FA+
Shop
AUP Vagueness
15 years ago
I normally don't pay attention to things like this, because I don't do anything that I consider to skirt the general rules revolving around these kinds of sites (allowing for adult material).
I did glance this time, as well as take in a few little scraps of forum replies and questions on the updated AUP. I noticed some vague rules about offending races, religions and philosophies, the boundaries and determination of which was left undefined. One person did mention how it would impact "Draw Mohammed Day", to which the admin said drawing Mohammed was fine, so long as it wasn't derogatory. To a fundamental understanding of Islam, the depiction of Mohammed is forbidden regardless of context. So the nature of the "offensiveness" isn't up to the people claiming offense, but the admins' sole judgement. Not that it's an entirely bad policy, but if the purpose is to calm the waters, I think it does the opposite. It leaves a subjective definition of "offensive" up in the air. An artist may not know if their picture will come under scrutiny before he or she posts it, just by reading the AUP. On top of that, it opens a lot of seemingly harmless pictures to complaint from imaginary offenses and grievances, something I'm pretty familiar with. If I draw a hyena with his hat on sideways and his pants around his ass, am I being racially offensive? What's my intent? (I'm actually depicting a culture not a race, but the difference is lost on people who don't think). Or am I just illustrating a character? To some who are prone to dislike me, there's a difference in me drawing a character like that, and someone else drawing the exact same thing. Now, I didn't read the entire forum due to its size and the time I have available, so I'm not sure if all the little details were addressed. But it does bring up some thought on how much the admins would be "bugged" about images, for offenses so vague and subjective.
Mary Ann and Trish are, outside of flashbacks in earlier comics not on FA, supposed to be young adults out of school. Mary Ann has the same body model as Beth. But she's sometimes brought up as my depiction of an underage girl, because of her lithe frame and the hairstyle she wears. There's a style of drawing people "cutely" that gives them childish features which the human mind associates with cuteness (big eyes, tall forehead), giving human characters like Mary Ann and Red Riding Hood a "babyface" appearance. Someone outright accused me of appealing to pedophiles with Red Riding Hood, even when her figure is more voluptuous than Beth's. It's this level of subjective ridiculousness that makes some artists take a second glance at the AUP. If some sorry excuse for a mammal filed a complaint based on a Red Riding Hood sample page, how would the admins handle it? The AUP's not clear about whether it's something that is "undoubtably obvious" or just something that "can be construed to be a human under 18" based purely on a visual judgement. The latter reflects the judgement of the beholder, regardless of the intention of the creator. I've always held rules should be based on intentions, not reactions. Is the depiction of mature women with "babyface" features, or young men and women with lithe builds, going to cause a flurry of filed complaints and requests for deletion? Is the motive of the complainers to uphold AUP or just harass an artist with their subjective, hostile judgements?
I don't know the admins. I don't have time to forum browse for hours a day. But this isn't so much as complaint as a wonder, and an observation. Ultimately, they can run their site on their own judgement. It's their property and right to do so.
PS - This isn't an invitation to file your particular grievances in comment with me, about how the AUP directly targets your fetish. My concern lies with subjective and unpredictable judgement, not whether you're allowed to post Dexter and DeeDee engaged in coitus.
I did glance this time, as well as take in a few little scraps of forum replies and questions on the updated AUP. I noticed some vague rules about offending races, religions and philosophies, the boundaries and determination of which was left undefined. One person did mention how it would impact "Draw Mohammed Day", to which the admin said drawing Mohammed was fine, so long as it wasn't derogatory. To a fundamental understanding of Islam, the depiction of Mohammed is forbidden regardless of context. So the nature of the "offensiveness" isn't up to the people claiming offense, but the admins' sole judgement. Not that it's an entirely bad policy, but if the purpose is to calm the waters, I think it does the opposite. It leaves a subjective definition of "offensive" up in the air. An artist may not know if their picture will come under scrutiny before he or she posts it, just by reading the AUP. On top of that, it opens a lot of seemingly harmless pictures to complaint from imaginary offenses and grievances, something I'm pretty familiar with. If I draw a hyena with his hat on sideways and his pants around his ass, am I being racially offensive? What's my intent? (I'm actually depicting a culture not a race, but the difference is lost on people who don't think). Or am I just illustrating a character? To some who are prone to dislike me, there's a difference in me drawing a character like that, and someone else drawing the exact same thing. Now, I didn't read the entire forum due to its size and the time I have available, so I'm not sure if all the little details were addressed. But it does bring up some thought on how much the admins would be "bugged" about images, for offenses so vague and subjective.
