FA+
Shop
Site Policy Update: TOS, COC and AUP
13 years ago
🏳️🌈💖Enjoy the site? Please consider supporting us via the links below!💖🏳️🌈
⭐ FA+ ⭐ SHOP ⭐ KO-FI ⭐
Journal Start
Good news, everyone! We have updated our site polices.
Now, now, before you grab your pitchforks, torches and kerjiggers know this: while the rules have undergone a massive re-write for clarity, most of the rules haven't changed. In fact, quite a few have had their restrictions reduced (why hello, Photography and Second Life!).
No, really! The main purpose of these updates is to make the rules and policies EASIER to read and understand and reduce redundancy.
Terms of Service Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....rvice-Revision
Code of Conduct Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....nduct-Revision
Acceptable Upload Policy Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....olicy-Revision
Now, now, before you grab your pitchforks, torches and kerjiggers know this: while the rules have undergone a massive re-write for clarity, most of the rules haven't changed. In fact, quite a few have had their restrictions reduced (why hello, Photography and Second Life!).
No, really! The main purpose of these updates is to make the rules and policies EASIER to read and understand and reduce redundancy.
Terms of Service Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....rvice-Revision
Code of Conduct Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....nduct-Revision
Acceptable Upload Policy Update:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....olicy-Revision
But the bandwith ain't MY problem, haha!
Send me a note with the ticket ID number, and I'll take a look at it.
Half the time I remove stuff that is allowed under the rules, there was no contextual information saying *anything* about it being customized.
If there was a dedicated report function on every submission page, people would be less disinclined to report violations.
Which is something we all bitch about in admin channels, believe you me.
I literally once had a ticket that said "he is being mean to me"
That was it. I had the user who sent in the ticket, and that exact line of text.
The admin team deserves some tasty baked goods to offset this insanity ;-;
Due to my work, I actually do most of my admin work *at work*, but that's a very VERY unique situation due tot he fact I work a graveyard shift gate where nothing happens.
i... i am so very, very sorry. you guys shouldn't have to deal with shit like that. ><
I haven't been able to find it since the site layout changed, and I have to find it through a google search/the knowledgebase. It's no longer under the tab it used to be.
But I'll still stand by if someone is posting more images than you want to see, you just unwatch them, seems a bit whingy carp about it.
Some of us actually enjoy seeing this.
That should be plenty to prevent spam, and believe it or not, SL -IS- a platform where unique content gets created, and people put effort into making these unique things, and I do believe that every artist should be able to express themselves on an art site such as this.
Does this mean all of the 420 pages are gonna be banned?
inb4 butthurt.
If I didn't understand, I'm sure someone else is gonna misunderstand that.
Gonna bring it up with the other admins.
Federal laws, usually common knowledge, are things like "murder is bad" and non-medical cannabis is still illegal as said by the "higher-ups".
Federal laws are things you should PROBABLY be aware of. They're kind of important.
If you bounce around enough on wikipedia you'll find a TL;DR version of the laws and usually a heat map of the states. ...or you could go to usa.gov and read eyefulls of confusing text that are pages long.
And that MTI or whatever his name is, saying i need to be held back a few grades? That's offensive as fuck, man.
alas, that is my opinion. and just to elaborate for ones even more sensitive to the talks than you're showing dude, "PMSing" might upset those who do suffer that. (i say suffer for good reason. it sucks)
nobody was mocking you though. they were simply going abotu informing another manner, rude or not. :) hope that clarifies some from outside perspective
offensive or no, best to just not let idiocy spur more of it, ya know? :)
as long as you feel your school gave you what you needed to proceed in life, that's what counts most in my opinion. if they didn't, oh well. learn as ya go. how i've gone at least since all the stuff i learned in school that i didn't need is void of my brain, and the stuff i DO need is pooled all day at work and at home. (bleh, feel i'm rambling like piss in there lol, sorry^^')
Some people don't know your stupid "federal laws"
And
Uh.
Did you know?
NOT EVERYONE ON HERE LIVES IN THE SAME DAMN COUNTRY. DERP.
Also, just because its federal law doesn't make it common knowledge.
Fools.
Holy Brahma that was tough to write.... How do people do that crap and not have a seizure or something.
i forgot what talk show it was recently that i was viewing, but they mentioend that and did an interview all over several school and in multiple states...like one person out of over 75 got the answer for some history relevant question. (all 7th grade-12th grade year ranged students.)
Doesn't surprise me. Happens here in australia too.
I'd LIKE to say "not to the same extent" but I could be wrong. xD
I saw a show thing asking random americans "do you know what nine eleven was about?"
I think they said about 10 people out of hundreds they asked got it right. And they showed a few of the stupidest answers. I'm not sure if it was just a stupider part of america or what, but even here in australia, most people know what 9/11 was all about.
I just hate seeing retarded writing which completely butchers the English language. Yeah, I'll give you a break if it's your second, third or fourth language, but when it's the only language you know????
I see "Its all you're fault! Its not theres at all" and want to punch a kitten. And I think kittens are cute!
And that is why I spell correctly, so I don't shoot myself with embarrassment
whn there was all the ppl that wuld talk like they had noidea how u use grammar an stuff it jus made me so mad an i had to fix if for you
If you catch my drift.
Usually they're my friends taking the piss though. :)
"...sorry I'm not as smart as all of you intellegent people"
Just think about the fact that you said that for a bit.
That implies that being stupid is 'no big deal', and that it's okay to make excuses for sub-par intelligence.
That may be true if you have a mental disability, but a normal healthy person has no excuses for poor intellectual health.
Don't be sorry - genuinely or sarcastically - be more willing to learn.
I had to whip out my sarcasm-o-meter... and it fucking exploded!
How are we meant to be aware of the USA's stupid laws. Its none of our business.
Also, just because someone doesn't know ALL the federal laws doesn't mean they should be held back a few grades.
It either means
A: They weren't told/taught about it
B: They don't really care about every single pathetic law that passes
Or C: They aren't studying to be a freaking lawyer.
Maybe its you who should be held down a grade for your complete ignorance?
as can see above we were rectifying the situation already. no need to fuel a fire that's being put out.
to answer though:
his page only loosely mentioned 'native american' which i had not read. how was i to know until REALLY readnig through all of that s/he does or does not live in the US? in the case of people outside, no i don't assume them to know about it and that's for them to question. those of us that do live here, it's more or less assumed by ones who learned it that others should as well once it becomes "common sense" to us.
i've been out of school since 2004, so i go based on experience more than knowledge myself. now if you'd not mind properly adjusting the flames toward people who ARE in need of them rather than one who was stopping to actually talk on a normal level...that'd be greatly appreciated.
Unless you know the EXACT curriculum requirements of EVERY school in EVERY state, you should not question someone's intelligence like that. I know, for a fact, that Ty is a VERY smart kid. So getting told that he should be held down because he doesn't know of one stupid federal law is pretty damn insulting. And just downright fucking ignorant.
At times, you have no idea who you've actually responded to! D:
And I bet you'd be bitching about it too if a site hosted elsewhere in the world expected you to know their laws.
They've tried that a few times, when I was like... 10. It never works, never will.
I'd be more concerned that my government tried to make pizza a vegetable. I hope THAT never works. Makes you all look like a bunch of idiots. xD No offense. Tomato is a fruit too.
My government is doing their best, as is yours. And you obviously don't know the laws here, just like I don't know (or give a fuck) about the laws there. Both governments may suck balls, but they're both trying. And that's what counts in my opinion. I couldn't do much better
QUOTE FROM YOU: "I don't actually care about the laws in Australia because I don't live there" > My point exactly with the whole "laws in America" argument.
I will follow the rules of a site, and this isn't really about the rules, it's about people being expected to know America's laws.
If someone is not taught the laws of their country, then they won't know them. Simple as that.
And what of those of us who don't live in the US?
How are we meant to be aware of the USA's stupid laws. Its none of our business.
Also, just because someone doesn't know ALL the federal laws doesn't mean they should be held back a few grades.
It either means
A: They weren't told/taught about it
B: They don't really care about every single pathetic law that passes
Or C: They aren't studying to be a freaking lawyer.
Unless you know the EXACT curriculum requirements of EVERY school in EVERY state, you should not question someone's intelligence like that. I know, for a fact, that Ty is a VERY smart kid. So getting told that he should be held down because he doesn't know of one stupid federal law is pretty damn insulting. And just downright fucking ignorant.
Maybe its you who should be held down a grade for your complete ignorance?
That one could be as far as High School and not have even the basics of Civics classes just seems decidedly shocking! This was 7th grade (Mr. Kafkrus, 3rd period, first and second quarter) stuff for me and I was hardly a model student.
I read the conversation thusly; Tyrawr was saying that nowhere in the TOS for this site (that s/he can find) does it state that there is a difference between fictional depictions of drug use, and real accounts of drug use. fluffdance then responded that this distinction was detailed in a specific US legal document, and the implication was that Tyrawr (and from subsequent responses from that post by others) and any other US citizen should be familiar with details of this document.
If that is what was truly meant, then it's a ludicrous proposition. There's no way that every US citizen can be familiar with every US law, and we certainly aren't educated about laws that are that specific in public school. Not even a lawyer is familiar with every single law; they specialize in certain areas of the law.
Sure, there are laws that we should know, simply by virtue of common sense; don't kill, don't steal, marijuana and other drugs are illegal to use in most places in the US; but when it comes to something like real accounts vs. fictional depictions of drug use, that's a much more obtuse area.
Other countries are not required to know American Law which honestly those who don't live in that country Generally don't really care for it's laws since they do not apply at all to them unless the person was going to be a lawyer or something that would require them to know it. It was a good try though but perhaps you should consider a few things first before making rash comments like that,
*this comment was Directly solely at MTI*
What set me off is their rather flip comment 'I'm in High School". Inexplicably they wish to imply that one would normally expect a US student to be unaware of the basic precepts of the US Constitution by High School.
For example I suspect that a German student (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland), or French student ( le texte fondateur de la Ve République) by the equivalent age would now the basics of their respective countries basic laws. Why shouldn't a US student as well?
But on the subject I don't think it really changes anything as one of the moderators clarified in an earlier on a comment it can be still be drawn in a fictional setting but just not discussed which I agree with because personally I wouldn't want to read a journal or something about someone taking drugs or talking about them on a furry site.
Most high school students ARE unaware of laws, unless it has been shoved down their throat or they're actually interested in that stuff. And it's kinda hard to be interested in ALL of that stuff.
Also it's "By the equivalent age would KNOW the basics..."
Maybe you should learn the basics of the English language before insulting people for not knowing some stupid law.
Yipes! This was covered in depth in Jr. High for me. Heck, in grade school we had to learn the preamble and recite it from memory!
My jr. High DID cover it. I, Tyler D'Ambrosia, cannot retain every FUCKING thing I learned in previous years of education. Nobody is perfect.
Just so long as they don't discuss doing it on FA.
why do you not rule us all!? your mind is so much more vast and all seeing than everyone else
Also Inb4 saying i do drugs cause i do not. never have. I just do this awesome thing called using my brain. it is better than drugs
Also i may have to say that by your logic people that drink coffee should also die. since you know caffeine being a drug and all.
Also preemptive killing. there is a logical step. However you also stated that crime only comes from drugs. which is very much a falsehood. and then mentioned committing crimes against people based on that flawed point. which makes you kinda a criminal and unstable person to be watched.
In fact http://www.cracked.com/article_1653.....hile-high.html
while i do not advocate the use of such things especially since most people use such things to just get high and have fun like morons (which they also use alcohol and cigarettes and caffeine and such immersive things like video games to also stimulate areas of the brain to get that reward response) it can be used responsibly. and Obviously those people did not commit crimes with those drugs. other than take them (which at the time some did it is was not illegal.)
to make such blanket statements is just as irresponsible as the users itself. and to call for their deaths over something you do not like is also irresponsible. I can assure you that you do something someone else finds just as offensive and would not be happy if they called for your death saying that it was the cause of all bad things. remember there are people out there that want people that masturbate to die for the sin of it. there are people out there that want you dead cause of your gender or skin colour or religion or lack of it or even you drinking Tea.
