I'm mostly upset with the fact they suspended the accounts as well on first offense. They CAN do that, but not following their own rules is REALLY not a good way to make the userbase happy. There are plenty of good arguments why they should be allowed to post them, there are also good arguments why not to post them. That is something the site (and hopefully, but not required) and perhaps its userbase should sort out. The first amendment argument is just stupid, The first amendment applies to the government, not private sites. Just my 2 Cents

You know furries;

Someone gets in trouble, has an image taken down, get suspended, and the Furry (in)Justice League rolls out as if there's some kind of national emergency. It'd be cute if it wasn't so irritating.

The use of FurAffinity is completely optional.

yes it is, but see above.. if they continue to not follow their own rules (on banning procedure), I will be voting with my e-feet and moving sites.

I imagine people have already done this. It does not bother me.

go ahead

Seems like they are handling it. If they get it handled then, fine.

^not making impulsive decisions can be a good thing sometimes

yeah, that's why there was an an if, it was more if that continued and didn't get resolved.

because had you left in a fit of butthurt you would have realised that nowhere else on the internet are furries taken seriously and you would have come back as soon as possible

Nope, woulda moved to one of the other fursites. Sounds like you might be projecting a bit though. I just have a low tolerance for abuse of power.

Lol, what's going on Firr?


I'm always out of the loop when there's furry shit going on

The irony is that there's an image of Fender which falls under the "suggestive pose" rule which, naturally, has not been removed.

They did remove it but only after people with similar photos that got removed (And in some cases not even 'suggestive' other than they were wearing a dog sled harness) made journals linking it.

Honestly not all the photos were even suggestive. A few got deleted simply because they had a dog fursuit wearing a dog sled harness. Then there's a few accounts that got suspended at the same time all without the slightest bit of warning. Most places at least give you one warning of 'Don't do this again' before taking such actions or simply remove the offending images and provide some form of explanation as to why at the time of the removal.

FA's never really worked that way. They tend to just delete stuff without any explanation as to why or say it's against the AUP when it isn't always against the AUP (And even Dragooner has said some of the photos taken down were not against the AUP. Hell some of them were his going by his journal.)

Sounds like yet another crock of poor moderating. Still not worth wasting my time on though.

^sounds like a bunch of butthurts
while yeah i can see why a bunch of unartistic asspies whose only chance at porn is by dressing up in a tony the tiger costume and getting tied up with belts would get mad at the site, the stuff that got removed wasn't "good clean fun" at all
typical white knight argument sounds like "OH COME ON THERE'S NOTHING WRONG HE'S JUST BOUND AND GAGGED"
and seriously, the first amendment thing still?
i didn't know we were all in third grade still

Careful, many furries dont understand sarcasm :p

Furries: whenever you need a bunch of amateurs to get things done, furries will be there to do the (half-ass) job!