Ok makes sense

i think i like these changes. especially those about clothing.

also, does this mean that there wont be a proper groups feature implemented since you essentially allow all groups again?

Would be nice if things like plushy would be allowed again too.. since somehow it's awkward to disalow that if you ask me :/c

Uh well, I wondered why it's not allowed to post pictures of a self made plush.. since tehre are some manufactors of that here on Fa.
Anyways, nice to see that there are good changes here ^_^ Also thanks for the response to my ticket refering to the mobile browser!

So if i bough a plush and modified it (changed the wings, add a hat, etc) I can post it?

If there is significant modification to make it stand apart from the original. =3

What if you requested a plushie company to make a plushie of your own design. Like if I asked gannmemorials to take my design and make a few plushies for my company?

That would fall under the "For You" portion of FYBY.

The key thought is that mass produced items (collection items) are not allowed. This is why a photo of a can of Red Bull wouldn't be allowed, but a photo of my Furry Fuel would be (...for me and the artist, at least)

Dragoneer has a Fyuvix avatar on the forums! great to know this great is Dragoneer super-approved!

Glad about the groups thing! I own and manage several groups and I don't have to be worried anymore. :D

Thank you y'all!
I love how you explain and notify us of the updates so well. I really appreciate that you bother taking the time!

I have an Interogation, my Main fursuit are all 'naked' i.e. they don't wear garments ... But are permitted as is ; but if one of them wore bras or swinsuit the picture would not be allowed ?

I have no idea what that is, honestly. Can you link me to the suit? And if you're wearing clothing OVER a suit it will be okay (diapers, underwear, bras aside).

like on this picture : http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7950227/ My Lipard is technicall naked ... no ?

That only applies to people, not fursuits. =P We can clarify that in the policy.

Ok, or maybe it was me being unusually daft

glad to hear about the latex thing a have a lotta friend were saddend over it.

Well i'll be. Changes to the site and it's policy that I not only agree with, but support wholeheartedly. Especially about the photo's.

Well done/Kudos/good job to the Admin team on this one!

Glad to see the latex and rubber suiters can relax again

Well ill check up on that thanks for the infomation :D

Need some claification on this. Diapered fursuiters allowed? Y/N?

No.

that's stupid. If it's a fursuit with a diaper on it, how is that any different from putting a swimsuit or any other article of clothing on it? It's not sexual at all, and since it's a fursuit, it's not like it's improperly clothed like a person who's naked and wearing one is.

I'm guessing it's to protect them, and you. Someone who knows nothing about babyfurs could take it as a form of child porn

but it's not. It's an adult in a costume with a diaper on. That, in no way, shape, or form, could be seen as child porn because there's not even a child involved. It would never hold up in court, or any place that mattered. So it's not really protecting anyone.

Hey, don't argue with /me/, I was just suggesting.

I understand that, but it really doesn't make any sense any way you cut it. It's just blatant favoritism, and people thinking too much about fetishes instead of it being what it is - art.

Making and wearing fursuits are an art form, would you argue that? fursuits, pictures, photography, and stories are all art. If the suiter feels that a particular item (such as a shirt, a bandana, a certain necklace, or even a diaper) completes the image of a character, it's part of the entire piece. It's part of the artistic model and idea of the character. I don't like diapers, baby furs are kind of weird to me, but I think it's favoritism because honestly there is nothing sexual about diapers themselves, at all. On a person who has nothing else on, I get that it's revealing and not allowed. But over a fursuit? It's just silly to say no to that and seems like it's just the person can't see it as anything but a fetish.

It's over a fursuit, though...
so it doesn't really make any sense. The model is already properly 'clothed' from the suit. I just think it's stupid not to allow it because what it's used for (holding bodily waste), since people AREN'T using it for that. The same way they could have a sword as part of their character design (which can be used to kill someone), but it's not being used for that. They're already on a covered model, I don't see how it counts as improperly clothed.

OMG, will you get off it? When the hell has a diaper ever been considered an actual clothing item? People who have babies (you know, the people a diaper is actually originally designed for) don't considered their child 'dressed' when just wearing a diaper. Get off this soap box, it's empty. It's about time somebody put their foot down in this fandom and stopped excepting every damn thing somebody gets in their head to want to do publicly. Geez....an argument about diapers as clothing?