I read it as saying that taking drugs, especially harmful drugs, increase crime (which is absolutely true). In fact, alcohol and cigarettes do this as well. Some (actually quite frequently, sadly) people's addictions are so severe they kill/lie/cheat/steal/etc. over them. There's people in my neighborhood killed over the more harmless drugs on a too recurring basis. How many people get angry enough for not having their caffeine that they kill, steal, lie, and cheat to get it (the answer is rarely in comparison, but I'm sure it happens)? Drug deals go bad, people die. Someone is so addicted to said drug, they steal money from their family and sell their stuff to pay for the habit, or hold up liquor stores for a quick fix. Instances like these are just a portion of why this is true. One could argue this is because of a person's "addictive tendency", but many of the harder drugs come with a physical dependence rather than mental, which cannot be argued against. Also the link doesn't support anything you've said. People have discovered great things while high, and an uncountable amount of things have been discovered without them.
Also, comparing hard drugs to caffeine is like comparing stabbings with paper cuts. It is not a logical comparison in this context, especially if proving a point.
TLDR: While person you're debating with is not wrong about drugs increasing crime (if I understand their statement correctly), their solution on said problem could use a bit of a realistic tweak.
It seems ok to abuse legal drugs, alcohol, oxycotin, amphetamines in the 60s (every mum had some!) but illegal drugs are bad m'kay.
Not that I dont think both kinds can be extremely harmful, but the pretentiousness and moral superiority of some people irks me.
One must also take note that empires, exploration, and world discovery were also built on drugs. Without opium, there would have been no Columbus voyage (himself an addict, along with the King and Queen of Spain) and they wanted a shorter and cheaper supply they controlled...but texts tell us they were after "spices" riiiiiiiight. The British Empire was built on opium from India also....they even waged a war in China to force the country to take imports of it. XD And religions all around the world embraced drugs to provide a spiritual experience.
The hardest drugs I take for the record are alcohol and tylenol
Does this mean that those who make posts on Artists_Beware may no longer use screenshots of notes as evidence lest they get action taken agaisnt them?
These rules have a few holes in them, as far as I can see >.>
Do your admins have that much time on their hands to be searching posts on OTHER boards for infractions here? It seems to take about a month now for them to reply to trouble tickets
Oh boy, now people can hide behind that rule when they upload pictures of their dinner or their cat or themselves making faces in the mirror
Can't the rule just be 'no photos if they aren't fursuits/art'
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8460038/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8459187/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8455219/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8310982/
Are all art, right?
So new staff will be coming in to help with that backlog.
They tell people not to note or comment with problems, to TT or email, but those don't get answered for months, either.
Let's see how long it takes for the drama to explode all over the forums this time~
funny that my trouble ticket about something relating to this hasnt been answered tho /:
i found a whole users gallery chalked full of bestiality
but you know they ban CP but not a realistic picture of a man fucking a dog.
its animal abuse and FA is okay with this? |:
Then again, I'm probably not the person to try and argue this to anyways since I think there's a rather large difference between having an attraction towards something (which they can't help and doesn't hurt anyone except possibly themselves) and acting on it (which does hurt others and is within their own control). *shrugs*
its humanxwild animal...
|:
also, when you draw something illegal/immoral and upload it to a art community you are making it become normal and accepted.
honestly, most people believe all furries are into bestiality and this site saying its 'ok' to have art depicting just reenforces that.
people can bitch that furries are made fun of and shunned but what are they doing to change the stereo types that cause this?
It's a logical fallacy. I go kill people in video games all the time. Would I do it in real life? No.
yep just like how everyone should believe that just because a pedo likes art of children in sexual situations doesnt mean that they are actually a pedophile.
yep
thanks
People like you are the reason people try to ban video games and violent movies. Because you're so stuck in the fact that if they like it in fantasy they must like it in real life. For all the violent video games people play, not many of those people go on to perform violent acts in real life on real people. You can ignore the previous examples of vore, rape, and gore art not carrying into real life, but you've already shown me you have no capacity to separate art and reality.
tell how its 'make believe' when they paint a dog having sex with a human in a lawn chair and the dog depicted is exactly the same as irl pics theyve taken of their own dog |:
|: youre arent making any point
mods say no cub art
but its okay for bestiality art
both can be agreed to be terrible things in real life
apparently art of children being raped is bad
but art of animals being raped is okay
and i see it as matter of the mods arent caring because its not like they can lose funding or get in trouble with thew FBI over animal abuse.
I see your POV being 'oh i dont care lolololol ill just think its all based on silly magical fake things and no body ever rapes kids and dogs lolol ur so stupid'
but you missed my point all together being: i have a problem with raping children and animals. and the fact this site apparently loves animals but will allow art depicting animal abuse.
yes, it IS abuse.
do you have any proof that the dog wants it other then natural animal instincts to mate
the dog doesnt know any better
the same goes for a child 'falling in love' with an adult.
they do not know any better
a human adult should
otherwise they are fucked in the head
I think everyone has a problem with children and animals being raped. I am telling you art is doing neither of these thing, and people can draw whatever they want without actually doing it. Just because you draw it (whether it's cub art, vore, rape, bestiality, or gore) doesn't mean you would ever do it. You keep ignoring that point, though. It's art, no one is being hurt. It's not real, these people most likely don't even do these things (like my example with violent video games not carrying over to actually killing people). There is no point talking to you anymore about this, because I've reiterated that point in every way I could and you're still not getting it.
This site wouldn't be here if it was not able to make money. As you recall, the members of this site aren't required to pay.
Obviously, they can't run without it so they made the ruling to 1. keep in business and 2. keep users in Europe from potentially being arrested.
only making a profit
This conversation was pointless before it even began.
(that is sarcasm and I appreciate the rewrite- i also appreciate the less strict SL policy because while I don't upload screenshots myself i do enjoy seeing them)
No changes to that. Art of drug use is acceptable. Photos of real art... no.
"Attempts to circumvent this policy by cropping out offending material or linking to prohibited content off site in the comments/description is not acceptable. Submissions violating this rule may be removed without notice." Great, no more mention of InkBunny on FA. That's one was to snuff out the competition!
No, the intention was to stop people from trying to loophole the policy by uploading cropped artwork and linking to sites that permitted cub art as a way to circumvent our rules. "See the full picture here!" and... yeah. No cub porn.
Seriously. I am so glad you said that. There are always two types of people who annoy me on these things:
1. Those who want the rules to be so strict the site won't be fun anymore.
2. Those who want so few rules that nobody could ever be banned for anything.
I'm all for order and whatnot, but people who concern themselves with art of things they don't like...it's just drawings...people need to just not look at it. I don't like certain types of art, does that mean I'M going to complain every time I see it? No. Because that'd be immature and pointless. If it's not against TOS, it's in your ballpark to be independent and mature by just ignoring it.
The "prohibited content offsite" simply means that if you've posted some shit like cub-porn (or anything else that's against the rules here) on another site, you can't link back to it here.
That's like buying weed in Canada and bringing it to the US and saying "Well, I got it legally somewhere else!"
Or, I'm just wasting my time because you're just trying to be a hard ass for the sake of being a hard ass.
It's just an example for the purpose of telling someone they're toeing the wrong side of the line. I live in the US and Canada is next door. If I were in Germany, I would have used Germany and Austria.
It's a hypothetical situation, dipshit. I didn't explicitly state that it's legal in Canada. Once again, if I were in Germany, I would have used Germany and Austria.
Get your head out of your ass.
I love dipshits who feel the need to correct you when you're using a hypothetical situation as an example.
We live in a broken law system :P
Do there need to be legal ramifications for a site to determine what content is/isn't acceptable? It's an Internet website, not something the Senate is doing, so it's not a matter of "free speech." As a privately owned site, they can choose what they do and do not want to police. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be banned!
there is that better
While I can kind of understand the clause where you can't link to art on other art sites that violates the AUP (Even if I disagree with it in most cases), it seems to me if you edit a picture to not violate the rules, what you are left with is a picture that... doesn't violate the rules, whether it's because of cropping, or by painting pants onto the characters involved, or even just censorship boxes.
It's the offsite linking that's the issue - it's a willing circumvention of the rule. You could say editing is, too on a technical level I guess, but editing removes the objectionable content - linking to that same content, then, negates the edit by providing the alternate/objectionable version.
Presumably the rule is there to keep people from exploiting loopholes that enable people to get their kiddy porn fix.
Objection! You can still mention InkBunny and link to it(there's even an "Inkbunny" field in the profile for the link to your Inkbunny userpage) but you can't link directly to prohibited content there. That means that you can link to your userpage on Inkbunny but not directly to the submission there if it's against FA's rules. So practically that rule doesn't have any effect.
You can post as many as you like in whatever amount of time?
But making like 12 in a day? That's fine. Excessive and I may suggest pointing you towards Twitter, but fine.
What they mean is if you go crazy every 10 minutes posting stream submissions, its spam.
The point is to keep a steady and live stream going... posting and posting is spam, but its understood if you post a few or maybe more if you take a break or something.
Some Streamers will actually post links to their Stream on a submission every 5 minutes, and I have seen it, t give their stream popularity and with FA's constant front-page submissions changing, its likely people won't see the stream notice anyway.
So if you have a fan-base, its likely you will get attention, otherwise you have to build your fan-base up first.
For this, I use InkBunny as they have a Stream system and its VERY useful.
Just be careful and wise with your streams :3
Imagine if all stream notices were like journals, it would NEVER end.
This doesn't really interface with FA, though :v
I know some people who just post the same thing over and over again, and delete it after some seconds to re-upload it, so it's always on the front page.
...Does that violates the TOS or AUP? Or I'm being a Meanie?
Or am I misunderstanding this.
Well, seems I'm already in violation of this...and I thought that, as a photographer, I wouldn't have to worry about these things...darn.
there was actually a point where i chose to write a reminder journal for my watchers.
Also I'm glad there's a section in the COC about how to respond to being harassed. Really useful. Thanks. :3
Admissions to REAL bestiality do.
"...If you should ever find yourself caught by the authorities, know that you will not just be going to jail. Depending on the state you live in, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony. Also I cannot stress enough that there are no safe states. Even if there are no laws against bestiality specifically, you can be charged with sodomy, crimes against nature, animal cruelty and a few other ones depending upon your situation. They take your computer, hard drives, thumb drives, your animals and anything that they consider to be evidence..."
so in turn, couldnt art associated with bestiality in turn be considered 'evidence' if found on someones computer or linked into their FA account?
CP, on the other hand, is in a murky legal status *because* there are laws against fictional depictions of child porn.
the
worldfurries may never know!Just look up some of the ancient Greek myths.
The Greeks also had a system of slavery. Last time i checked, we abolished that a long time ago.
"Women in ancient Greece were not permitted to take part in public life." Funny that we, here, give women rights about the same as men.
Religious mythology is just that: myths. Used to explain things that we can not. A swan raping a woman or a woman having a sex with a bull are not actually used as images of beautiful things. It was just the way they explained how it was possible to have Demigods (human + gods). It was also a convenient way to explain constellations.
" The mythographers tell that Zeus was enamored of Europa and decided to seduce or ravish her, the two being near-equivalent in Greek myth. He transformed himself into a tame white bull and mixed in with her father's herds. While Europa and her female attendants were gathering flowers, she saw the bull, caressed his flanks, and eventually got onto his back. Zeus took that opportunity and ran to the sea and swam, with her on his back, to the island of Crete. He then revealed his true identity, and Europa became the first queen of Crete. Zeus gave her a necklace made by Hephaestus and three additional gifts: Talos, Laelaps and a javelin that never missed. Zeus later re-created the shape of the white bull in the stars, which is now known as the constellation Taurus."