Mary Ann and Trish are, outside of flashbacks in earlier comics not on FA, supposed to be young adults out of school. Mary Ann has the same body model as Beth. But she's sometimes brought up as my depiction of an underage girl, because of her lithe frame and the hairstyle she wears. There's a style of drawing people "cutely" that gives them childish features which the human mind associates with cuteness (big eyes, tall forehead), giving human characters like Mary Ann and Red Riding Hood a "babyface" appearance. Someone outright accused me of appealing to pedophiles with Red Riding Hood, even when her figure is more voluptuous than Beth's. It's this level of subjective ridiculousness that makes some artists take a second glance at the AUP. If some sorry excuse for a mammal filed a complaint based on a Red Riding Hood sample page, how would the admins handle it? The AUP's not clear about whether it's something that is "undoubtably obvious" or just something that "can be construed to be a human under 18" based purely on a visual judgement. The latter reflects the judgement of the beholder, regardless of the intention of the creator. I've always held rules should be based on intentions, not reactions. Is the depiction of mature women with "babyface" features, or young men and women with lithe builds, going to cause a flurry of filed complaints and requests for deletion? Is the motive of the complainers to uphold AUP or just harass an artist with their subjective, hostile judgements?
I don't know the admins. I don't have time to forum browse for hours a day. But this isn't so much as complaint as a wonder, and an observation. Ultimately, they can run their site on their own judgement. It's their property and right to do so.
PS - This isn't an invitation to file your particular grievances in comment with me, about how the AUP directly targets your fetish. My concern lies with subjective and unpredictable judgement, not whether you're allowed to post Dexter and DeeDee engaged in coitus.
Ms. Walters was wearing a business suit at the time of the interview.
I'm not belittling FA I'm just saying that's how things are usually done.
I just woke up, so I have little else productive to add other than I can't wait for drama to start surrounding this issue. I dare say it may even be hilarious. I do agree with your standpoint on all this though.
First AUP-related journal I've read and not immediately started laughing at.
As I said, I really don't practice the faith anymore. But thank you for clearing that up. :)
:D
I've always wondered that myself actually. There is a disease out there (I forget what it's called and am currently to lazy to look it up) that makes people remain with the appearance of children forever. If they are 18, but depicted as children, would this allow them to go up if was such the case with a character? There are simply to many questions and not enough answers in the current AUP.
And then there's artists who'd want to take their art to extreme's that would be far to uncomfortable for most to see. Yes I realize that like you said, Dragoneer would have the final review and say over the finished draft of it, But by the same token it would just be dragged out over a far to long and tedious process of rewriting it over, and over again, which in the end would leave not only the people going through writing all that, but the members of FA as a whole with a "bad taste in their mouth." figuratively speaking of course.
There was this ad for FA and it could be considered suggestive if looked at with a subjective viewpoint. Not that it upset me or anything. Hell, probably wasn't even the artist's intent. But if "you look hard enough" you can always find something that isn't really there.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/914540/
Based on that, well what I'm referring to is that children are not going to see the possible sexual reference in that, they are going to see a dog shouting "DONATE!" my protest on sexual icons is because children view this site and blatent sexual activity that cannot be taken in another way (such as a girl groping her own breasts in a slow and proactive manner) should not be allowed. I've been thinking about doing protest icons actually, involving the most heinous of fetishes, but with a tiny black box over anything explicit (nipples, vagina, penis) to keep it from being "mature" as some might call it.
C: 37
F: 80
C: 26.6 repeating.
Ohhhh, you use the temperature system that makes sense. The one where 0 and 100 are significant and not 32/212. I hate Fahrenheit -_-
There are some days where I keep having to readjust but I get your point.
Seriously, go and read it. I'll wait here.
...
...
You done?
ISN'T THAT THE MOST VAGUELY-WORDED BULLSHIT PIECE OF LAW EVER?
There's about a million unanswered questions. One could get arrested or let go at any judge's whim.
