Yeah, that's kinda the way 'round here.

They've done that to me as well - removing things and then noting me after the fact, I mean. They probably do that so that you can't snark at them (which really takes the fun out of it, jeez).

I wonder about that myself. And I admit I would be a bit snarky, given my plan to substitute that “Removed by order of the authorities” mock-stamp. Still, I’d appreciate being accorded the dignity and courtesy due a reasonable adult, in the form of a preliminary warning: “Such-and-so image voilates the terms of service in such-and-so fashion. Please remove this image within such-and-so time. Failure to do so will result in removal by the administration. If you wish to appeal this ruling before the deadline expires, please follow such-and-so procedure.” Would that be so difficult, I wonder?

The only thing I can figure is that too many yahoos come unglued and don’t react in a mature adult fashion, and the administrators as a result have resorted to this guilty-without-any-attempt-to-prove-innocence methodology.

Unfortunately I agree that the latter is probably true and the reasoning behind why things are the way they are.

Don't question the admins or their informants. They're not in the business of admitting error, no matter how egregious or blatant.

Or, for that matter, keeping a site running or secure.

A point, although my argument is less with the removal—the rules cited do exist in the policies and are publicly promulgated—than it is with the way the removal was handled and with the applicability of the rules in at least one instance.

why whats wrong with the art??

I used a “dollmaker” application to create some art elements, which I then used as part of the graphic design of two images. In the other case I created an image collage framed in “motivational poster” style. The rules forbid images derived from dollmakers or designed as motivational posters. One could question what the rulemakers had been smoking when they created the rules, but the rules are posted and publicly available.

These policies raise some interesting questions, though:

• If I posted an elaborate digital painting of two furries conversing in an office cubicle, with a dollmaker-created image as part of a computer desktop on a monitor in the background, would that dollmaker-image be enough to taint an otherwise completely original painting requiring dozens of hours of work to create? If so, why? If not, where do the administrators draw the line?

• If I hadn’t been honest and credited the dollmaker, would the administrators even have realized I had used it?

• When the final version of that particular dollmaker comes out, it will support posing, making it even more difficult to tell that the dollmaker was used to create an image—how will the administrators cope with that?

• If I created a completely original image, then just happened to frame it with a thick black border and a caption in a particular style, would that be classified as a “motivational poster”?

who cares howe you did it sheesh what is wrong with people

SILENCE!!! YOU MUST NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY!!! SO THERE!!! NEENER NEENER NEENER!!!

I’m wondering if this has anything to do with that “merger” announced not long ago. I have a sinking feeling the answer is “yes”.

Could be;  gearheadfurs had their entire gallery disappear without warning (not even an admin note)...

yeah. theyre removing pretty much all auto related photos -_-

thats cause cars are far to sexual in nature and will likely get the feds knocking on the sites door... some of those cars are underage after all

It's true!

You could email Sethisto at EqD and get him to fix his links to where they now are.

Already done, and he fixed it the evening I informed him, so at least that’s covered.

And...

Daaaamn! The pony conformation chart? That's a LOT of extra work. Yeesh.

Indeed, and that’s why I’m wondering about the “one hundred hairs makes a man” problem, as outlined in an earlier comment above.