Later on, Zeus then mated with Europa in 3 forms ("once as an eagle, once as a bull, and once as a rooster.") Thus she gave birth to Rhadamanthus and Minos who, if you recall, are 2 of 3 Judges of Death. His two sons bore from Europa, are representative of Zeus's 'great sense of justice'. Mind you the tale of Zeus and Europa is also said to be the constellation: Taurus.
my point being in all this, the Greeks invented these tall tales as a way to explain the unknown to common folks. The use of animals, the stars, and death were common things everyone knew about. Having a human and animal mate isnt really in support of bestiality but more so a poetic way to put things.
When i see a piece of art, on this site or otherwise, showing a man raping a dog while he sits in his lawn chair im sorry to say i cant see that as 1) art 2) poetic or beautiful 3) making a statement or explaining the meaning of life. The Greek's tales of bestiality are not as crude and can not be held as a comparison to today's depictions of bestiality.
Historically though, bestiality isn't a new thing - it would appear that as long as humans and animals have been around there have been instances of interspecies couplings - I mean why would the Bible even denounce bestiality as a sin if it wasn't already happening at that time?
I'm not saying bestiality is right but I'm also not saying artwork depicting instances of it is wrong.
I also don't think because somebody draws a picture of said act it makes them a bestialist (or something) - I mean isn't that the same as calling somebody who draws a murder scene a murderer - or even someone who draws a rape scene a rapist?
I'm personally of the thinking that the bodies of two individuals don't matter - if they're both consenting* I don't see why anyone outside of that coupling need take issue with it.
*I'm not necessarily talking about animals here because I'm fully aware of the fact animals can't give definite consent of any kind - so don't jump down my throat about that.
You do realise that can be interpreted as Eve having sexual intercourse with the serpent, yeah? 'Tasting the forbidden fruit' is interpreted by many to be a metaphor for sexual intercourse (*gasp* *shock* *horror*).
So yeah let's see the Bible get banned for containing bestiality!
HA!
and then there are also many who interpret the bible differently.
last time i checked, what i was taught in many churches they love to say that the forbidden fruit was just that. fruit.
There's always the odd contradiction with animals and animal rights though - one that just doesn't go away:
It's okay to kill an animal for food or for sport, but for the most part it's not okay (or acceptable) to engage in sexual activity with an animal.
Don't those two 'rules' seem to be at odds with one another?
Of course people might argue that killing animals for food is natural and that's fine and dandy, but those same people enjoy the benefits of having protected sex and/or using contraceptives - things which are most certainly not natural (perhaps not an ideal comparison but let's roll with it anyway).
There are also instances of animals mating outside of their own species - dolphins especially are psychotically sexual and will fuck anything given half a chance. So if that behaviour is natural for dolphins might it not be true for other species too?
Bestiality may never be accepted in the mainstream, no - I would be somewhat surprised if it were to be because the weight of opposition coming from the 'normal people' will always be too great. I just don't think it's going to go away either.
I mean unless you put all the humans on one side of the fence and all the animals on the other - but that would just be silly, right?
having sex with animals: can go without
Yes, an animal will (if horny enough) will fuck anything that moves. Last time checked, Dolphins arent as successful as the human race either. We, as humans, leave behind our weak links and thusly have become a thriving species, dominating any animal we want to because we have imposable thumbs and a the ability to think rationally. Rational, healthy human beings do not try to mate with other species. Its in our genes to know to mate with something that will give us off spring. If there is a skew in that thought process and if someone thinks 'hey is ok if i have sex with this dog' then they are not right in the head.
If we were to accept all Zooaphiles, Pedophiles, Serial Killers, and mentally ill peoples then this world would be a... "different" place. A lawless place. A wild place. Now im not saying "kill everyone who has a mental illness" but i am saying that they need to be removed from society and placed somewhere where they can receive help for their problems.
There are morals in this world for good reasons. Just because we see/know other animals may mistakenly try to mate with another doesnt mean we should follow their example or take that as an 'okay'. We know enough to study that and learn to do better.
If an animal can not mate with something that will not give it off spring then its a weak link. It's not helping the continuation of its species and will be shunned accordingly.
It's interesting that you cite human beings mating for the purposes of procreation when in the preceding comment I mentioned human beings using contraception - which means that human beings do not mate only to procreate; I wonder if you would call the behaviour of mating with no intention to concieve a 'skew from the norm' (because in scientific genetic terms it most certainly is).
Perhaps changing direction for a moment - I'm wondering if - in your opinion at least - it is 'okay' for a human to mate with an anthropomorph - or is that a strictly no-go area as well? In which case I'm wondering where (in your opinion) we draw the line, because many people outside of the furry community consider attraction to any kind of anthropomorph a deviation from the norm.
Regardless of how human the anthropomorph might appear, 'normal people' see attraction to any kind of non-human features as a lean toward bestiality - i.e. a demonstration of mental illness (as you so delicately put it).
I'm aware of course that attraction to any kind of anthropomorph is only a flight of fantasy never to be realised - but then couldn't that also be said to be true of artwork depicting bestiality?
the use of contraception only proves more how intelligent of a species we are. we have learned to control our population growth.
In my opinion, animals (in any way shape or form) are not attractive to me.
I know of a few public statues which depit mythological instances of bestiality - such as 'Leda and the Swan' which suggests/references the instances where Zeus took the form of a swan and raped a woman in ancient Greek myth.
Those crazy Greeks and their love of bestiality!
There's also other statues such as a pan/satyr raping a nanny goat and countless references to bestiality in a lot of literature outside of ancient Greek myth. There are no restrictions on anybody owning these materials and they are not deemed illegal, no.
Of course these pieces are still controversial and upset a few people, but they are not illegal, no.
Just so I'm sure I (a) understand and (b) don't break the rules - if I were to create a ref sheet or sheets by compositing images of an avatar into one overall image, would that be in accordance with this policy? Here's an example of what I'm talking about, and in the submission notes, I have made a point of crediting the sources for the bits I used, insofar as I have the information:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5197611/ (links to two more sheets)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6685571/ (links to two more sheets)
As I understand the policy, both the old and the new version, these would be an acceptable use of SL snapshots.
Where possible, I would advise people to build a collage of shots/images into one or two submissions.
My guess is that soundbites uploaded by themselves need to be different, but when compiled into a much longer "work" (audio piece) would already have the needed studio rework to qualify.
I assume that includes nudity, regardless of tone, intent or context?
These rules don't seem any clearer to me.
And I think you're still being far too harsh on the 3D stuff.
For supposedly clear and understandable rules I'm having to ask a lot of questions to get the gist of them...
Admittedly, America's persistent inability to seperate nudity and sex doesn't help matters.
Showing a full frontal of a 2 year old lion cub in the bath is allowed.
Last question is - do all the mods understand that definition? I've had personal experience of how differently one mod can interpret a rule compared to another.
After for the last issue, here's the thing: Be polite, be calm, and do NOT get argumentative with the admin who removes anything. This helps a LOT to having and maintaing a civil discourse, and predisposes other admins who may be asked to review the exchange to look at things neutrally.
I was unpleasently surprised when I saw how many people do *not* do that. It doesn't help their case. At all.
If you don't feel that the admin came with the 'correct' (your viewpoint) solution, ask for another administrator to review the case.
Personally, I do my best to be calm, rational and polite - it's in both parties' best interests. Anger and rudeness are counter-productive.
Shouldn't that work both ways, though? NamelessImp's reply neatly summarises the issues with mods repeatedly encountered by users here, and I agree those kinds of reactions and behaviours are not conducive to a civil atmosphere. I think the problem is a lack of accountability with mods - maybe you should follow Weasyl's example and set a code of conduct for them? At the very least it'll help both sides know where they stand in the event of a dispute.
I have to say, though, that you have thus far been a breath of fresh, reasoned, level-headed air. So nice to discuss things with someone willing to listen and think.
People break a rule, then cry foul when we enforce the rules. They complain that the mods/ops are being unfair or mean, when all we're doing is enforcing the rules that people agreed to.
I once removed an item a user had posted, because it was a screenshot/meme. They claimed they drew it, and would offer proof that they did the vector art by tracing a still. I told them that they'd better be grateful that I was ignoring that and treating it as a screenshot/meme, because they would be suspended for a month for tracing. User then went to a journal and claimed that I was being unreasonable and randomly threatened them with a ban, with direct quotes from her and paraphrasing from me.
*this* is the narrative that goes on. It doesn't help that in the past we have had a judgemental fucktard or two (long before my time, I butted heads with 'em), or in the past have had administrators *refuse* to go along with what had been commonly accepted among the rest of the staff, or decided to make up their own rules as they went along because 'they knew better' - and then when users encountered the rest of the admin staff and got hit with breaking the rules (as the majority of staff held them to be)...
Do admins fuck up? Yup. We're people, too. We are in no shape perfect - I've got journals proving that I can be a petty fucktard, that I'm not taking down because I dislike 'hiding' evidence of my own fucktardedness.
But if you come in expecting us to be assholes, or assume malice ("Why are you singling me out!" "...I'm not, I saw your violation on the front page." is a common exchange I have), then you're likely to have a very cold and unfriendly exchange.
I try my best to 'Assume Good Faith', and to be pleasent and polite, but that gets strained with "FUCK DA POLICE" style of behavior.
I'm not dumping all responsibility onto the userbase. I am saying that the above is the responsibility of the userbase.
In a perfect world, yeah, a user's behavior doesn't matter. This is not a perfect world. In the real world, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Before, I had thought that I couldn't even have a naked anthro child running away from their bath even if no bits are showing. I have no plans for that, but if the comic calls for it, I'm glad I won't have a hard editing decision to make or make a different version for FA.
Art in the style of the photography in this comic would not result in a ban.
I agree with this, those stupid 3D art rules are still there. Let's see how long it takes before they learn from other sites that they aren't needed and remove them. Until then, I can't recommend FA to 3D furry artists.
I made my character in Blender without a base and by these rules, I'm only allowed to make 12 renders of him.
I'm not the only person screwed over by this. Even 3D artists far better than I am are going to be affected by this. Anthroanim and Zorryn to name two of them. Hell, even the BlenderFur group could be hit hard by this.
Still, you're restricting 3D users to an unfair extent. We should be free to show our characters/fursonas. How would you feel if you were told you could only upload 12 pictures of your character?
Making 3D models from scratch and posting SL pictures are NOT the same thing. There's far more effort involved in making a render. You have to set up everything. Lighting, post-processing effects. The scene itself. So what if it uses the same model. I've seen the same drawing uploaded several times. Yet you've mentioned nothing about that.
You clearly don't understand, Dragoneer and chances are, you never will.
You're completely failing to recognise the middle ground between those who just load Krystal, pull her limbs about a bit, and hit render, and those who create their own models - the people who use stock models, or ones they commissioned from others (both, in my case) but put a lot of work in to try and actually create something worthwhile. Personally, I cannot draw at all, despite much effort to learn, so 3D is a valuable visual outlet for me. Since my other favourite medium, writing, is basically an afterthought here - the 'support' is frankly one notch above awful - renders are all I have to share here.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I can't help thinking you're discriminating with very litttle grounds or justification to do so. Isn't what the artist creates the point, not how they create it, or am I just being naive?
By your logic you should ban writing, since the words used aren't created by or for the writers using them, or owned by them.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/...../#cid:27831678
So what about all those people who get sick and have a friend write for them? Or those who can't check it and have a friend of theirs check their account. Is that not allowed? Because I know several artists who have done this...
YOU take responsibility for whatever they do while on your account. While we may have a DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS moment or two, the owner of the count is responsible for any actions anyone does on their account. This includes trolling, flaming, harassment, AUP/TOS violations, etc.
That'll get the second person's account shut down.
people claim "its not cub so its ok" well it is still a minor...
I am not a MLP fan but it just seems dumb to specify anthros and then have a problem with only certain things being underage (but not pokemon or digimon, even the ones that are humanoid)
well on pokemon and digimon too
there is so much art of "baby" like form digimon/pokemons involving in a adult situation, not a fun sight...well for me
...here we are, no changes. :C
But I politely disagree with this. There's evidence that BOTH are acceptable, and it's kind of absurd that people who are aging them...giving them more 'adult' like figures...are still accused and treated as if they are drawing cubs.