As I said, that's the one thing that's impossible to really dictate
At what point does it become "sexual" in nature?
When it's being used for sexual acts/pleasure, and not for teaching/representing
Is it illegal to have a text document of that nature on your hard drive?
Yes
What if you just access one off the internet?
Still Illegal
What if you stumble across one involuntarily?
I'm sure you can make that claim and they'll check your history. If it turns out you have like, just one or two other entries (and they appear to be accidents as well, or can be explained by the defendant) then they'll be like, "ok well, just be more careful."
To your response to point two; what if I pleasure myself to "educational" material? Is that a crime? Can't you call pretty much anything "for the purpose of education" and then get off scot free?
And since when has text been censored? Text is just speech put down on paper/word processor. If that's illegal, it follows logically it should be illegal to speak that exact sequence of words aloud as well. And that's infringing on freedom of speech -directly- there. What's next, chips in our brains to control our fantasies?
Final point; yet another case where there is gray area, and a personal judgement call regarding LAW. Something that has never sat right with me.
Just FYI; I'm against ALL forms of child porn. I just think the laws need to be way more explicit.
To your response to point two; what if I pleasure myself to "educational" material? Is that a crime? Can't you call pretty much anything "for the purpose of education" and then get off scot free?
Well no, you can't just call anything "for the purpose of education" because said thing has to be approved by the courts. And if you do pleasure yourself to that educational material, then you found what we call a loophole. Although, for the amount of stuff that legally considered "educational", you're gonna get no more than 50 images maximum I would assume, and I doubt any would be very erotic. You'd get bored of it quite quickly I assume.
There are many images on Fa now and that artist will post where their own character looks underage because of how petite they are or how small their bust is and so on but are over 18. I have a friend RL who looks like she could be under 18 and she even still gets carded because she is only 4'7" but she is 28 years old. Is that what some may expect with the new AUP? It will be interring to see what happens.
Another thing is Fan-art Lets take Pokemon's Misty for example. Someone could draw her with slight alterations so she looks older and by the artists definition is 18, but if it gets reported, will the admin see it as 18 like the artist stated or will they see how Misty is in the anime\manga which would be under 18? The same would apply to any fan character who in a game, anime, book, etc is under 18 but the artist deems them to be 18 or older.
The AUP is very vague on this and to be honest I don't see is becoming much clearer which is sad because some good artist may leave or not post excellent work at all or on a pay site where many would be unable to comment on it.
Now, when a national government passes laws of that nature, it could be considered baby steps into tyranny...
Dude we're so far into tyranny right now it's not even funny. Note me if you want to talk about it because this journal definitely was not made for political discussion.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor
Just be sure that when you have something that you are unsure about, ask a mod and note his or her name. FA has a bad habit of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. So, even if you talk to mod A who approves of your work...all it takes is someone to report your submission and Mod T might remove it and tell you off despite that you already had a mod who said it was okay.
I am in full agreeance with Kardas. Sometimes rules are intentionally left open ended so that the mods can interpret the rule however is the most convienient for them. I would hate to think that FA would play favorites or have those intentions, but I have seen things deemed offensive get called on, and other more offending art left alone. It was said to me that it was a matter of me reporting it (using the forums of course since there is still no "report" button on each submission page), but I found myself met with a very strange mocking tone by the same mod when I went with those wishes. As far as I know, those people are still moderators here so I imagine you could possibly have the same thing happen.
Its possible that no on one staff has ever thought to do a system similar to a trouble ticket systems in which allow for knowing what mods have previously done, simply by doing a query on a particular piece.A simple database system would do it, but maybe that is something they are working on. Who knows. Would be nice if a mod knows what action has already been done(including a situation like the aforementioned) before they take further action.
With regards to the rest of the AUP it's pretty straightforward, you can't post anything that's illegal ((and moreover you can't post a few things that technically are legal, with the idea that it helps in the effort to keep the quality content of the site up)).
Technically, pictures of Mohammed are legal, they're "just" offensive to some people. Yeah, really offensive. But think about all the other so-called 'offensive' content on the site already -- and except for the shota/loli, it's all legal.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd be really offended by seeing a crude drawing of Jesus, but the admin probably wouldn't remove it simply because it's a jab not at a particular living person but at a conceptual entity at that point. Basically, if you choose to take offense, that's your issue to deal with. The fact that the Koran forbids drawings of Mohammed, yet there's no Bible scripture forbidding such things as Jesus drawings, doesn't really matter much in terms of street cred.
