractal manipulations and traditional fractals(hand drawn etc)