Ponies are not either of those things.
They are given human qualities..that is to say, to speak, think, and act like us. This is the act of anthropomorphizing.
To wit, the Cutie Mark Crusaders fall under.
an·thro·po·mor·phic
[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
2.
resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.
That is still what the term 'anthropomorphic' means, and being feral or not has no bearing on this.
Look, you can have your ferals if you want, but the rules are the rules across the board.
MLP gets a pass because of a few different reasons, such as some of the characters have jobs, they have clearly defined 'children', yadda yadda.
Which I'm saying applies also to Sonic, despite the fact that the site has taken this stance against Sonic artwork for some baffling reason, and the AUP needs cleaned up...which was the entire point of my posts in this journal in the first place.
MLP does get a pass because of that, but I'm saying it should be because the feral rule. Why the hell do digimon and pokemon get a pass? TONS of those are humanoid, and they even have baby categories for both and I have seen porn of those and no one cares. I see porn of those other animals (balto, bolt, dinosaurs from land before time, fox and the hound etc). Those latter two are all CLEARLY not adults, but they have adult material posted of them all the time, and no one bats an eye. It's because they are ferals as pr furry definition so even if they are anthromorphic in the dictionary sense, they are not anthros in the style/furry artistic aspect.
The rules on this site are bad at being clear. They need to clearly define what an anthro is, and what a feral is, and what is acceptable. Because as it stands there is a lot of bias on the rules.
And that term means...giving human qualities...ANY HUMAN QUALITIES...to anything that is not a human makes it anthro'd.
You can do this to a chair, and it is an anthro'd chair. You can make a deer talk, understand humans, read, walk, all of these things are defined as human qualities. I'm sorry, but no matter what anything else you say on the matter, regardless if they walk on all fours or on two, that makes them anthropomorphic.
What if we looked at a chakat, which walks on 4 legs, but has the torso of a feline, or a dog, or whatever. What do you call that? is it now feral?
Is the cube also considered anthropomorphic?
If you disassemble the word you'll find that 'anthro' means 'man-like' and 'morph' means 'in form', so I don't think you're on the right tack here with your arguments.
I think we need a new word here to describe characters which have the 'human attributes' which are not physiological, because using 'anthropomorph' as a sweeping descriptive term is far, far too clumsy.
It is given human qualities.
For example - the aliens from the James Cameron movies are classified as 'xenomorphs' even though they are bipedal and feature a lot of human physiological qualities - why are they classed as 'xenomorphs' and not 'anthropomorphs'?
So perhaps if the cube was of alien descent (i.e. built by aliens) is it presumptuous that its ability to talk is actually a human quality - and not also an alien one - or at least descended from origins completely disparate to that of man?
Is the ability to talk really definable as a human-only attribute (that is - specific [b]only[/b] to humans) or is using 'anthropomorphic' to describe the ability to talk a misappropriation of that word in the instance that man had nothing to do with the cube being able to talk?
We can also say that the ability to walk on two legs and use tools is also not a human-only quality - because many animals are also able to do those things; For example: would you say a crow has anthropomorphic attributes because it is able to use tools? Is that an accurate use of the word?
Are you following my logic here?
Furthermore - using your earlier chair example - if you were to give the chair the ability to walk like a beast (i.e. four-legged animal) it would be a misappropriation of the word 'anthropomorph' because the chair wouldn't be demonstrating human/man-like attributes in that instance - the correct word is 'theriomorphic' - having the form (or I presume) attributes of a beast.
I'm just annoyed when people use 'anthropomorph' as a sweeping term (or label) to classify anything from a talking toaster to a talking t-rex (neither being anthropomorphs in my mind).
It's really, really inspecific - infuriatingly so.
I personally don't like cub art - but some adult material of Pokemon characters who have distinctly child-like appearances (mesprit, azelf, uxie, to name a few) seem to fly under the radar here - are those kinds of Pokemon really all that different from "children with antennae stuck on their heads"?
I'm not trying to make a case for cub art here because I'll say again that I don't like it and I really don't like adult work of the aforementioned Pokemon.
What I'm seeing in the responses to me is a knee-jerk reaction to the OTHER end of the spectrum, where NOTHING is considered anthro'd, and everything is either animal based or a quality that could *potentially* belong to something other than a human.
For instance, your alien example here. We're talking about theoretical possibilities with that, and that's not a basis for what we term as 'anthro' or not.
For whatever reason, NamelessImp here simply refuses to see that regardless of what he feels the community views it as, anything that has any human quality...the ability to critically think, to read, to talk, ANYTHING that we deem and note as being 'human'...when applied to any other animal, is anthro'ing it.
He's on my case for ignoring his 'examples', but I simply chose to ignore those on account that the very core of his argument is flawed. It doesn't matter if the animal is walking on its' fours or not, if it has ANY human quality...for instance, Bambi who can talk....is being anthropomorphed.
You can't conveniently isolate traits like talking, using tools, or whatever into the 'anthropomorph' term because they're not things limited only to human beings - both factually and in a broader hypothetical sense.
I really, really don't understand the need to label a talking toaster an anthropomorph. It's just a talking toaster, honestly - that's all it is; It really doesn't need to be conveniently labelled or 'boxed'.
and those are TOTALLY THEORETICAL creations. They do not ACTUALLY EXIST. It is a POSSIBLE theory, but you cannot prove it nor can I disprove that there's living beings out there that are like us. For now, that is left to ideals and theories...
And yes, I can totally define talking as a human trait. you're confusing that with COMMUNICATING, which is a different kettle of fish.
It's why those videos of animals speaking are so popular; because this is not a common trait of that species...it is a common trait of humans.
As for using tools, you're right. There are other species out there that use tools, such as sticks and stones. But it is primarily a human trait.
If something like the alien (xenomorph) from James Cameron's stuff isn't considered an anthro then I can't agree to everything being branded an anthro for whatever reason people might want to stick that label on it.
Anthropomorph to me means something that appears 'human' or at least 'humanoid' in form - I'm not going to concede to it being a term that defines anything other than that.
And even then - if for example I created a character that was a spiritually animated suit of armour - yeah it looks human, but it isn't really an anthropomorph is it?
Can you see my difficulty with this term and it being used so frivolously?
And, to counter, I repost this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/bro.....nthropomorphic
an·thro·po·mor·phic
[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
2.
resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.
What you are taking it as, is definition 2. Given human form.
However, that is not the only valid definition of the word. The suit of armor is given human form, and if it made into a living creature...such as the one in Full Metal Alchemist...then yes, it has been anthro'd.
The Xenomorphs do have something of a human quality, but it can vary from creature to creature. The one in Alien 3 is more dog like, from it having a canine host...but the one in the original film not only stands and moves like a human, it actually has a partial human skull under the dome.
http://cdn.chud.com/5/57/579976ab_H.....nal-Alien.jpeg
While I can't seem to find a DEFINITE definition for the term 'xenomorph', I did find this for 'Xenomorphic'
xen·o·mor·phic
[zen-uh-mawr-fik, zee-nuh-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Also, allotriomorphic. Petrography . noting or pertaining to a mineral grain that does not have its characteristic crystalline form but has a form impressed on it by surrounding grains; anhedral.
2.
in an unusual form; having a strange form.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenomorphic
I'm going to assume that a mineral grain isn't going to refer to the creatures from the movie, so that's out.
But the second definition there...an unusual or strange form...could apply here. That doesn't mean it cannot be anthro (given human qualities), but it is unusual...and for us, it would be very strange indeed to come across a creature that has acid for blood.
I'm not saying we don't need to better define things, but the term anthro simply implies that it has a human trait or quality. That could be form, or something we see as being specifically...or very nearly...'human only'.
Switching gears, talking is a FORM of communication; but not all communication is talking. Does this make sense? Right now, for instance, I am not talking to you...I am writing to you, and you can read that. I have chosen a different medium from talking on account that we are not in the same room, able to converse.
Animals and plants also communicate, but in different ways.
For my own purposes I prefer to use the term xenomorph - though I will use anthropomorph to describe characters which are mostly humanoid in appearance, but in my book a character talking in what might be described as a 'human fashion' is not enough for it to be classed an anthropomorph.
I guess in the end it just comes down to personal preference/nitpickery.
Good discussion though; Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
You can view them however you want to; just it's good to know what the definitions are, and how the majority of people are going to look at them...Imp not withstanding. :P
Yer certainly a hell of a debater; haven't had a discussion this deep in...quite awhile, actually. Although, I really didn't want to cause such a thing...I really just want the FA staff to fix the mucky AUP. XD
personally, i do see it as something of a sweeping statement. the dictionary suggests that anthropomorphic relates to human traits, which does not strike me as only a reference to the physical form. i would include human speech as a human trait when it is paired with human personalities and emotions, rather than being vocal mimicry. yes, this definition probably does leave room for grey areas if over analysed, as humans and animals ofcourse share some traits, and it will be further confused by all things furry. but i am merely going by what i feel the dictionary suggests (though i think it makes sense to have a grouping of things to make it obvious it's a human trait rather than co-incidence). if things need to be further clarified, it would be up to FA to give strict definitions. (i get that anthro is also used as a term for a physical style here, but again, it's a vague furry term, rather than an actual definition, so far as i am aware. but i can see why this may raise the need for clarification from fa).
pokemon are an interesting example as there is little to identify their age, and in the games, i don't notice much of a suggestion that they have much in the way of anthropomorphic qualities. i suspect in this example it would make sense for artists to actively avoid overly child-like traits and aim to resemble adult animals. i struggle to think of a better solution and i doubt here is enough grounds to ban pokemon porn (outside of trademark issues).
i think i might get your point though(?). if a rabbit from watership down is said to be anthropomorphic (which i would agree with), this could cause some problems if the rules do go by anthros needing to be over 18, since the animals are both physically and mentally adult. here i think people might benefit from understanding the general idea, rather than aim to be pedantic or dance around rules for the sake it of. some clarification on the matter may be beneficial however.
That'd be a completely fruitless and pointless exercise in nitpicking.
I am saying the term furry is not in the dictionary as per the way WE use it here. The same thing goes for anthro.The dictionary and art terms are TWO different meanins, just like with the word FURRY or CUB. YES, they have dictionary definitions, but they are all different from the furry definitions of it. I understand you're using the dictionary term, but that is not what it means here.
Also taurs are semi anthro (human like body) and semi feral (taur part). So any underage taurs are not allowed. Because listen to me. Just humor me, here. If underage anthros for YOUR definition are not allowed, how come the cast from the land before time is allowed in porn? They are all young dinosaurs. Why has it not been removed when it's posted by an extremely popular person on the site that Dragoneer himself watches? And he does multiple pictures. They are clearly underage, why is it allowed if they're considered anthro hmn? I've already presented you with examples, but you choose to ignore them because you are stuck on the dictionary.
The dictionary term is EXACTLY what we are using in the fandom. Anthro does not specifically mean those that are given human bodies and designs, otherwise we could in theory make an argument that a horse morph with a horse wang isn't anthro! He doesn't have human junk, he's not an anthro!
There is no variation here; you're confusing the style of the character with the fact it has human qualities.
I'll go back to my fallback example of the MLP. They walk on fours, but they talk and think like humans.
That's not enough, you say. Okay...they read books. Are they human ENOUGH yet?
No? Okay...okay! They bake! Animals don't bake, that is clearly a human activity!
They throw parties! They make cider! They invent!
...where do we draw the line at when they are anthro and when they aren't? All of these examples show they have human qualities, which is the ONE DEFINING TRAIT OF BEING ANTHRO'ED. That's it, there's nothing else needed.
What you are confusing the style of the character to what this term actually means, and how this community views it.
Also, I see elsewehre that you finally, finally, FINALLY posted who you thought was in violation of the Cub Ban laws: Nek0gami.
I want to stop you here. You're wrong here, okay?
Yes, there IS Land Before Time artwork in his gallery.