Furaffinity goes by US law and that includes the prohibition of slander, but a drawing of Mohammed even in jest still doesn't count as harassment: it's parody.
3 Simple Rules to Peaceful Coexistence.
1. If somebody is ignorant to something which a population of individuals find rude for scientific or religious reasons, attempt to inform them of your customs, taboos and beliefs so they can appropriately warn you of things which you may find offensive as per those beliefs.
2. If you are doing something which an individual/population considers to be rude, especially within an environment which that population plays a large part of, try to be respectful of their beliefs and taboos.
3. If somebody is doing something you find to be rude and cannot tolerate, and they are unwilling to accomidate you even after being informed: If they are in your environment, ask them to leave. If you are in their environment, leave. If it is a public place, leave.
An objective definition of "Political Correctness":
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Extreme clarification in rules--means that admins have the added pressure of writing down any and all possible violations that might come their way. This means that for every offense, they simply have to look it up and see what they had as the 'proper' punishment. Unfortunately, if you use this system the fairness in ruling a case might be lost because there is no room for interpretation, or people have the tendency to say "Well it wasn't specifically marked down in the AUP so... I thought I was okay posting it..."
In the end... With any system of rules its all a balancing act. You want to have enough clarification with vagueness worded in there so that the ruling party, (in this case the admins), have the power to interject themselves and rule on something when necessary. Vagueness is good for fairness and for detecting when there's a flaw in the system, (which when hopefully identified), can then be fixed or altered by the admins.
If anything, the responsibility of those in power and what they do with that power rests solely with them and them alone. I don't have to trust anyone in power. All I can do is hope that they will do the correct thing given the framework that has been created. I hope that the Supreme Court rules fairly and justly in all that they do--irregardless of the past mistakes they've made and the erroneous rulings. I place that same hope towards the admins, that through the system they've created here on this website, to judge fairly.
And, obviously, we're departing the scope of discussing the AUP with this.
I don't personally care much about the vagueries, because I don't draw well enough to produce anything that would be considered pedo, lolli or shota, I don't take screenies of my SL AVs because they're all commercial bought (mostly Luskwood and Istarian), and I've never considered trying to make a depiction of Mohammad. I'm a writer, and while I do write a lot of adult material, the rules for animals do not include age as a factor, and, again, not that I involve immature (underage themes) into my works, though I do write a lot of "First Time" stories.
I hope you all get this sorted out before this devolves into something nasty.
The trick is finding that lawyer. Anyway, It's all just hypothetical, anyway. Dragoneer and crew seem to be somewhat responsive, and I'm certain they will fix the vague loopholes or clarify their position on what is acceptable. Either way I don't see if being a problem.
According to the last part of the Miller Obscenity Test, stuff hosted on FA right now is very likely considered a felony under US law and not protected under the first amendment. Yet there's categories in both tame and adult for cub oriented art.
Given where you are (FA) I'd say you're less likely to offend either the staff or the lurkers if you provided boobs, but more likely to offend them if you draw a Siamese cat in a bamboo hat. However given who you are and your history in furry, nothing would likely be done about it on an administration level even if you did. Personality privilege being what it is.
Specifically, my main concern with vague rules like this is for the admins as people. If they end up overloaded with a steaming pile of baww, the amount of time they have to spend evaluating each individual case will shrink and their mental filters will become rigid and apathetic. Once their attitudes go from "Okay let's see if there's any merit to this complaint" to "Sigh, more pictures of naked schoolchildren to erase..." that's when vague rules have failed.
So pretty much anything pornagraphic can be argued as obscene especially when it furry porn.
I felt like the whole thing was going in circles, not making any sense, and somewhat hypocritical.
I know vagueness can be a good thing, but could this damn thing be anymore vague?
I'm not too worried about it, cause I tend to not post much sexual themed things, but now I'm worried about my comic series somehow being offensive.
