I feel the exact same way.

Definitely agree with your sentiments. I'd say more, but I don't want to get into how people feel the need to "fix" things that were already fine rather than enforce the already existing rules. (they've been lax about that for sure)

At the moment, I don't trust that the document coming out will move the needle much.

I have a bad feeling it's going to make things worse, but we'll see.

It's been posted. Have you seen it?

Yep, it did indeed make things worse v.v

I agree, I don't feel like this should have happened. It's just been stressing all of us out.

Yep, and it just gets worse the longer they take.

I feel that this is trying to classify a ruling that was previously based off individual interpretation of where the 'line' between what was acceptable and what was not. This is where the administration has chosen to draw the line, and it leaves a definition that is, frankly, unpalatable. People come in all shapes and sizes, all manner of proportions, all body types. Cartoon characters likewise come in all shapes, sizes and body types, even more exaggerated, varied and nuanced than in real life. It's part of the essence of furry -- to be able to express yourself in a way that speaks true to you.

There's way too many adult furries with toonish proportions that would fall too far towards one half than the other. This ruling categorizes them in a way that a lot of homosexual men have been categorized for decades by homophobes. It's really not okay at all.

Yeah I'm worried this is mainly going to effect people with cartoony styles.

And that's really the content I like the most, so it's going to really suck.

The worst part about this is that they claim there's no blanket ban across species, but the fact that they told argon to nuke his gallery https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/10553034/ says otherwise. This means that either:
A: The mods aren't all on the same page,
or
B: They ARE on the same page and are lying through their teeth.
Neither possibility reflects very well on them: if the former, they made this rule when even THEY don't know what it means; if the latter, they're going to destroy what little trust this website's userbase still has in them.

I feel like places such as furry Youtube, VRchat and other public places should be striving to be more safe, while sites like FA should have a restriction on users of a certain age or lower from signing up and be allowed to do its own thing.

There is a time and a place for kink, and FA has always been one of those places where it isn't unwelcome.

Big hugs doggo. It just feels kinda sucky

TL/DR version: It never stops where they say it will. And far more stuff that has nothing to do with minors gets caught in the crossfire than stuff that actually meets the definition.

Here is how the pattern seems to go as someone who has been around for a while ( IE: I am old and been a fury multiple decades )
There is someone who will find something distasteful, then they will backwards work out a reasoning on why the thing they find distasteful is actually harmful.

Cub and underage characters in lewd situations have always been strongly hated in the community ( which i agree with, absolutely no kids in my pronz at all please ) from that near universal stance of not wanting minors depicted a movement starts, but the lines are left vague and shifting, so they can be expanded to other things, or be used to control styles. I have lived through this kind of thing multiple times, here is what almost always happens.

As lines shift and zeal increases It plays out something like this:

Short character's head a little too big proportionally to their body? Labeled "child like Proportions" even with other indicators like beard, scars, demeanor or situation.

Character's eyes a little too big compared to their face? Labeled "child like Proportions."

Size Difference, is one character a few feet taller than the other? Labeled "child like Proportions"

Age difference: Is one character in their 30's and the other character between 18-25? Labeled grooming, line shifts from "child like Proportions" to "characters are too far apart in age"

Body type: Is a character short, thick and round? Labeled "child like Proportions."

Skill and style: Is the character drawn in such a way that is ambiguous because the artist's skill is lacking or that is just how they draw? Labeled "child like Proportions" 'just to be safe.'

Then it shifts to Kinks, and the initial definition matters less

Adult in diapers? Labeled "child like indicators"

AB/DL as a whole: Labeled "child like indicators/situations" ( i used to be guilty of this thinking until i learned that the whole thing is usually used to process traumas and unfulfilled needs from those traumas)

the lines drift further,
Fat or chubby character? Labeled "child like Proportions" because curves and rounds cheeks are suddenly childlike. Then in quick succession it drifts to " Is harmful because it promotes unhealthy lifestyles etc."

Toonish style or Toon type characters: Labeled "child like Proportions" and 'this is trying to appeal to children and is therefore made with the intention of grooming.'

Then it ALWAYS ends up at: "Furry is inherently sexual, so any minors depicted in any situation no matter how innocent, is sexual, because furry is sexual by my newly made up and asserted definition"

i have never seen it stop where it says it will stop. So even as someone who is deeply disgusted by Cub Stuff, i am made nervous by all this, because it always goes further than intended or indicated by the wording. Always. Meanwhile, actual tools and discussion of how to recognize, avoid and get help for actual grooming victims, is barely considered, and sometimes deleted as 'inappropriate.'
So we get far more collateral damage than we get protection for victims.
And i am tired of being collateral damage.

Yeah it's a pattern that repeats itself endlessly. I'm kind of glad everyone has been pushing back against this.

I wonder what the clarification document will say.

But it may just make things worse.

The fact they turned the comments off and claimed it was well received makes me not trust them. Also the fact that they disabled the button to cancel your FA+ account right now if you try (it will reload the page, but not actually do it) and I've heard others make similar complaints. Could it be coincidence? Sure. The site breaks a lot. But I think they got a lot of new mods who were uncomfy because pokemon looked too young and talked too young for them, and the whole "it'll be case by case" was to appease the site owner since a lot of his porn was of that VERY content.

They started this slippery slope when they started banning fictional material that made them uncomfortable.

They do turn comments off for most of their policy updates, so that's not surprising.

I didn't know about not being able to cancel FA+ though... Depending on what the document says when they release it, I might be trying it for myself.

I agree. Regardless of what the new document days, I'm skeptical this isn't still going to cause problems.

I have a feeling the document is going to make things worse, but all we can do is wait and see.

I wish they'd just walk the whole thing back. There are rumors why they can't, but nothing has been officially stated as of yet.