There is! But did you bother to check the date on any of the pieces? No? If you had, you would have your answer here.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4738883/
This is his 'newest' Land Before Time piece, in either his gallery or scraps. I checked the date on it: Nov. 4th, 2010.
This is almost 3 weeks before the Cub Ban was enacted. On Nov. 24th, 2010, the Cub Ban was put back into affect on account of AlertPay dropping us.
Which means that at the time of posting, Nek0 was not violating site rules. Now, he's rarely around on the site, and evidently it hasn't been given any mind or reported by anyone.
Technically, it could fall under grandfather laws; however FA doesn't do that. But, with the scarcity that Nek0 is on here, just to post art or otherwise, it doesn't surprise me he didn't even think about it. There's no reason to believe that 'Neer would go back through EVERY SUBMISSION EVER on the site to try and clean it up of cub artwork. That's impossible for one man to do considering how much is just submitted in one day.
Now, should it have been taken down? OH yeah, it is in violation of the rules.
Has it been? No. That doesn't mean it ISN'T in violation of the rules. The Cutie Mark Crusaders are NOT ALLOWED TO BE IN SEXUAL ARTWORK. That should be more than enough evidence that feral cubs aren't allowed either.
But it is unreasonable to expect the minimal staff here, with the murky laws of the AUP (which is what I'm concerned with...it's horribly written in regards to the age issue), to catch EVERY submission EVER. Hell, you can't even find everything on the site using a search, how do you expect someone to catch every violation just by looking through each piece? It's impossible.
It's awesome that you think because 'Neer watches some artists that he is needing to catch everything himself, but I can't even keep up with just my friends, and that's a far smaller percentage of artwork.
So, how about all those OTHER points I made that you called me out on? That I proved you were wrong on as well?
Let me try addressing this one more time for you, and I'll go through these.
Balto is an adult. He is a fully grown dog. He is not shown as a pup in artwork, he is shown in his fully grown state.
Mrs. Brisby is an adult. She has children, she is seen as a fully grown mouse, who has strife and problems in her life, and struggles to survive. She is shown as a child in artwork, but is shown in her fully grown state.
Spirit is an adult. He is a fully grown horse who is shown as an adult in artwork, in his fully grown state.
Fox & the Hound...tricky, but by the end of the film they are ADULTS, albeit young ones. They are shown as ADULTS in artwork, because...they're fully grown adults.
Now, that's not to say that every single piece of artwork out there is them as adults, but the vast majority is. Why? Because they are accepted as reaching that goal of '18+ or fully grown'. They are.
There's also things to be taken into account, in that it gets fuzzy. Again, the AUP is murky, and the staff isn't as well trained to handle this sort of thing. When an artist draws a character such as a Pichu, and ages them up or adjusts them in ways that makes them look less like a child, then that makes it fuzzy on if it is violating or not.
Your Nek0gami example was flawed from the ground up, because you failed to do the homework that I ended up doing for you. Yes, his artwork does violate the terms of the AUP, but it was uploaded before the ban.
Has it been reported? no idea.
How do you KNOW anything has been reported, unless you did the report yourself? Did you? Why did you not follow up on it? I've filed reports before on things violating TOS or AUP, and I've followed up on those, and gotten responses back. The situations were handled, the problems diffused. Did you? If not, why not? Did you just take someone else's word that they reported it? If so, why did you not back them up and report it yourself?
you are, again, confusing the style chosen for a character for anthro. Anthro applies to everything given a human characteristic. You can disagree with me on that, but I assure you, that is what is accepted. That's why we have a convention named after it; that is why it is considered 'anthropomorphic artwork', which is what this website caters to.
That is the entire basis of the fandom.
It doesn't specify adult for their species. IT says 18 or up. Those characters are obviously not older than 18. That Is why I am saying the rules need to be more clear on what anthros are and about age limits.
As I said, the characters like the Cutie Mark Crusaders in MLP have been explicitly targeted as not being allowed to be in pornography on FA, because they are 'children' in standards for the show.
But yes, the rules need work, badly. They should've been fixed months ago, and yet here we are, major updates to TOS and the like, and not one word of that has been fixed.
Sorry for all the arguing, both of us just strongly believe our definitions of feral and anthro are the ones. In my experience it has been what I have said, and you're going by the dictionary and we just do not agree. The mods really need to say for sure what it is, because I have seen other people (someone who commented farther down) who has an entirely different viewpoint on what anthro is.
It does seem like we do agree that the rules need to be clarified to a greater detail than they are now. So there's at least that.
Truthfully, I'm kind of surprised we've come to any sort of agreement...if I had been asked last night, I would have said no, no we weren't. XD
Well it seems we have our answer! I was really starting to doubt my knowledge of the fandom and anthro/feral terminology haha.
It's safe just to not upload -anything- not considered an adult, regardless of whether you consider it anthro or not, since there's even argument over the definition itself. At least, that's what I'd think.
As I said above. If that's true, why are those allowed?
Is (short for Insant Sonic) was one of these guys, who did amazing artwork and was forced off the site due to bad and murky AUP laws.
What if the member is discussing non-fictional activities that are illegal in the united states, but not in the country they performed the activity in?
For example, what if they post a picture of themselves with a bowl of weed for a profile ID, but they took the picture while on vacation in Amsterdam or whatever?
Moreover, what if the member is a citizen of the netherlands and actually lives in Amsterdam?
However to my knowledge, pictures of illegal activity are not, themselves, illegal.
I could be wrong about this, and if I am please do cite your sources when you let me know of it. I'll require proof, but if I am genuinely incorrect I'd like to know about it before I spread false information to other people.
Also, side note, you are not dragoneer.
I'm not Dragoneer, but I am an administrator.
The servers are certainly not being pumped full of marijuana smoke (to my knowledge), but is hosting a picture of someone else doing it illegal?
Yes the act is, but is the picture
That's what I was asking. Because if the photograph itself is not illegal, then the content of it should have no bearing on upload policy
So, no, no photography allowed of anything that breaks the law in the US or where FA's servers are hosted.
a) bandwidth and other hosting costs, or
b) lawyers to fend off some District Attorney or Attorney General with a stick up their ass about legally questionable material
I know which way I'm voting.
While I'm no more a lawyer than I am a system administrator, I can read, and as long as I'm not offering actual legal advice (I'm not, in case it wasn't clear) I can chip in my 2 bits on it as long as I have a working FA account.
Pictures of illegal activities can be construed as promoting those activities. There are some overly Puritan law-makers in America and they tend to bellow louder than the sane ones. While chances are good that any case brought against FA on any drug use charge will get dropped, the site would still be shut down during legal proceedings. Why risk it? Does your self-esteem really need strangers on the internet to see you smoking pot that badly?
I just like playing Devil's advocate. When you're a DM for various RPGs, you learn swiftly that devil's advocate is a very efficient way to play-test new rules outside of actual play
just seems unfair to me that some dude can't post a picture of his european vacation just cuz there's a blunt half-finished on the table
If illustrations and the like must abide by rules, with which I wholly agree, for basic quality, then I think that should be the first focus for photography-- must be in focus, not so dark or light that nothing can be made out in the thumbnail, a certain degree of tidiness or deliberation in setting, camera used must not be visible in image, etc.-- and then basic rules for subject, such as no higher than mature, no cropping out violations, and so on. I agree with certain restrictions concerning certain subjects-- But these tend to be handled in their own sections, such as sculpture. I think, again, Fursuits should be similarly restricted in their own section. However, i really don't think an art site is the place for casual event photos-- That is more or less the purpose of sites like photobucket.
If it's clear that there only needs a certain minimum in effort required for photos, people might be less inclined to dump their gpoy and only upload photos which were intended to be actual images, whether from a practicing amateur, to hobbyists and possibly any professionals (which, actually, it would be cool to see Fur suit portraiture... I've seen maybe one or two fursuit makers display their suits as such, but it seems very rare. Should be more encouraged).
Just my tl;dr two cents, I guess, but it is very disappointing to see how photography has been handled by the site to this point.
Beyond that, though, what about the severe limits for subjects? They will be very, very difficult to enforce (who wants to take the time to dig through a gallery to pick out the photos, then tally them by subject, as well as trying to distinguish between subjects for the purpose of the 12-per-subject rule so that there is no dispute as to, say, they had two sets at 7 and 8, or one set at 15, once things begin to cross because of multiple subjects in one image, or there's a certain degree of similarity between two or more subjects), and they have a clear bias towards fandom particulars. This isn't allowing photography as an art, it's allowing people to share their offline, fandom-centered activities. This is fine-- but it's not what the site is claiming to be doing, and it is irritating when everything else is told to go to photobucket because it's a 'spam problem'. How is it any better when people post enormous numbers of photos from conventions?
Barring everything, even if we are to keep these bizarre rules about photography-- Can we at least limit fursuit and convention photos too, even if in the name of fairness? I honestly see no reason they should be outside of any restrictions, if restrictions there be.
Kicking out all the Second Life and fursuit stuff to another site would please some people (myself included) but I don't know if causing a divide like that is really in FA's best interests. Improvements to site navigation to allow users to 'switch off' works of that nature (SL/fursuit) would have the same effect but I wouldn't know the first thing about implementing that kind of programming.
It depends on whose interests we're talking about in the fandom. Honestly, a survey would have to be done to be certain, but my guess is that most of the site is not nearly that interested in posting/seeing suiters and conventions. Most people in the fandom do not have suits, many more find them despicable or otherwise undesireable. However, I have run into a disturbing number of people from outside FA, but not the fandom, who are under the impression this site is for fur suiters only, or has a special focus on such and therefore are usually disinterested in joining. Second Life is another that is very likely not nearly as prevalent an interest in the fandom as it seems. I actually know only two people who've ever been on it, and neither was a furry. Most people I know in the fandom have an extremely low opinion on Second Life, but that's my circle of friends. Still, it doesn't seem it's actually well thought of in general, but again, a survey would be needed to know for certain.
It certainly would be better than going by who has the noisiest supporters. Concerning the flooding problems with these topics, it's unwise to assume that the volume of posts are from a majority of users as opposed to a minority with too many posts on said topic/s.
In any event, I just don't see why something like fursuits, which like Sculpture or SL models, is very likely to just be spammed, doesn't get any sort of restriction beyond the basics. There's nothing about only three per suit like other things have, or anything else, just. It's an exception to the set number per subject with zero other restrictions that I can find, unlike the previously mentioned items. The one person said it was due to the site's special interest, but see above lol.
...no cropping out violations...
The reason why I asked is because I had uploaded a picture of a beautiful Clydesdale horse and the focus of the photo was the animal and the people standing near him. But, the stallion was slightly aroused and...oh my goodness...people jumped on it. Some swore that it was a violation of the terms (even though IT wasn't the focus of the photo) and some just seemed to fap to it (>__<;) So, realizing that this was going to be a problem, I went into the photo and managed to digitally remove the...er...problem. I don't know if that's what you meant, but I just want to make sure that I didn't violate any rules by cleaning that up.
That shouldn't be a problem, because the intent of the image isn't the horsecock.
I'm not a mod, but like the person who seems to be confirmed, I would hope it wouldn't be a problem since it obviously wasn't the intent of the picture and it's not like one can help these things with animals (plus, when you're used to them, it's often easy to miss half-chub since it just kinda happens a lot). I would have hoped only for prohibiting trying to hide obvious porn or drug use, etc.
I wish more people would put effort into even casual photos so the validation of photography wasn't so... contentious. :C Fursuits present a really cool option for portraiture and the like, but almost no one takes it. Conventions are limited in their ideal spaces for photographs, but they can be found, even if a little creativity is necessary (although AC is very lucky with that roof which so few people seem to visit as an added bonus. I wonder if the artificial waterway beneath the building would work, though with some compensation for lighting and all, but it would need experimentation to be certain).
Still, I love the rewrite of this things, the adds and the such. I will keep them at handy in case of need.
To clarify, I do on-stream commissions when I stream. Right there in front of you. Sometimes I do free commission streams.
