Better yet, does that mean Hamsters, Mice and rats are also banned because of their small and often petit forms? XD

As a mouse, I guess i'm banned. Damn what an outcomes that they banned short people from FA

Our policy didn't change that. It just expanded our rules to pokemon and digimon. Kobolds are fine. Size play is fine. If you have questions regarding specific content you can opens ticket and give us a poke.

Our team will respond back.

What is the point, though? Why is anyone even talking about this? Why is this on anyone's radar?

How hard would it be to say "we'll only ban what is clearly illegal, and beyond that we'll let individuals decide where their personal line is between what makes them comfortable and what doesn't." Maybe with a filtering mechanism so people can filter out types of art they don't want to see from appearing on their homepage.

This whole game furries like to play, where people with all sorts of bizarre perversions and fetishes try to make themselves out as somehow morally superior to someone else because they have (in their perception) slightly more bizarre or perverse fetishes, or where they actually think they're somehow protecting real children because of rules about pokemon artwork, is disgusting to me and needs to stop being tolerated. I can respect a hardline Catholic "No, all of this is wrong, be normal" much, much more than I can respect these weaselly distinctions based on supposed moral nuances that can't be coherently justified whatsoever.

It should be "don't like it, don't look." I can think of literally 0 disadvantages to that. Why are weird and vague rules being implemented that will benefit nobody except the aforementioned do-gooder hypocrites.

Anyone who seriously comes to you saying "I keep finding things slightly too degenerate for me as I troll around the internet for weird fetish porn - I need to speak to the manager" deserves to be mocked and laughed at, not catered to with new rules, right? This seems pretty cut and dry.

It was on the radar of the purity trolls who were looking around for more reasons to attack the accounts of popular artists. All the artists they wanted to ban for their "this is Rated G but fits within one of our topic labels so we're insisting it's fetish art" shit responded and either purged their accounts or left F.A. altogether, so now they're lining up to try to get them banned completely again if they've ever drawn pre-evolved Pokemon, digimon or hobbits.

These "discussions" about what determines whether or not a character is a minor, or whether or not something qualifies as NSFW, have all been had dozens of times in the past. The only thing that's changed this time is how accessible the staffers are making themselves.

Props to Dragoneer for at least having the nads to try to explain himself for himself. The rest of them are all trying to hide behind the "Fender" mascot account.

Bottom line is that whatever staffers are pushing for these changes already know what they are doing, and already know that what they are doing is wrong. This is the FurAffinity equivalent of Roe v Wade or DADT -- an issue where every rational or logical person in the community said "here's why you should Option A" but a small group of head-up-the-ass purity trolls proceeded to Option B quietly in the middle of the night hoping nobody would see them doing it.

That's the whole point, we should never even be entertaining these "purity trolls" or having these conversations at all. If you don't like something, don't look at it.

There should be 0 tolerance or ground conceded to furries who complain "wah, I was going around looking at degenerate fetish furry porn and founds something slightly too degenerate for me, I need to speak to the manager." How sad does someone's life have to be to be such a person?

If Person A thinks that a character is a minor and is uncomfortable with the art piece and person B is okay with it, the proper response is for person A to go click somewhere else and maybe block the artist, not to start some stupid debate with the site mods, much less for the site mods to entertain it and start having nuanced discussions about "ok here's the exact proportions of Charmander where your porn has crossed the slightly-too-degenerate line."

I only respect "morality police" who are actually serious about morality. If you're on the internet looking at any kind of porn, you don't get any sort of say for which kinds of porn are "too far." I can think of almost nothing more pathetic or infantile.

___

Why not just say "anyone who reports artwork that's not clearly illegal will be banned." "Purity trolling" solved, once and for all. That's pretty easy, isn't it? Or just add a 4th content marker, "Adult+" or something, which is completely unrestricted and anything goes - anyone who doesn't want to see such things can simply exclude such art from their searches. The functionality already exists.

The only thing I'm going to disagree with you on is the first paragraph about "entertaining" the purity trolls.

It's precisely because we had those conversations with them in the past that changes like these were not implemented sooner.

Granted, it's not because we convinced the purity trolls that they were wrong (they knew that right from the beginning). It's because everyone else saw the discussion and were convinced not to listen to the purity troll.

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/50862266/

I'm by no means a 'purity troll' or whatever.

But I feel like having a pic listing actual kinks such as 'bondage' while using a picture of an actual canon child to represent that miiiiiiiight be working against you, bud.

It's an actual screenshot, bud.

Think about that: FurAffinity has stricter rules than fucking Disney Junior!

Which was precisely my point. Which you should already know since it was in the description:

-just because there may be one person out of seven billion in the world who finds it arousing, that doesn't make it inappropriate.

And, over and over and over again, that, since Rule 34 states that ANYTHING can be a fetish, preventing the "fetishizing" of anything is impossible.

And yet, here you are, trying to pretend that point was NOT made. Just like the purity trolls among the admins have done a hundred thousand times before.

Don't consider yourself a "purity troll"? Then stop parroting their bullshit word for word.

But since you brought it up, let me remind everyone how this conversation has gone the previous hundred thousand times a purity troll tried to float this turd on us.

Troll: "Hur, dur, duh, stop putting kids in fetish stuff!"

