When creating the filename, take a moment to make it useful. I would suggest at a minimum including your name and a numeric date in ISO order so that people don't have to rely purely on having just followed your link to it. After all, not everyone is going to open it up right away and there are going to be people who send copies to friends.

As a basic name format, I will suggest ArtistName_YY-MM, (e.g. for something this month it would be JRFurryartist_25-01).

It's probably also a good idea to make sure to include a pointer to your galleries, for people who don't get the pack directly from you.

I'm beginning to think that FA needs to give people a test on the AUP before they can be allowed to post. I semi-regularly see people going "why did I suddenly get in trouble out of nowhere?" and they're either someone who constantly skirts the edge of the rules¹ or checking out the image in question reveals it to be a clear violation. While, for obvious reasons, there has been a cluster lately, this is hardly a new thing.

It almost seems like a lot of people start with a rough idea of the kind of things that are allowed, then make up their own version of the rules based on that. Combine that with how some have ratcheted their ability to judge character ages way out of whack² and you get people blithely going along and breaking the rules.

So, as a not entirely joking suggestion: Before someone can post, they have to take a test on both what the AUP actually says and on judging the age of characters.

(What set this off was someone talking about their suspension and saying they didn't think anything they drew was against the rules... while having at least one blatant violation literally on page 1 of their gallery.)

1: e.g. One of their regular things is sexualized high school antics. Sure, most of the time the art looks old enough, but when the main character has a sibling in a higher grade at the same school....

2: Draw/consume art of characters who 'look' 16-20, saying they're adults, end up thinking of that as what 20 looks like so go a little younger looking as what you think an older, probably adult, teen looks like.

_Man_ do a lot of people post without bothering to read the rules. At least it explains all those people who were all surprised that they got in trouble for a 'totally reasonable' submission but when I looked it was at best borderline, (16-20 in human terms), and most of the time I'm like "dude, that's a twelve year old."

For the record, here is the relevant rule from the earliest I can quickly call up on the Wayback Machine:

Content featuring minors is prohibited when nudity or sexual activity is present. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.

The date on that? "Updated: 8/5/2015" (The snapshot itself is from 2015-09-08.)

IOW: We know how the mods are going to interpret the idea of "it counts as underage if it looks underage," they've been doing it for years.

If you are going to post something you are touting as a "final journal" or "a last goodbye" and then deactivate your account so fast that almost no one will get to read it, then I think the reasonable interpretation is that it was one of those whiny "you didn't give me enough attention and praise so I'm going off to do a long-term sulk," journals.

People who run right near the edge of the rules and then are shocked when different moderators make different judgement calls about exactly what takes things just over the line.

Double amusement when they then go on to be shocked that they are suddenly under increased scrutiny once moderators take action a few times.

Of the 87 seats in the Alberta Legislature the Progressive Conservatives have generally held 60-70 seats and have had back-to-back majorities since 1971.

Until tonight, when they were reduced to 11 seats, (and one of those is going up for a by-election because the PC leader has resigned in disgrace). Instead, we have the New Democratic Party taking 53 seats.


For Americans: The PCs are somewhere between the Republican and Democratic parties with the NDP well to the left of the Democrats.

For Brits: The PCs are the Tories and the NDP are what Labour used to be.

So you have a story from the Daily Fail? You do know that they have a rather long history of being fast and loose with the truth, right?

The Fawcett Society answered the questions at issue over a month ago:

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/20.....iety-response/
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/20.....inist-t-shirt/


And as has been pointed out to you before, the response to the shirt was a straight forward "that shirt was inappropriate for a work environment and doubly so for a television interview," combined with a little "this is symptomatic of a general problem in the STEM fields." Something the guy who wore the shirt has even publicly agreed with. Remember, it was the people on your side of the issue who freaked out and started threatening to kill and rape people.


Now, let's see if you still demand that your journal posts be followed by a censored hug box or if you can actually stand someone who doesn't mindlessly agree with you.

Looks like we have another coward. Although this one was actually willing to engage, if against a fantasy that had little resemblance to my posts. He even left up most of the exchange, only deleting the following pair:

===

Will you kindly READ WHAT I WROTE! Stop pretending that I am talking about specific incidents instead of general trends.

The only specific incident I even mentioned, (Peter Watts being assaulted by US border guards then arrested for it), was an illustrative example used as an 'oh wait, this is how far you have to go'.


Perhaps you should spend a little time researching these issues. In many places reporting police abuses does no good because you are reporting the police to the police, (hence my suggestion of getting something like the SIU created). Abusive officers in the US generally don't face any consequences at all unless there is something like video evidence proving that their version of events is a fabrication, (and even then the 'consequences' are often no more than their trumped up charge being thrown out).

Here's some to get you started:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc.....ng-on-reports/
Officer flat out lies on her report to frame someone with attempted murder of a police officer, (after having intentionally rammed the guy's van into another police car), video evidence proves it to be a lie, no punishment.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc.....for-brutality/
Nothing happened until the video went public.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc.....-miller-again/
Here's something that starts with an officer getting physical with a videographer and continues with harassment of people reporting on it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc.....e-search-ever/
How many times did they need to search his asshole?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc.....-police-abuse/
Slammed her face-first into a concrete bench, on video, no charges or discipline.