I know I'm not the only one who sits there wondering if anyone at all even saw my ad, cause between actually posting it and hitting the banner on the front page, it's already buried. If this does stay, will there be a possibility to have a new section for streaming notices, perhaps be able to make a submission with a time limit before they're auto-deleted? Something to help those who aren't zomg super popufur, and will have 50+ watchers anyway?
Then there's the problem of, so you drew something in your stream, right? Are you no longer allowed to put in the description that you're streaming and link to it? Is that considered a streaming notification?
I understand not everyone uses streaming notices to tell people they're drawing. Some people, like you, game. And really, there's not much you can do because this is maainly an art site, not a gaming site. Sure, there's tons of furs who like gaming, hell I love to game... but I don't enjoy watching someone else play something. I like playing my own games. So I can see that someone who's gaming would have a different viewpoint than myself (what gamer wants to pause every thirty minutes to upload a new stream post?).
Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for a limitation. I've seen people literally post every minute on the front page. That's unacceptable. But 12 hours? Really?? It's not like it leaves "submission has been deleted" boxes anymore, so it's not clogging anyone's recent submissions page now. Hell, within 12 hours, I could be doing two entirely different streams, for different art things. Anyone who's already seen the first one and wasn't interested will have deleted the submission anyway, and thus not seen the update.
Additionally, I don't personally leave streaming notices on my page. I delete the submission when I'm done streaming, or when I'm about to submit a new one. So it's not like I'm taking up server space with a billion submissions of the same thing (as noted above, they're typically not the same thing each time) every two minutes. Like I said, I know there are some people who do that (and need to be told not to), but why punish everyone this severely for what a few douchebags decided to do?
Just don't spam with journals and you will be fine.
On my profile its going to say if my stream is online or or offline best I can do now =/
This 12 hour limit rule seems a bit asinine to me.
Do you mean "may have their account locked"?
Also, I'm not sure I understand what is included under "sexuality". That has a broad range of definitions.
Other than that, awesome! And thanks!
Also:
Item 1: Yeah, that was actually revised by our resident grammar-checkar; looks like the full fix didn't go through. That should be "have their account age locked or terminated".
Also, erm, where do you mean by 'sexuality'?
Sexuality can be anything from porn to holding a sign saying you're gay or straight.
I don't know how to word exactly what at means, but it can't be sexual in nature. I can't upload a photo of me, fully clothed, dryhumping someone else who is fully clothed.
Like it was suggested, its too vague and has too many holes.
I read it and could probably do a far better job than that.
To explain what my view is a little further, then - I'm not really sure a further definition is necessary, considering all photographs of anything sexual are not to be uploaded. The word "sexuality" can refer to aspects concerning sexual orientation and similar subjects, and presumably a person could photograph a subject to portray some aspect of sexuality without it being sexual. I think a clarification of the wording choice is a useful step. Perhaps "sexual subjects" could be used in place of "sexuality." I guess that gets into semantics too; any species which reproduces sexually is referred to as sexual in a scientific sense.
I don't think specific wording like "Hey users, you can upload photographs about asexuality and homosexuality and bisexuality and pansexuality and any other sexuality or nonsexuality, that's cool, as long as it's not sex acts or allusions to sex acts" is favorable-sounding, though, as it's complicated and would undoubtedly leave something out and either offend or allow for loopholes and grey areas.
I'm not really sure where else to go with this comment. I was just thinking in regard to the language and don't really have much solid to say. Hopefully any actual problems are in fact ironed out.
For what it's worth, I do like a lot of the rewording and find it clearer and more palatable, including the gender/sex-specific swimsuit reference change under photography, and I appreciate the distinct wording in the tracing/plagiarism section.
Though now that I'm looking at it, apparently photographs can now be rated mature, not just general. Well, there goes my theory.
So that means things will calm down with time and beside I haven't seen much being uploaded.
females had to have big breasts and curvy (because all adult females have big breasts and curves - sexist bastards with big breast fetishes no doubt)
males? who knows....how do you age sonic 2 years....I suggested adding moustaches, but they nixed that idea
this is DESPITE dragoneer promising in an email that the then new rule would not be applied to fan art, as applying human ages to animals and animal-hybrids was according to him "ridiculous" ...a month later....
the letter is still on yiffyleaks if you wanna do a search for my name there.
Sonic died out in the furry community because the recent fan-base became children, thus the interest died out and the character designs reflected less sexuality.
In Japan, these communities are strong and living well because Japan doesn't treat everything "inappropriate" like the US does.
I too am tired of MLP, just give it a while.
Like anything, most things die out... but people will only follow it if its still popular.
One way to kill it is to stop commissioning artists or stop FORCING them with money to draw or paint them.
MLP is the new thing, people want it and it will die out.
Also, MLP is a fad right now... remember when there was a TON of Invader Zim fan-art going around?
Yeah, it died out a while after the show ended.
Sonic was VERY, VERY insanely popular, now you don't see much of it except for crappy artists who don't know a lot of anatomy.
Disney is actually dying out but has their own little secret history of attaching themselves to popular franchises and brands without labeling it.
Some of their assets belong to very adult rated content to down-right NON family or kid friendly stuff, they just don't put their name on it to avoid ruining the expectations of their kid-friendly brand.
=^.,.^=
=^.,.^=
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8508482/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8508493/
Enjoy!
I'm being short because the rework was promised...twice! I learned how to make a whole website in two weeks that looked better and operated more efficiently than FA, so what about two months? I just want to know that your priorities are set towards benefitting the user, not rewriting some policy over and over again to allow pointless SL screencaps.
Here's a good idea: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8470435/
It's notorious for promising things and not delivering...I just wish they'd have less downtime
I don't think screencaps from a game really count as art - except maybe instances where people actually build a model from the ground up (as I understand it that's actually what the rule change is aiming to allow).
However, I still expect to see a new flood of SL screencaps from today because people will deliberately 'misinterpret' the rule as allowing them to get away with the same kind of SL spam shit they did in the past.
And then - inevitably - there'll be an announcement banning ALL Second Life screencaps again.
Such is the circle of internet life (i.e. drama).
Oh well...
Hope for the best; Expect the worst!
I mean, what the HELL?
SecondLife exists as a MOD and PREMADE crap.
Yeah, its nice that there are primitives that build the model and people edit or manipulate textures to resemble their character... but seriously, its a freaking TEMPLATE and its just as BAD as Poser.
What's worse is that you can TELL what a SecondLife render looks like because of its template... and what about templates since it is discussed in the policy anyway?
Its a HUGE contradiction, almost like it was 100% ignored on purpose because of its popularity.
Another contradiction to that is the fact that I can loosely quote, "FA will not take sides to religious blah blah" which I mean also includes not taking sides for ANYTHING... yet here we see sides already being taken anyway.
SL is a template, that is ALL.
It's animations, mods, everything was made by someone and purchased by a customer... so where the HELL does creativity lie?
Keep in mind, I make my OWN 3D models from the ground up with ZBrush and 3D Studio Max, no tricky BS or some weird software to do it for me.
I also make my own artwork and 100% unique textures for my models... and I use GIMP.
Half of FA is UNABLE to do this.
I HOPE SL screenies are banned permanently, but I approve of character screenshots for true 3D artists to later custom create who use 3D creation software, not templates.
Another thing is, I approve of SL character screenies only because some people are not able to draw or make light of their character with just words.
Of course, I mean like maybe a few screenshots of their character to show off the body, body-type and other important features to make it clear.
But some people go crazy and completely ignore the rules... that's what annoys me.
Anyway, just my ideas on this.
I just have the horrible feeling that this green light for SL screencappers is going to end in disaster - you let a screencapper get away with one 'SUPER ORIGINAL CUSTOM SPRITE'* submission and they'll get sticky fingers and upload a whole heap of crap that floods out all the true original creative works and scratch-built 3D models.
Yeah, leave the SL users to their SL forums and Photobuckets - that's the proper place for that kind of thing - an art site really isn't appropriate.
*Heavy emphasis on sarcasm there.
Photobucket and other places are general purpose interest, furries are generally given the cold shoulder.
Another thing is, if it LOOKS GREAT its bound to be a cheap mod or slight change.
I see so many naive FA browsers commenting and saying "OMG you are a great 3d modeler!" when its really just a render of a slightly modded character.
This brings up another thing, people naive to these 3D models that are just slightly modified are twice as likely to never report it.
We are visual creatures mostly, so we love visuals and often don't understand a lot of things, I see this having a two-sided coin effect.
Facepalm sandwiches all round.
Everyone here thinks they are the next Leonardo Da Vinci... but HELL even "I" am over-hauling my artwork because I realize I need to get my BUTT in gear after being at Pixiv too long.
Anyway, yes, most people on here are underage, interested in attention and not a lot of people are willing to understand anatomy because FA is SLOOOOOOOOWLY turning into FaceBook and we don't even know it.
Since I've been spending more time here I'm starting to find dA more unbearable as time passes - it may just be that I have more in common with people here but I think the intelligence of a lot of FA users is generally underrated.
The people who spam, troll and make problems here are usually banned or worse, you just don't see it as its behind the scenes :3
Honestly, though, I think more artists on this site undersell than oversell and overestimate. I rarely see an artist that thinks their art is the shit, and just feels like it's shit. Most artists I see are ones that admit they have faults and always need to try to improve.
I agree with you on that, some artists tend to want to get better, however if you dig deeper they have a subconscious effort to show their ego.
Some artists, however, a MAJOR portion of FA, thinks they are the next Leonardo Da Vinci and cannot handle any form of critique, criticism and help... they are beyond held and what I call "art attention whore."
They want attention and fame SO BADLY they will create HORRIBLE art and make it appear they are the best ever, but in reality they are just making an ass of themselves and driving people away before they even look at the art.
Good on allowing adult sculpture again!
IMO the keyword policy needs reworked somewhat - I don't see why it should be alright to tag a submission with e.g. a species which is not present in that submission, simply because that species is present in other installments of the same comic/image series/serial. To me doing so seems like blatant abuse of the search engine (especially if said species is present in, say, less than 10% of the total material), but I've previously been told it's acceptable.
There also needs to be some sort of policy in place for "coherency rating" - ie, if you have a comic 12 pages long and 11 of those are rated adult, can you rate also the clean page adult and mature for coherency?
Second Life is getting less harsh treatment?
Over 60% of FA SL wannabe's don't bother going past a simple recolor in Photoshop or GIMP.
I cannot tell you how many hundre... I mean THOUSANDS of worthless pieces of crap I have seen in the 3D gallery where some users believe they are the best 3D artists in the world.
Not only that, but how is it ANY better?
The top used things are a mod by some person who made a Krystal from Starfox mod which nearly 90% of all FA SL artists use (how the hell is that CREATIVE??)
Another thing is, most people use Poser or some freaking awful and talentless piece of crud to get attention for their work and actually annoy a lot of people.
I have seen a ton of these things, some people even clarify the usage of Krystal Mod, Poser Mods and so on and only worked on the texture, nothing else.
So basically, these people can spam, spam and spam their crud on the gallery?
Heh, I really see this not working out, especially if you count the number of people who aren't even artists but claim to be.
What is the point of Second Life and Poser if its just a mod from an existing template?
The worst part is, you cannot trace a picture (THANK GOODNESS) or copy it, but if you maybe make the character's face maybe different or adjust a few things here and there with the same pose... same as 3D.
This seems so backwards and full of holes.
Not only that, but SL and Poser are the worst... my question is, why the HELL is it even allowed in the first place?
Photographers cannot modify a picture unless it clearly resembles something else, but a 3D SL or Poser render can have something modified but it be okay.
There's artwork, written, journal, audio and other types of submissions, but the problem is that there is a rule to PREVENT the flood of stream notices within pictures because noone bothers to read journals?
This is the biggest contradiction I have seen, why not CODE a submission type and process for multiple streaming types and notices and have that be a way to stop the flooding?
I use to use InkBunny to indicate I was streaming and it seems a hell of a lot better than FA as well, but FA is the place to go.
