@FA: There Seems To Be A Problem.
2 years ago
<=>-<=>-<=>
I don't think perhaps the staff or leader of this website quite understand just how alienated they are making themselves on a consistent basis.
Firstly, I will state that: No, I do not know what it's like running a website. I do not have the ins and outs knowledge of coding. I don't know hardware requirements or software requirements needed to ensure that a site this size with it's userbase can run smoothly. Or efficiently. Or decently. I am simply a user on this site. Just a user.
I have been a user of this site for many years now, and if there's ever one thing that seems to remain consistent: is it's inconsistency. Be it from the promises of features and changes necessary to continue to evolve this particular platform, to the staffing not being on the same page when it comes to rules, regulations, and their enforcement.
I think this current 'update of closing a loophole in an already established rule' paints quite the picture.
You stated that this change was overwhelmingly received with positive reviews, but, looking through journals and comments that seems to be very untrue. The concern is that your wording is nebulous and basically it's going to be left to the whims of whomever's reviewing the material to make the call. This is not the most ideal state that you want to leave your users in. There's general panic and worry that folks are going to be banned because of the content of their galleries, when they've done nothing wrong, and some ill-tempered staffer makes a poor judgement call. And right now I can't imagine the MOUNTAIN of notes the moderators are filtering through, attempting to say 'yay' or 'nay' to what is and is not correct.
This doesn't include the fact that, through the years, certain features and tweaks and adjustments that have been promised or requested have been implemented. Like just a simple blocking of keywords to help filter out unwanted material to users. The ability to change a username. A better commenting system. Better exposure for new and upcoming artists.
I fully understand that probably everyone that works staffing here probably has a fulltime job, plus activities outside of work and online. But, as people that maintain the site, even if just through moderation, they all need to be on the exact same page with the exact same understanding of what is and is not permissible. There should not be any interjection of feelings or friendships or such that make an individual a liability or detriment to the way moderation occurs. And the site owner himself should be completely transparent with things going on behind the scenes. There should be more communication and more explanations as to the 'why' behind what is going on. 'Why' you have not implemented this. 'Why' you have not fixed that. A better timeline on what the users of this website should expect.
If only certain, particular things are being banned, then explain the real reason why behind it. 'Because PayPal is going to _____.' 'Because in order to court more sponsors/ad revenue/other sources of income to operate the site, we must do _____.' 'I personally do not like _____, therefor I am banning it.' The folks here can be reasonable and intelligent and thoughtful when you give them proper, meaningful, useful explanations to what's occurring, rather than short, clipped, half-hearted excuses.
There are other options out there for furry websites and furry content that others can use, that have more robust features and are user friendly. And often times FA takes the brunt of 'how not to operate a site' in comments and journals and other posts on them. If you genuinely, truly want FurAffinity to be that 'premier furry site' that you're trying to tout it to be, then you have to really knuckle down on the operations and make sure your team's speaking from one singular voice of concise reasoning. That you're updating policies and regulations with fully developed implementation and fully thought out and realized wording. You have to ensure that your statements are not nebulous and do not leave your userbase wondering just what is expected or implied or going to be enforced.
You have to do better, for yourselves and your userbase.
Firstly, I will state that: No, I do not know what it's like running a website. I do not have the ins and outs knowledge of coding. I don't know hardware requirements or software requirements needed to ensure that a site this size with it's userbase can run smoothly. Or efficiently. Or decently. I am simply a user on this site. Just a user.
I have been a user of this site for many years now, and if there's ever one thing that seems to remain consistent: is it's inconsistency. Be it from the promises of features and changes necessary to continue to evolve this particular platform, to the staffing not being on the same page when it comes to rules, regulations, and their enforcement.
I think this current 'update of closing a loophole in an already established rule' paints quite the picture.
You stated that this change was overwhelmingly received with positive reviews, but, looking through journals and comments that seems to be very untrue. The concern is that your wording is nebulous and basically it's going to be left to the whims of whomever's reviewing the material to make the call. This is not the most ideal state that you want to leave your users in. There's general panic and worry that folks are going to be banned because of the content of their galleries, when they've done nothing wrong, and some ill-tempered staffer makes a poor judgement call. And right now I can't imagine the MOUNTAIN of notes the moderators are filtering through, attempting to say 'yay' or 'nay' to what is and is not correct.
This doesn't include the fact that, through the years, certain features and tweaks and adjustments that have been promised or requested have been implemented. Like just a simple blocking of keywords to help filter out unwanted material to users. The ability to change a username. A better commenting system. Better exposure for new and upcoming artists.
I fully understand that probably everyone that works staffing here probably has a fulltime job, plus activities outside of work and online. But, as people that maintain the site, even if just through moderation, they all need to be on the exact same page with the exact same understanding of what is and is not permissible. There should not be any interjection of feelings or friendships or such that make an individual a liability or detriment to the way moderation occurs. And the site owner himself should be completely transparent with things going on behind the scenes. There should be more communication and more explanations as to the 'why' behind what is going on. 'Why' you have not implemented this. 'Why' you have not fixed that. A better timeline on what the users of this website should expect.
If only certain, particular things are being banned, then explain the real reason why behind it. 'Because PayPal is going to _____.' 'Because in order to court more sponsors/ad revenue/other sources of income to operate the site, we must do _____.' 'I personally do not like _____, therefor I am banning it.' The folks here can be reasonable and intelligent and thoughtful when you give them proper, meaningful, useful explanations to what's occurring, rather than short, clipped, half-hearted excuses.
There are other options out there for furry websites and furry content that others can use, that have more robust features and are user friendly. And often times FA takes the brunt of 'how not to operate a site' in comments and journals and other posts on them. If you genuinely, truly want FurAffinity to be that 'premier furry site' that you're trying to tout it to be, then you have to really knuckle down on the operations and make sure your team's speaking from one singular voice of concise reasoning. That you're updating policies and regulations with fully developed implementation and fully thought out and realized wording. You have to ensure that your statements are not nebulous and do not leave your userbase wondering just what is expected or implied or going to be enforced.
You have to do better, for yourselves and your userbase.
Da_Yoshi_Man89
~dayoshiman89
I wholeheartedly agree. We need some transparency here. All this vagueness is not doing anyone any good.
Pharmachee
~pharmachee
You need to get off your high horse. I have several characters that are small and cute, including two Pokemon. They are not children, yet I could be banned because I adore size difference in porn? That's ridiculous. Any artist that has a soft style would be vulnerable as well. How do you even look at a character like Koopa or Vulpix and determine it's a child?
k .
~dualityk
Sounds like they had a change of heart today about their approach, if not their plan.
FA+
