FA+
Shop
From the Desk of the Site Owner
14 years ago
my music on: Rabbit Valley iTunes CDBaby Amazon =^_^=
PURRFECT PITCH IS HERE!!! Order Purrfect Pitch at the Bucktown Tiger Store :)
PURRFECT PITCH IS HERE!!! Order Purrfect Pitch at the Bucktown Tiger Store :)
his explanation makes much more sence than that "n-word" excuse someone made up
i hate rumors i cant believe i bought into that junk >.< im rly rly sorry :c hug?
Hy has stated multiple times that the notes he received told him to stop saying nigga/nigger or else that he would be banned and that is how the "rumor" got started. I'm sure he'd be willing to post screencaps if he wasn't suspended and could access those logs, of course that would be pretty inconvenient. He has the transcription of one PM from Trpdwarf about his usage of the n-word and that is what led him to believe he was banned for that:
"Kistaa any user who is familiar with the history of how the word has been used, or comes from an area where the word is looked down upon is going to be offended. I live in a very southern-area and we have a lot of people who are labeled "African American" and many of the older people hate the word and hate how it is used because what it means to them is different than what it means to many younger people today. There are quite a few people who can easily have an issue with it and all any of the admins are doing when they ask you to stop is enforcing the policy. It has nothing to do with anyone (including) Neer having a grudge.
Besides you do keep ignoring the rules. It doesn't set things up very well for you does it in the eyes of the staff? If you really have no desire to try to improve your behavior I can pass that along but I'd rather not have to. It's not that difficult to tone it down and follow the rules"
Maybe this highlights another issue; one that keeps cropping up time and time again: transparency. If the user isn't sure what he's being banned for, then you're doing it wrong. He's stated that he received more PM's telling him to stop saying the n word than he did about the AUP violation, which is odd since you say that the n-word has nothing to do with his ban.
And I removed submission violations Kitstaa posted (images of NBA players, Einstein and others) and told him to stop. He'd been told many, MANY times to stop uploading copyright content like that, and was banned for that. And his ban message was very clear that it was a suspension for what he was uploading, not in regards to anything racially charged.
If it's only about the AUP, then why did he receive PM's telling him to cut his language and talking about the consequences if he didn't if this had literally nothing to do with it? Could you please answer that?
It's okay if you admit it was mostly because of the AUP violations and partly because of the "inappropriate word usage", but it'd probably help things if you didn't look like you were trying to cover something up because whether that's true or not, that's how it's going to look to the majority of the people. They'll see he was threatened for using the n word and then got banned after using that under the "excuse of AUP violations".
If you at least address the messages about the n-word violations, then you'll at least get cred for being up front about something.
So she and a few others were trying to reach out to him to resolve the issue. In the mean time, he kept uploading images which violated the AUP and, after having been warned about it multiple times, felt he was doing so intentionally. So I put the ban on his account for his gallery which had near 20 violations.
If that journal is offensive, then why is it still up and not removed?
And the fact remains that you claim it has nothing to do with his language in one post and then admit later on that it was partly due to language (which I'm glad you did instead of pretending it wasn't even part of your decision making process).
I seriously doubt Hy was uploading things that broke the AUP on purpose to spite you/the rest of the staff for telling him not to like you seem to be implying. That's irrelevant, though, because he still did upload those after you told him to stop.
I'm guessing that this wouldn't be an issue at all if you were clear in your ban message that it was for refusing to change his behavior after being told to with regards to his gallery, his journals, and his comments using language that you didn't approve of instead of just focusing on the gallery.
Basically simply siting the TOS violation or even better linking to it in some way shape or form next to the suspension line.
For Example !KITSTAA(Suspended: AUP- Meme and Photo Edits)
Now I know the staff has seemed hesitant to do such things in the past. Probably thinking that it isn't a random user's business why another user was suspended. However as we have seen here, if they don't know why they'll make stuff up.
It may take a little more time to do this, and the admins may feel it a hastle to do this. But here's the thing, how much time was taken addressing this falsehood? How much time would have been saved had an explanation system been in place.
Users like it because it protects them from false bans, admins should like it because it keeps them from going on some tiger's journal having to explain false rumors about why an individual was banned. In the end such a thing is a win-win.
(Sorry for the hides, I tried to get the "Meme and Photo edits" to link to the AUP but the url tag appears to be broken)
Example, if someone got suspended for art theft then it might be a lot more noticeable to most of the community and might draw more ire than if they kept things private.