FA Users: "It's only a 'fetish' if you're turned on by it. Stuff like pet play, weight gain, inflation and vore happens all the time on TV, even on PBS Kids, Disney Junior, Nick Jr., etc. because it is NOT considered sexual by default. How is it okay there but not here?"

Troll: "Hur, dur, duh, because of intent! They weren't turned on by it!"

FA Users: "Number One: You don't know that they were not. And Number Two: You don't know that we were. And even if we DO find it arousing, how would you know that? The only thing you have to go by is the word of the artist and, where applicable, the word of the commissioner. If they say it is nonsexual in context, you have no way to prove otherwise."

Troll: "YES I CAN!!! IT'S F.A.!!! EVERYTHING IS SEXUAL!!!"

FA Users: "Show me where in FA's ToS that it says that FA is strictly an 18+ website for adult content only. Why would we even have the optional tags 'General', 'Mature' and 'Adult' if FA were adult by default? Is it really so strange to think that maybe not ALL furries draw, write or commission because they're horny?"

Troll: "LIAR!!! LIAR!!! ALL FURRIES ARE JUST AS SICK AND PERVERTED AS I AM!!!! RAAAAAAAARGH!!! YOU WANNA' KNOW HOW I GOT THESE SCARS?!!!"

So stuff your pretend purity, Josh Duggar. It's not fooling anyone.

It's an actual screenshot that you took out of context and added your own, different context to. There's a big fucking difference there. And you are correct, for most things if someone draws a minor in a pic that just so happens to be chubby that's one thing, but if the point of the piece is to show off how chubby they are then well... once again, huge fucking difference.

Also the irony of you trying to defend this stuff while calling me 'Josh Duggar' *chef's kiss*

I already addressed the "context" argument. Which, fittingly enough, was kind of the whole fucking point of me using that image: To point out that, absent a statement from the creator, you don't know the context.

So I can submit the exact same image, but it will be in violation or not in violation based on what description I give it? And if so, what's to stop me from assigning it an acceptable context even if my intended context was not acceptable?

You're just assuming you will automatically know the truth, which you are so cock sure of because you assume that everyone on F.A. is just as perverted as you and that there can't possibly be any possible reason for anything to be on F.A. except to turn someone on.

And yes, given that you're trying to shame me for "defending this stuff" whilst basing your entire argument on an assumption that everything on F.A. is "stuff", I'd say you've reached Duggar levels of hypocrisy.

You are the one who can't, or won't, disassociate the content from the kink -- the one who can't believe, or refuses to accept, that not every single piece on F.A. is meant to get somebody's rocks off. If you see porn everywhere you look, it's probably because it's in your head.

Sweetheart, only one of us is making assumptions of the other person.
"You think everyone on FA is as perverted as you" Uhh... no? I never said that? But go off I guess.
"You are the one who can't, or won't, disassociate the content from the kink -- the one who can't believe, or refuses to accept, that not every single piece on F.A. is meant to get somebody's rocks off" They say right after I literally just said that there are context where it is not kink. Great detective work officer Nancy.

Keep being a brainlet, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, nor will it change the ToS from changing, have fun.

Not anymore now that it's blown up in your face, Josh. Your whole argument hinged on an assumption that you knew the context of everything on F.A. just based on the fact that it's on F.A.

Just one problem: Every purity troll before you operated under the exact same "logic", so I was ready for it.

This is your "you suck, I'm leaving" post. The one every other purity troll before you ended the conversation with every other time this topic came up before.

The only difference is that, instead of stewing over it and plotting your revenge, you're gloating because "Ha ha, it doesn't matter that I'm wrong because I win anyway!"

Yeah, enjoy Burned Fur Affinity. From what I've seen, you're going to have it all to yourself. At least until your allies in the phony purity club get hungry for bans again and decide that pregnancy should also count as underage material.

"But-but-but-but-but... THAT'S NOT PORNOGRAPHIC!!!"

Neither was 99% of the "underage" content you and your ilk reported. But go ahead, pretend that doesn't apply to you and enjoy your "victory" while you can.

What about shortstack characters who are pokemon or digimon?

Rule of thumb: Does it look like a child? Does it act like a child? Is it presented as a child, even if by technicality they aren't?


That's how I feel like it'll be enforced, not like "this character is petite, therefore child, therefore ban"

At least I hope.

Yes, that a bit unfair. However, it s mayb for a detail

We gotta bring this up to the mods then, I like size difference too much to suddenly make it bannable.

I've checked out this policy and I'm very baffled by it

When will people properly differentiate between what is real and what's not?
Between what is clearly kinky fiction and horrendous criminal activities?
I'm gonna leave these questions out here.

I made a journal about this situation we're dealing with, and I'm still upset from this.

I draw cartoon like stuff with my characters, predators and preys. I have my prey character smaller and small by four feet tall, all ferals; even though they're standing on hind legs sometimes, and "All Adults" in age no matter if I have a General filter on. And its unfair if FA really point out my prey characters to be minors. Otherwise, I'll have no place here in FA.

I'd love to see them try and explain what the "adult proportions" of a fucking Pikachu are supposed to be.

They get this passed and then move on to the next moral outrage.
But God forbid anyone ever shine a light on their precious fetishes!