SL screenshots... I don't understand why were not allowed to take a photo of our avi if we haven't made it ourselves. I mean I wouldn't claim right to the build itself but I did buy it, and if I feel like taking a snapshot of myself relaxing in a beautiful sim because it appeals to me I should be able to upload it. hell if I wanted to take a screenshot of my guild downing the Lich king in ICC25 on WoW I should be able to [hah I wish, haven't gotten there yet]
"We ask fursuiters keep pictures of their individual suits to no more than 10 images. "
that makes me laugh .. do they actually think people are going to only post 10 images of there own suit?
I guess people are afraid to use their own judgment skills.
My religion textbooks are full of images of Muhammad, painted by faithful Muslims. This whole new craze against drawing Muhammad is mostly an Arabic thing. Worship of images of Muhammad is always forbidden, just like in the Bible it says not to worship any graven image, but in many predominantly Muslim parts of the world, images of Muhammad are common and considered both respectful and pious - as long as you don't worship them or use them in worship - it's basically the exact same way that Protestants use pictures of Jesus and the Apostles.
The no-Muhammad thing is regional, not universal, even among extremely faithful, conservative Muslims.
All the media hype may change this for future (though I hope the old images of Muhammad are not destroyed), but yeah, this is basically another instance of one group of loud people confusing an issue for everyone else.
I know, this isn't really to do with the AUP, but I like to be informative on this issue.
As for racially/philosophically offensive... Unless someone presents a valid complaint there is probably nothing to worry about. The depiction of your characters seems fairly even handed on those terms, so I don't think any complaint about your art in that regard will be taken seriously. I think someone would have to post a *blatant* attack on another race/belief system for it to be considered an offense (this is speaking from having witnessed a similar complaint where the admins (dragoneer and pinkuh) judged that "personal observations" about a group of people, even if perceived as offensive by members of that group, do not constitute an attack on a group of people. I personally disagree with their decision because the offending thing generalized an entire group of people in terms that are clearly derogatory towards that group but said it was ok because it was just "personal observations", but it pretty much means almost anything you post is fair game as long as you don't make very blatant attacks on a group). Yes, the admins here aren't always fair, they are biased as hell towards their "inner circle", but when enforcing policies, they tend to (but not always) err on the side of leniency unless someone is being a complete dick about something.
Spirituality is divine. Religion is man made.
It's one or the other, can't have your ca-.... Pie and eat it, too.
I'm talking about some people's perception of offense. I'm not talking about whether it's valid or founded in anything. I find find any relevance in your God of War analogy.
I was just trying to point out the absurdity is all. I agree with you that just saying 'offensive material' is FAR too vague and subjective without some kind of example of what the limit would be. Set a clear line, not some vague point that changes depending one who says what and when.
Some of those rules, for instance the shota/loli ban, are here to protect FA itself as an entity (and before anyone else reads this the wrong way, no, I don't mean a 'it's us versus them'. If FA is safe we should be glad since we're all kinda safe as well). Take that particular rule. It talks about demi-humans as in humans with few minor non-human characteristics. Those are forbidden. Alright. Problem is, there is really no way to say what makes for a small and what makes for a big use of non-human characteristics... So in the end it's up to the artists' own judgment. And in the end it's up to the admin's judgment.
I do believe some of the rules are intentionally vague, so that anyone who breaks them gets a 'last chance', a kind of a safety net, if you will. I'm not sure if this is really the case and I'm not saying it was thought up on purpose, but it does make me feel more comfortable with the AUP. Kinda takes the edge off of it, making it feel more of a set of common directives than ruthless undeniable rules that'll get you banned.
And Dexter and DeeDee in coitus... *Shivers* o.<
Like I said, might be a lil' crazy on my part, but I think that bit of the rules is there just in case 'outsiders' start inquiring about FA, kinda of a 'hey, we wash our hands, the rules are there'. It might be a bit of an unconscious protection system the admins came up with.
Ps: I enjoy your art ^^
In retrospective, anything of this age is quite tame compared to what those guys did back in the 60's.
That said, you're right, these rules are vague. That's probably quite deliberate. I imagine that anything not obviously intended as hate-speech (n-bombs in all caps for four pages) will at least get a warning first, and that people will be listened to with regards to their justifications for various stuff.
That said, I don't remember you ever drawing anything with characters that looked underage doing adult things. And trust me, I've seen a LOT of your work.
I think thinking too deeply about what might and might not be OK would just cause headaches and make it less enjoyable to draw.