I don't understand this idea to be honest, it seems really backwards.
Also, is it true that IB doesn't allow images that show a human being uh... 'romantic' with a non-human (i.e. a sexual interspecies relationship between a human + non-human)?
I'm not sure if I've been misinformed on that latter point.
Half of the admins behind these websites are most likely interested in their own stuff, not yours.
The admins or webmasters are far more interested in their own furry world but when it becomes too much to handle like with FA, they become more in-tune to make everyone happy but themselves.
FA was originally made to please everyone with hardly any rules, but as you see, the rules changed and so has the opinion of others.
Way too many people complain, there are so many dumb-ass people who are close-minded and have particular FORCABLE ideas to eradicate things which means the whole thing blows out of proportion.
This is what I call general interest, to please noone but yourself and what the general public expects.
This is what FA becomes, Facebook, InkBunny and so many other sites that fall victim to general interest.
Here's a list of general interest in the furry fandom:
Cannot tell fantasy from reality (Those people who are against cub or underage FICTIONAL cub sex cannot tell fantasy from reality which is actually a real condition in this world)
Reality furs (These people prefer to egotistically engulf their life with their own habits and live throughout their art, but these people are also mostly not talented and brings us to SecondLife and Poser crappy mods)
You get the idea, the more people do something on a website, all attention goes to serve that purpose, but it has its contradictions and holes which people generally don't give a DAMN about because its popular.
I call that general interest or "taking sides."
To reiterate these questions:
1) Do I have to change some settings or something to be able to see anything beyond a user's IB profile page, or do I have to have been a user for X amount of time to get full site privileges?
2) Does IB really not allow human + non-human (interspecies sex) artwork?
These questions are open to any IB user to answer.
Never bothered to read IB's rules.
and yes, unlike here, they make a sensible rule since underaged humans in sexual situations are banned in some countires, they ban human(oid)s in sexual situations, while allowing everything else. Here they make a stupid rule of under 18 cartoons/art not allowed, which is stupid because you can't tell whose under 18 irl with HUMANS, yet the staff is using its "discretion" to ban and punish people who post anything sexual they deem is under 18.
No warning, nothing, just flat out suspended for days or weeks because we thought that character looked under 18 and no appeal process. Been banned for 3 days for posting a censored non adult pic and 5 days for posting a feral pic they thought was under 18 (all ferals are under 18, since most do not live to be 18.)
Some birds can live for as long as a human - and many reptiles can live for more than a century.
Mythological creatures such as griffons and dragons can live for millennia (supposedly).
The sexual maturity of any given animal does not follow that of a human anyway - some reach sexual maturity in less than a year, others may not reach sexual maturity until they are 30 years old - some are born pregnant.
So I'd be careful of making a sweeping statement like that.
the point is that they should make a written statement saying ferals are excluded for that reason....otherwise its another excuse for admins to abuse their power and they have.
If anything, this policy was so short and less informative that even "I" have questions about clarity and details.
The policy itself seems well written but most of the content or context seems to serve the public interest completely... which means that this whole re-written process was a re-write to fit that interest and only that interest which leaves the honest ones, like me and you, to kind of question the whole entire policy and have it be re-written again.
Am I the only one who can see this?
I reminds me of those charges against Apple for their kid accidentally buying thousands of dollars worth of in-app purchases and possible fraudulent charges claimed to be done by someone else without knowledge but only serves the general public interest.
I agree it only serves to further the end of this becoming a furry facebook (of which theres already a better site designed for that purpose, furnation, which means FA will eventually piss off enough people till it AOL's on itself.)
The main problem I have with the new AUP is they made the under 18 rule even crazier. There is no guide as to what is under 18 except whatever the admins decide it is. IRL, real merchants can't do that with real people....so they card everyone who looks under 30 or even 40 yrs old to protect themselves.
FA admins propose to do that with art and cartoons...which means anything cute, small, listed anywhere as being under 18 (most fan art) is capable of being removed. However, the powerhungry admins not only remove things but hand out suspensions for posting such things, not cub, but under 18 in their determination.
NOW they can ban suspend and remove things for G rated pictures if its adult on another site that they find...(wasn't there a rule once you couldnt be held accountable for things done on other sites?)
To me this just means another nail in FA's coffin and more power to already powerhungry admins.
They think they're too big to fail.....I keep thinking of AOL remember them? same arrogance
Thank fuck, we can rid of all the "LOL LOOK AT WHAT WE MADE!" baby pictures from people who don't understand their upload is sandwiched between hyper anus vore and furry-to-cock transformations.
Appreciate the SL changes too...
I can somewhat see quite a few people getting pissed about the collection photos.
I don't do it myself, that I recall anyway, but I've seen people who's entire galleries are dedicated to their inflatables.
Along with the character creators - lots of people make their characters with that.. they're ugly, but they do it.
If you really have a problem with Dragoneer or FA then just stop using the site and talking to him. Trash talking does not befit someone in an administrative position.
For example: a Dragon that walks on 2 legs, but cannot talk, nor express emotion unless its through feral acts, like snarling or whimpering. Its not an anhtro, its still feral.
Now if the dragon character was able to speak, and act more human and its anatomy was more of a human then its anthro.
Same goes for werewolves, if they are just crazy snarling beasts then they are feral but if the are closer to human like they are anthro.
Good example of anthro is the gaming franchise known as Bloody Roar. Even though they transform into beasts they still maintain their human traits. They can still speak and act 100% human only they have the look of their beast.
I hope this helps I could have worded it better if I wasn't on break at work lol.
"Anthro/Anthropmorphic - Animals or other non-humans in a physical shape of humans. This includes 'taurs."
"Feral - Animals with no physical human characteristics."
For the purposes of the AUP, we are only really concerned with physical shape.
Becuase of said arguement above, I'll be pushing to add said defintiions to the AUP, with the wording "For the purposes of this Acceptable Upload Policy, the following terms are defined as;"
Comes under - Unique Content & Flooding
Users may upload content so long as the submissions contain original, unique content. No more than 3 variations of the same image (including works-in-progress) may be uploaded.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7232474/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5660204/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3782954/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1932796/
Sorry they all look the same to me... but I'm guessing it's work in progress eh?
Pretty soon, we will be DeviantArt without furries or anything and everything will not be allowed anymore because too many idiots don't know how to do anything.
However, despite the bans, they are uncontrollable and usually faulty at most because the admins have the power while you do not.
FA is the mainstream DA of Furries, which is why most people post here.
However, with the few niche or minority groups who like certain things, you are driven away by the people who are not interested in it.
One unspoken thing most people ignore or totally forget is the fact that anything of general interest like adoptables, my little pony and other infamous things that people go crazy over is what gets monitored.
Things that are not popular or exactly interesting to others are ignored and often taken care of later once the popularity dies down, also called "general interest" because noone gives a damn about you or your interests because it doesn't match their own.
Another thing is, you are competing with other people and this site is for creative people.
You see, I have maybe ran into a few issues with the admins but it was an image removal after some trolls reported it, and the trolls are far more communicative and complain like crazy because they have more time than you do.
Taking photos of products or someone's creation is actually not your own, and I still wonder why the HELL people bother posting their photos of dumb and stupid things that belong on FaceBook or PhotoBucket.
Your personal matters, interests or problems are far less likely to be solved because the admins refuse to tell you anything due to liability and discreet legal problems.
For example, at the time I was there which was years ago, they disallowed any form of human art... but I posted a picture of a test subject with a muscle structure for anatomy practice and it was taken down or hidden.
What I don't agree with, is when sites like SoFurry disallow ambiguity because its not the popular thing or "fad" at the moment.
I'm sorry but, furries are really humans, just humanoid and some furry traits.
I prefer furries myself but what we don't really seem to notice is that most furry art is a human body with a furry featured head, that's all.
Today's furry is completely human albeit some colorations and maybe a nose and eye with ears and a tail, the rest is entirely human.
So with that controversy aside, SoFurry should NOT exist and actually ban all forms of humanoid stuff including the common form.
This is why I hate rules, they always contradict something else and its hardly given a second look or entirely overlooked.
Thanks.
A post like this will cause un needed drama and anger the admins. Just putting my 2 cents in.
The point is, some admins on FA are cruel, sometimes biased and take sides or don't how how to solve problems.
I see posts of it everywhere on chan-boards of unfair treatment and admins ACTUALLY admit to these claims and apologize... these ADMINS and MODS go to trolling-boards and sometimes admit their actions were wrong... so I do see a point in this problem.
What he means is, FA has the admins the size of DA, where all they do is hire some teenage 16 year old to deal with problems and then they become immature and take sides.
Trust me, I am a webmaster for two different sites and you have to sort of be neutral and keep a humble side to know what actions to take.
I found it on a forum post where I was offering advice to him but he kept saying I'm wrong and in a sense to shut up and leave him alone. So if anything his ban was justified. However, if what he says is true that no admin explained anything to him nor replied to his emails then that is wrong.
Also there is no excuse for NOT knowing the type of content in your gallery could be in violation. The TOS, COC, and AUP is open for everyone to read and easily accessed. As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse.
"Teacher, Billy pushed me in the mud!"
"Well why does Billy have a black eye Timmy?"
"ITS NOT MY FAULT BILLY STARTED IT!"
Few words of advice IGNORE THEM! You feed the trolls then you WILL be trolled. Stop acting like everything someone says to you is an attack! If you don't like how Neer runs the site then leave, no one is forcing you to stay here.
Also, it's common sense as well. :l
You see, messages stay, words don't.
In essence, messages stay in your mind because you can see it online and on a page... but in actual words, they disappear after they are said.
What most people don't consider is shutting up, pointing an error out and moving on... once you start causing issues and go on a troll's level, that is where YOU are wrong.
Simply jumping in and being the hero is the result of immaturity.
It takes guts to point something out, check up on it for clarity and then just move on if it doesn't work out.
Don't feed the fire, let it die out on its own.
Not only that, but who cares, go on another site, go elsewhere.
People can find you if they want to and you can gain new friends too.
I still have a stalker here in my area and he is on sofurry. You know what I did? Told the admins, made TT's, kept my cool and told the police about my stalkers. Now I have no trouble from anyone, and if I run onto that stalker again I will call the police again. Provoking drama is not the answer. You go ahead and keep assuming I have no idea what I am talking about, and keep treating EVERYTHING as an attack on you. No wonder trolls find you and harass you.
Seriously, if you can't take the people on the internet then stop going on website you know has people like ones you faced. Also FYI they may not have accused you of being a dog F**ker if you didn't have that zoofur icon on your page. You know they were banned because its illegal right?
You are just making asses of yourselves lol
You are just making asses of yourselves lol
Thanks to an admin which I will not name I am now 95% rehabilitated from this site - almost free, I only stay here because the site has a cool name - sad.
Photo Dump/Unique Content - Users may upload up to 12 images per subject (person, animal, object) with a limit of no more than 3 photos per session/location. The cap of 12 does not apply to photography of fursuits or conventions. Additionally, users are limited to no more than 3 personal photos of themselves. We encourage users to use image sharing sites (e.g. Photobucket, Imageshack)
Just to be clear...I have an account that I use exclusively for photographs. Mostly, it's when I go to zoos or aquariums and I upload photos of the animals therein. When you say, "12 images per subject", do you mean subject to pertain to the entire trip in general or, rather, as it pertains to specific animals (like 12 pics of the lions, 12 pics of the tigers, etc.) ?
Also, I forgot to ask, but how soon after uploading 12 pictures can you upload 12 more? If my entire gallery is of wildlife in aquariums and zoos, the subject matter is always going to be the same. So, is it that you can only upload 12 pictures in a day, a week, month, etc.?
IIRC, this is mainly geared towards "HERE ARE THREE MILLION PHOTOS OF MY DOGGEH!"
In the meantime, I'll just try to be aware of the volume of what I'm posting and make sure there's not too many at once and when I go on my zoo/aquarium/nature trips, to disperse the pictures. I definitely don't fall into the "HERE ARE THREE MILLION PHOTOS OF MY DOGGEH!" group, for sure, but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't violating anything. ^_^ Thanks so much for your help!
