It's honestly why I have a backup at Inkbunny. It's honestly fine and you can easily use the blacklist for any content you don't want to see.

Yeh.. ive been on IB for a while and it's getting more and more tempting to just.. stop using FA... like jesus.. all they gotta do is stop.. and people would be fine with it.. but they won't... im gonna pass out before i make myself immeasrably angry

I doubt its gonna get to the point of "no pokemon/digimon"; its more just a case of "hey, don't draw them looking like babies or in an underage context in sexual situations." as far as things read.

Yeh.. but it IS a slippery slope.. there's a lot going around and the vagueness is what scares me

Dont really see the vagueness here; they straight-up say "Pokemon/Digimon art **that expressly looks childlike in sexuel situations** will be in violation". I feel like, as long as that rule is adhered to and the whole underaged-appearing characters in porn problem is not exacerbated, it won't get the chance to slip down that slope since they won't need to do so in order to keep the community in line with the guidelines.

So where do Kobolds and such fit? the smaller female species that dont have breasts but dont look like children? and yet have been removed "because we deemed they look like it"

I can't speak for shorter-built female characters that lack developed breasts; that frankly seems like it was asking to cause issues. But kobolds I've seen be drawn in ways that make them look more developed and mature, like having some gruff features or more defined musculature; there are ways to do it. I'm afraid to say I'm on the side of toning these depictions in this paradigm back expressly because of how easy it makes justifying genuinely illegal and morally depraved depictions of actually underage characters in situations they should not be in.