Those are from one page of results from one search, (for 'police report'), on one blog that covers these issues from time to time.

===

Just realized I should add this: If what you want to say is "you can only have an opinion on or knowledge of an issue through personal, direct, experience," then just say it so that you can be responded to in an appropriate fashion.

===

I'll drop the rest of it here if he deletes it.

Open your journal with a statement that you don't care what people say about you, then delete comments that criticize you.


It gets worse when the comments are along the lines of:


Shock... Someone doing research on a medium has to consume a large amount of that medium. Would you also criticize someone writing a thesis about literature for reading a lot of books?

The opening of Rebecca Watson's video makes more sense if you have been following the atheist/skeptic blogosphere, it's in reference to how certain people have really been acting. She also knows exactly why she gets 'dislikes'[1]: She tells guys to not act like oversexed frat boys.

Thunderf00t isn't a very good source. He has developed a history of spreading falsehoods on this topic since his rather dramatic flameout on FreeThoughtBlogs.


[1] Well, rape and death threats.


Same guy, similar issue, so I'll just expand this:


Feminist reaction to that shirt:

"It's inappropriate for the workplace and doubly so for a TV interview. It also is typical of the culture of the STEM fields that drives women away."

Here's a typical example: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterf.....g-a-statement/

Reaction to the reaction by MRAs and such:

"Shut up bitch, you deserve to be raped and killed."

Just a few examples: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/.....voice-for-men/

Reaction to the reaction by Matt Taylor himself:

"They're right, the shirt was inappropriate and it was a mistake to have worn it."

http://youtu.be/tHLEbIXc7O0


Of course, I fully expect you to delete this post. You can't afford to have anyone disagreeing with you after all. Especially someone who actually knows something about the issue in question.

For the first time in well over a year, I get to see the words "No Messages" at the top of the page.

If you, like Chris Hadfield, happened to be on the space station and wanted to make a music video, what song would you choose?



Yes, that one. Obviously.

I happened to reply to a journal that included a very common myth about global warming, pointing out how the myth was wrong and including further reading backing up my position. He decided to spout more myths and quietly block any further response, (so much for 'respectfully disagreeing'),

I've decided that, in future, should I discover that someone has played this game I will post my reply in my own journal. Without naming names, of course.

===

Repeating a garbage argument doesn't make it any better. Saying that something has been caused by X in the past does not meant that it cannot be caused by Y.

It is actually possible to measure what is causing changes in global temperature. For instance, one can use satellites to measure the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth and to also measure the energy radiated from the Earth. When you do this, do you know what you find?

That's right, more energy reaches the Earth than leaves it[0]. What's more, if you look at the spectrum of the energy leaving Earth you can even tell what gasses are blocking it, (the same ones that we're pumping into the atmosphere).

There is a _reason_ why we just had a partial La Nina year that still managed to be the 9th warmest ever seen by human civilization, (and before that a full La Nina year that was 12th).


Now to clear up a bit of confusion you have: The terms "global warming" and "climate change" are both still in full use and have both been in use for decades. While closely related, they do not refer to the same thing. "Global warming" is the increase in global heat levels, while "climate change" is the impact of that increase on things like typical weather patterns.


You also seem to be a bit behind on things like renewable energy: Did you know that wind has the second lowest LCOE of any source of electricity generation? The only thing cheaper is hydro-electric, and we've built almost all of the cheap hydro possible[1] already. Solar also has a rapidly falling cost and is likely cheaper than the true costs of fossil generation[2].


You claim there is science backing your position? Let's see it, start citing some actual research, (note that random claims on a blog don't count unless directly linked to actual papers the way Skeptical Science does).

Don't hold your breath over finding much: The professional denalists don't spend much time doing research, what research they do tends to be badly done and what little quality work they do ends up like the Koch-funded[3] BEST study which ended up confirming the temperature results from GISS, NOAA and HadCRU[4].


[0] Given that this is happening, you have to agree that it has to result in one of two results: Either that energy is driving endothermic reactions or it has to increase temperatures.

[1] The only cheap hydro left of any size is to take more water from the Niagara river.

[2] Fossil fuels are massively subsided. Both directly, through things like tax breaks and undervalued prices on mineral leases, and indirectly because they do not have to pay the costs of their externalities, (such as the tens of thousands of people coal-fired electricity _kills_ each year).

[3] Koch Industries is one of the largest oil companies in the US.

[4] While costing the denialists one of their best scientists, Richard Muller. (That he was a physicist and not a climate scientist should tell you something about how weak denialists are on the actual science side.):

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
(Muller, 2012)

So it seems, not that I know why.

Given that the only content I have posted in my space is a journal entry wondering why someone would watch an account that exists only to enable adult content and my own watch list.