Theres a fur I know thats thinking of doing one, no sure if thats ok on FA :3
>millions of copy paste pony recolors
THIS
Since many peole who upload their pony recolors use the same generator at DA, it goes there.
Image Generators & Character Creators - Submissions created using content generators are prohibited. This includes character creators (in-game character designers, Flash builders, etc.) or template/interface generators (error message spoofs, de/motivational posters, card game templates, etc.).
If you make your own pony design, not using a recolor but using a character base, then its ok.
At leasts that's what I understand according to the AUP.
They should go to dA where its allowed.
That's a huge contradiction itself.
Thanks for making that clear.
having to look at the same adopt sheet 7x a day seems a bit too much Dx
The problem is, the policy was well written to the point where it serves the general interest of public but it lacks on details, clarity and particular areas of interest that detail orientated people prefer.
To be honest, the other policy, until it was re-written, I took VERY well and liked it and it was VERY concise.
The older one was readable, had more clarification and was easier to understand.
This new policy, it sucks like hell, there's information missing and it is likely needing a total re-write itself.
Any time I tell someone a submission is in violation I get negative feedback and blocks. Then they hide my comments as if that will change anything.
I don't think it's reasonable to peruse that many pages of (albeit user friendly) legalese, when there may only be a single update to hunt for on the page.
And if you rewrote for clarity a simple diff wont work xD
Hell, the older one was FAR better, could of maybe used a few modifications for clarity, but why was it even bothered to be re-written?
If anything, I would have either kept it, altered it somewhat, updated context to make it more coherent and considered what is important, relevant and needed.
This new policy just... its an epic fail on FA's entire legacy in my opinion.
Also, your opinion is noted well and clear, you can stop posting it everywhere. Sheesh.
For example, he said the SL guidelines were loosened. Quick and easy, and if it interests me I can look at the epic that is the AUP :P
It has to be done...
Are we okay
Just asking.
If it's a picture of a seemingly random car with no context, it'll likely get removed.
BUT now you can ban/suspend/remove art for similar art posted on OTHER sites thats adult there, but not here, because that is somehow circumventing the power and audacity of the FA admins. Really???
I mean your rather nonsensical rules (see under 18 above and the fact that dragoneer lied that it would not be applied to fan art (got me 3 day suspension for posting a censored pic) and ferrels (got me 1 week suspension) and no these werent cub, but a censored-even sonic and a bambi pic from bambi 2 when he was rutting (ie sexually mature)....so far less than 5% of my submissions have been questioned or could be considered under 18, so yeah total cub artist here XD
In fact I have ASKED admins if things were ok, such as TMNT (cuz hell its in their name) and they refused to respond, claiming I was trying to blackmail them by threatening to not post TMNT art if they declared it was underaged, ummm huh?
How bout making REAL changes....a admin code of conduct to prevent admins from abusing their power (almost every company in america has one) and some workable appeals system against admins doing the same, because right now the admins are always right and there's no way to appeal their arbitrary decisions, which you just gave more power to.
BUt that would imply you actually care about what the artists and users who make up this system, which just doesn't seem like FA's style...
The Lilly Tomlin quote seems appropriate as to what FA thinks of us..."we're the phone company, we dont have to care."
Pointing out the obviously flaws, lies, and mismanagement of this site, in hopes they improve hardly means I want to leave the site...I DO hope they come to their senses before they chase everyone away...making the improvements I suggested would go a long way to stop pissing off artists.
But I have stopped posting my comics and adult art, due to arbitrary suspensions for posting not cub, but a feral deer with horns and a censored sonic pic (they allow that on tv, but not FA, woot woot, FA is more morally restrictive than CBS, ABC, and NBC, gotta LOVE that)
Any artist that posts anything cute, feral, fan art, small breasted females, etc, risks getting suspended or banned with no warnings. I think maybe the artists should ban together in protest of these actions and stop posting adult here.... hmmm
If someone posts something to another site that is not allowed here, and you link back to it here, that's damned near exactly the same thing as posting it HERE. That's like linking to porn on Facebook. It will get your account deleted. Because it's not allowed.
You see how that works, right?
My point still stands, homie. If you're going to be butthurt about the rules of a website that you're not paying for and are here of your own free will, you are free to leave at any time. If you want your paedophilia that badly, go over to Inkbunny or SoFurry.
As for "hurr don't post adult art! Baww!" - Dragoneer said a couple of years ago that he would like it if people posted less adult artwork because then more people who were really talented and not just posting porn for the sake of popularity would be noticed.
there is a difference between not liking a rule and thinking the rules are vague and meaningless. Under 18 can mean almost anything you want because you cant tell who is and isnt 18 irl among humans by a margin of error of about 230% (ie they card people under 40 to make sure they get all the under 18 yr olds)
so you're gonna apply THAT rule to art and cartoons? as I said one could (and they have) called small breasted chicks under 18 because theyre prejudiced against small breasted chicks. (everyone remember the 14 yr old girl in school who developed the huge knockers early?) so theyre basing rules on subjective fabrications and personal bias not RULES
i would LOVE it if they had actual rules here, but they insist on being vague and subjective, THAT's the point
and now they authorized them to be vague and subjective when comparing adult versions on other sites. (Is the rule still in there that things done on other sites wont be held accountable here? or did they remove that too?)
and please convince dragoneer to ban adult art, the art with 50% of the views and favs and comments. Guaranteed to kill this place, because frankly DA does clean art 1000% better than here, which is why DA makes FA look like inkbunny in size. Then you can be all alone here with the clean art (ie ppl under 15) and stare at the pics of food and their oh so talented clean stuff XD
Once again - you are here of your own accord. If you don't like it...feel free to leave.
I like the art as it is, and I like the new rules, especially the one about linking to paedo bullshit and as well as the one about stream submissions. The only things I would change right now are these two things - You being able to reply to me with your horrible excuses for an "argument" (but, hey, I can block your nonsensical bullshit, so, that's all taken care of). The other being that stream notices should be uploaded to scraps so I don't have to wade through a see of them when I'm browsing for new art to enjoy.
As for finding good art here -
LOOK
AT
ALL
OF
THESE
MOTHER
FUCKERS
The rules are not vague and subjective. You're just dancing on a very precarious line and complaining when the mods won't answer petty questions regarding the age of TMNTs and the legality of porn featuring them when they have far better things to be dealing with, like actual ToS/COC/AUP violations, harassment, and the like. Protip: Teenage generally means "under the age of 18", and since they are anthro characters "under the age of 18" that would go without saying that porn of them is not allowed. You could argue that 18 and 19 are still "teenagers" because the numbers end in "teen", but that's playing fast and loose with the definition, especially when the age of majority is 18 in the country that the FA servers are housed in, which would make 18 and 19 year olds adults, not teenagers.
Honestly, if I didn't sincerely believe you were arguing and causing drama solely for the sake of it in the wake of emotional knee-jerking, I'd have half a mind to rip your so-called argument to shreds with my bear hands.
When artists cannot tell whether OTHER people will judge their work to be under 18, it is a vague and subjective rule.
It is mind boggling that you do not think so as well. As stated, irl people cannot tell who is under 18 among living fully rez-ed humans standing 3 feet in front of them. This is why many people selling cigarettes have bumped their carding age from looking under 30 to looking under friggin 40....that means people who looked over 30 were under 18 enough for the industry to do something about it, and visa versa, this rule is subjective IN REAL LIFE, yet somehow you think its NOT subjective applying it to cartoons and artwork. *facepalm*
And yes, I think an admin can take 2 seconds to respond yes or no whether something is allowed, rather than writing half a page refusing to answer. And again asked, because its SUBJECTIVE RULES....which is probably why he didnt want to stick his neck out and answer and ban a whole category of fan art (because it *IS* on here) and chase another group to Sofurry and inkbunny
Disallowing the depiction of minors in an adult setting is not a subjective rule. I explained why using your TMNT complaint: Teenage =/= Adult, therefore, it is not allowed. Plain and simple. There is nothing subjective about this; the rule is clear cut, with ZERO TOLERANCE and NO EXCEPTIONS. It is only you nitpicking the semantics used in the AUP.
I don't understand why you are so upset about not being able to use teenagers (you know, those things people are before they become the age of majority) in adult art, let alone "fan art" of characters that don't belong to you. If you can't stand FA, and you're so upset with semantics in the AUP and the admins... why aren't you using a site that caters to your unique... preferences? It'd be far better for you to leave quietly to another site than to pester the admins about perceived grey areas that common sense would dictate are NOT grey areas.
NO EXCEPTIONS NO UNDER 18 ITS THE LAW, lol
except most ferals dont live to be 18, so are you excluding an aged deer of 15?
except FA excludes pokemone and digimon that look under 18, despite the fact they must have ages.
a teenaged turtle could be middle aged in turtlelife, thats an exception.
What I dont like is that you seem to think human ages apply to furries, cartoons, and animals. What I want is clear rules, so I know what I am allowed to post and what I am not.
I am not a cub artist for the most part, arent trying to push any particular type of art as you claim, just want to know clearly what is allowed so I dont get into trouble here. Is that really so much to ask?
As example is a 20 yr old small breasted furry girl allowed? believe it not theres humans that have small breasts and are adults, wow
But an admin could easily say (and they have) that small breasts are a sign of immaturity......thats the kind of bullsheet thats going on.
Does my interpretation of what
As for other sites and the possibility of them changing - what was the first big break for Inkbunny? When they said, "Hey, we allow your paedophilia!", even though it's morally and ethically wrong as well as an extreme federal offense - which is why it's not allowed on FA.
Keep in mind that "paedophilia" does not limit itself to small children, it also applies to teens under the age of consent. Unless it is explicitly stated that a young looking character is over a certain age, anyone can assume it is child porn.
I understand exactly what was getting Cobra-mcstupidname up in a huff - he can't post his paedophilia. Once again, refer to what I just said about the word "paedophilia".
What you all have to keep in mind is that, and I know it's hard to believe, the world hates furries. The world hates furries and as soon as someone in the media makes an account here and starts digging for a big pile of dirt (which we all know is going to happen), they're going to find that the dirt here is filthier than anywhere else.
So why the hell would anyone actually ALLOW something like that?
Sure, post a picture of a young child character in a completely innocent situation - no problem, but as soon as you post that same character looking seductively at another character - of any age - and you're toeing a line that should never be crossed.
You know what would make this site better?
FOLLOWING THE FUCKING RULES.
Also, for the love of god, if you're trying to make a decent argument, it is spelled S-O-M-E.
Btw I get spelling errors soemtimes, so please respect me as i would respect you. Trying to get back at me for typing something wrong isnt going to help me nor you.
I'm not reading them.
(remember - I'm an asshole)
d=(^u^)=b
they just upheld a case of online attacks a few months ago as a precedent too....
FA not taking action against him could be construed as accomplices
but then again that would mean I care what he says XD
http://imgur.com/xavDE
http://imgur.com/8rmEQ
There you go. Let me know if it's just me.
Overall, the AUP is much easier to read and understand. I'm especially pleased to see a clear definition of Clean, Adult, and Extreme. Last time I was on the site (a few years back) there was no clear cut definition.
Good work guys.
Adhere to the Rules - You agree that you will read and adhere to the terms of the site - the Terms of Service, Code of Conduct, Submission Agreement and the Acceptable Upload Policy.
So what happens to people who can't read... I feel discriminated... Now does this mean I bring personal drama to FA because I do believe in honesty and freedom of speech.
I think the site policy updates are more confusing to read than ever before.
I am also not the kind of person of doing bad things because of what I watch on Youtube. What I watch is creationist issues (like the age of the Earth), which there are some nasty things I see on what people do, think, or say. Since I see these kind of stuff, I learn not to do those things.
FA is serious biznatch.
Hi, I asked it in the forum but admin told me that at this time is not possible.
Are you still fixing it?