I read the part about the humans, and it seems to be a nice improvement! thanks for taking the effort to increase the possibilities of what can be sold thru your company! =D *wags*
It's an improvement, but I still sort of don't like inkbunny for the simple fact that I wouldn't be able to post over half my art there or almost anything of my characters. :\
i usually draw human fill ins.. as in, when it comes to porn, the cock genitals are humanish. a delete happy mod deleted a couple of my pics only after a couple days..
if ink bunny wants to be like fa, it should lose the rules. all of em.
i disagree. i think fa, while a pretty poorly run site, is a good model to follow. and i think any similar furry site would try hard to be like fa in an attempt to compete.
You're already biased because they deleted some of your work
What model is FA, 'a furry art gallery'?
That's not really much of a model to base things from
There are plenty of sites like that already so it's not like FA is the baseline
These were just floating cocks? Or not attached to anything visibly human?
Or were they human characters, or obviously skin and not fur/feathers/scales?
If a mod wrongfully deleted something that was >not< human, then I am sure you have filed a trouble ticket and explained as such. I'm also pretty sure IB mods can restore deleted submissions that are removed wrongly, unlike FA where if an admin fucks up, oops, too bad, deal with it.
They deal with professional companies and laws and restrictions which apply to humans and pornography do not apply to make-believe cartoon animal-things.
Yes, I noticed it said it was for legal reasons, but I was hoping for a more specific answer than that. Do you know which companies or laws or restrictions apply to drawn human porn with adults? Just curious.
However this is a case where the specifics only really matter if someone feels that InkBunny is lying, or if they think that they can argue that they're wrong about this law or misunderstood or some other such thing.
Which would be silly. If they were just imposing arbitrary rules based on personal preference, they'd be entirely in their right to do so, but allowing non-adult humans but banning adult humans makes absolutely no sense at all unless they really can't allow adult human works.
Even if they were interpreting a law wrong, if the companies they have to work with say "we won't work with you unless you ban X" then they have to do that.
What I do know is that InkBunny is being run in a professional manner, and they actually do know what they are talking about. As a fandom, we've become accustomed to slip-shod haphazard management by people who seem to rarely have any clue what they're doing. When FA says "we have to do it this way" we know from experience that more often than not, no, they didn't HAVE TO, and there was a better way to have done it.
IB is something very different. They are doing very well in establishing the kind of faith and trust in their judgment and competency that people cannot have in FA without ignoring FA's history.
Guys, have you thought that there are legal issues behind the decision not to have humans in porn there? Inkbunny's Server Host may not be as "forgiving" as FA's. They probably have different policies as to what can be hosted. Don't always think it's automatically their fault.
I don't really see the point in allowing humans when they still can't allow them in anything adult.
As in, for the Furries who were turned off to IB specifically because of that one point, the percentage of them who the new rule change makes any difference is very small.
It just feels like this opens a door more to non-furry anime-type people than it does for furries who have some humans mixed in.
Basically, I worry about Y!Gallery happening in reverse.
^ || All personal bias, and cautious policy aside... || Doesn't it seem that this fandom has, || in some manner, || come full circle by demonstrating such discontent at being denied human porn?
still admire the status quo of the world we live in. You can have a human with all his limbs severed and swimming in a salt bath but if he has a erection you get the chair!
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. Learn More
Well. At least they are starting to get better.
if ink bunny wants to be like fa, it should lose the rules. all of em.
There's a lot of shit on FA, I think IB is just trying to set a standard for quality you apparently do not meet
What model is FA, 'a furry art gallery'?
That's not really much of a model to base things from
There are plenty of sites like that already so it's not like FA is the baseline
These were just floating cocks? Or not attached to anything visibly human?
Or were they human characters, or obviously skin and not fur/feathers/scales?
If a mod wrongfully deleted something that was >not< human, then I am sure you have filed a trouble ticket and explained as such. I'm also pretty sure IB mods can restore deleted submissions that are removed wrongly, unlike FA where if an admin fucks up, oops, too bad, deal with it.
I guess I still won't be able to use the site at all, considering that there are humans in almost everything I create.
They deal with professional companies and laws and restrictions which apply to humans and pornography do not apply to make-believe cartoon animal-things.
However this is a case where the specifics only really matter if someone feels that InkBunny is lying, or if they think that they can argue that they're wrong about this law or misunderstood or some other such thing.
Which would be silly. If they were just imposing arbitrary rules based on personal preference, they'd be entirely in their right to do so, but allowing non-adult humans but banning adult humans makes absolutely no sense at all unless they really can't allow adult human works.
Even if they were interpreting a law wrong, if the companies they have to work with say "we won't work with you unless you ban X" then they have to do that.
What I do know is that InkBunny is being run in a professional manner, and they actually do know what they are talking about. As a fandom, we've become accustomed to slip-shod haphazard management by people who seem to rarely have any clue what they're doing. When FA says "we have to do it this way" we know from experience that more often than not, no, they didn't HAVE TO, and there was a better way to have done it.
IB is something very different. They are doing very well in establishing the kind of faith and trust in their judgment and competency that people cannot have in FA without ignoring FA's history.
:(
It's slowly getting there, though.
so you can add a human as long as hes standing there and not doing anything? sounds fun!
It's a furry version of y!gallery.
As in, for the Furries who were turned off to IB specifically because of that one point, the percentage of them who the new rule change makes any difference is very small.
It just feels like this opens a door more to non-furry anime-type people than it does for furries who have some humans mixed in.
Basically, I worry about Y!Gallery happening in reverse.
|| All personal bias, and cautious policy aside...
|| Doesn't it seem that this fandom has,
|| in some manner,
|| come full circle by demonstrating such discontent at being denied human porn?