(thanks for the message about the hides, it drives me crazy not knowing what was posted :P)
A suspension only concerns the user that's suspended, and the FA staff, for privacy reasons.
There are many sites that say why someone was banned from something, in fact this is one of the few that doesn't. The truth is not drama, drama is half-truths.
For example, why are we disabling the shout page of a banned person when users are saying "falsities" about the site and staff, but keep it open when they are doing the same to people who was banned. All they get is sometimes some text in their page saying that mean spirited shouts will have result in a harassment count against the user. Why not make it simpler by just blocking shouts on all accounts where the user has no control over them? And let the drama mongering occur offsite instead of having to spend the time having to remind people not to be mean to people nearly every time someone of high profile is banned?
Really you guys are making more work for yourselves, but if you like beating your heads against brick walls, guess I can't stop you in that regard.
In the "interesting" cases, there's going to be a shitstorm about the ban, no matter if we give out the ban reason, or not. We chose not to make ban reasons public, for privacy reasons, like I said before.
Now, I usually lock shouts on a banned user's page, if the user's receiving harassing comments. (More likely in "popular" ban cases). When the comments stay clean, there's no need to lock them.
Please be aware that this is my personal point of view, on this issue. It's not "more work" to keep the shouts open, or to keep the ban reason private, although it all depends on the individual case.
You give a reason for her ban and you allow shouts to remain open, versus say Hy where you lock shouts and don't give a reason.
So what are you saying here? You treat some bans different then others? I think that's the issue some critics bring up time and time again. Treating a user differently because of their status is typically seen as political. You should attempt to reconcile the methods behind bans so that everyone is treated as equals. That way it's not seen as favoritism or behaving differently for political reasons. I say go for the reason and locking of shouts, if you want to have it so there is no reasons and shouts, then do so but mind that your "exceptions" will be seen and exploited and pointed out. And if people are looking for "why" they'll look to drama forums first, for truth or for not, and I think that's the last thing that the leadership here would want.
When people of a community commit a crime, they forfeit their privacy on the fact they had violated those terms(of course if they actually committed said crime, which in that case if you're trying to cover your asses in case you mess up then I would agree you shouldn't post the reason). If they committed a crime IRL, THEN maybe discretion would be warranted if they had not been convicted, but then you could come up with a reason "IRL issue". Though of course, those bans aren't "supposed to happen" but I can think of a few times they did. But those are the exceptional cases.
If they're going to give you crap whether you give a reason or not, why not give a reason? If all that would change is that REASONABLE people don't start making movements on false information, isn't that a gain and not a loss?
...but you're right - people want drama. Especially furries. It's like furries feast on drama. If there were a Thanksgiving for drama, the furry fandom would be the Dallas Cowboys - hosting the largest drama fest every year.
Problem is sometimes, from an admin perspective, we have no way of knowing about drama (e.g. "X was banned for YYYYYY"!) until it's spread. There's no good way to resolve that. You can either speak your piece and hope people pick up on it, but I've been getting notes and threats about this crap because we banned him over something that didn't happen, ESPECIALLY over serious allegations as this.
...but I've said enough here.
Uploading live action video clips of any form has NEVER been permitted.
Let's forget whether or not what you meant when you wrote that: Rather, why would you have that be against the rules at all.
Unfortunately, that very scarcely happens here...
But consider this: At this very moment I'm looking at a still image hosted on FA that exceeds one megabyte in size--far greater, according to what I've read, than some of the submissions removed today were. Its clear why you wouldn't want folks uploading huge files (and indeed the software should stop them from doing this, if it doesn't already), but this rule regarding video reeks of some uninformed person having long ago decided, "All moving pictures are bad because some of them require the use of large files."
You allow FA users to host many types of content, including real-life photographs. A moving photograph ought to have no less artistic merit solely due to the fact that it moves--if it is to be disallowed, it should be due to technical or fairness limitations, not some ill-advised assumption. The letter of the law should also reflect this way of thinking.
It occurs to me that if someone objects to the logic behind a policy, it is for you to consider their arguments, so take from these thoughts what you will.
The Drama? Nope.
Thats like trying to change Nazi to something else like Nasse with the same principals and convince the Jewish community its not what they think...
Quick, gets the soap boxes, the people who want to stand on them are sure to follow