Clothing something worn to protect the body from the elements and can be used multiple times over a long period of time.

A diaper, a covering used for people who can not on their own extract waste from their bodies so it's used as a protected garment and used for waste catching and disposal, and typically can not be used multiple times (or at least no rational thinking person should.).

I am saying when it's over something like a fursuit, they're properly clothed by default. they have a SUIT on already.

You sound upset, may I get you a tissue?

Air Freshener and plastic gloves.

I will get right on that!

I'm just saying the model is already clothed by default, so I don't know why putting something extra over top of it, as long as it isn't sexual or suggestive, isn't allowed. I get what it's used for, but that's not what it's being used for in this case, at all. If presenting counterpoints makes it look like I'm complaining, so be it. I understand Neer's decision and rule is final. I am just saying why I consider it favoritism. Yes, it's a diaper which is not clothing and used to collect bodily fluid, but it's over a clothed model who isn't using it for that. Hence, I think it really has no basis to be banned when half the suits out there have a lot of questionable accessories that could be used for other things/have other purposes.

Because that something extra over it is a DIAPER. Grow up.

i understand and share your confusion over the matter. did i miss the X rating for baby looney tunes or something?

Hah, I agree. I think it really boils down to not showing your undergarments (whatever they may be) whether you're in a costume or not.

is that the rule? that's weird. that atleast makes things a bit clearer to me. it was starting to sound like a specific rule for diapers. making fair rules must be hard, but it seems easier to just not make rules like this. so long as they don't have their dick sticking out, i would expect it to be okay.

It's not favoritism. Wearing diapers (meant to hold feces and urine) is not an acceptable form of clothing to be worn on the site. Now, I'm perfectly aware that 99.999999% of all users WON'T be wearing them for that purpose, allowing "clothing" whose primary and sole purpose is for bodily waste removal is not going to be considered.

I'm willing to concede on a lot of things. That is not one of them.

I totally get not wanting half naked people wearing diapers.

But when they're overtop of fursuits, though? It's not showing anything, it's not adult. It's an accessory, same as a collar and leash would be (both things can be seen as fetishy and adult, but they are just defining/showing off traits of the suiter/the character)

^ This to the infinity power.

Eh, it's favoritism.

can i just clarify that we are still on about fursuits with diapers on, and not naked people wearing nothing but? i don't really like to argue over minutia, but i think it's really unfortunate that the worst is being assumed of people here. the thing is, there are a number of cartoons that have baby animal characters in diapers. these are acceptable cartoon characters and fursuits of them would not be deemed unsuitable for children / the public. in such instances, it just appears to be a symbol of emphasising that it's a cute baby character. as part of a character, i don't see why they would be automatically counted as fetish gear. i can understand wanting to make specific rules of not allowing characters with child like features to be doing or wearing anything remotely sexual. perhaps ensuring that the diapers are not real, made for the costume, and are not soiled would also help. your ruling also has me questioning if baby characters or baby themes accessories are not allowed at all(?). and no, i am not a baby or diaper fur protecting my own interests. i just don't really understand the ruling.

Thank you, a lot of this is where I'm coming from, too.

*nods* i am hoping my points will be listened to, rather than assuming i am just whining, as they seem to have done with you. i'm actually kind of disappointed by some of the responses. surely a reasonable conversation is possible here(?).

i am just a bit baffled by the automatic negative association and, even more-so, the seeming refusal to see it as anything other than fetishism (even just the possibility of it - in any circumstance). maybe it comes from people seeing this site as a fetish site, and fursuits as fetish items, but that isn't how i feel at all. i joined because this seemed like one of the best places for those interested in art involving animals and cartoons. but now i am wondering... what is the assumption is here? that we only want to dress in costume for a sexual thrill? that the only way we can watch cartoons is with an erection? come on guys. how about the idea that maybe, just maybe... all this furry stuff is about having fun? i know a diaper fetish exists, i know costume fetishes exist, but is it too hard to believe that someone may enjoy the innocence or fun of something with absolutely no desire to taint that? i don't imagine all that many people have baby characters with diapers, but surely some do, and i think this rule is unfair to them as it stands. if dressing up as an animal is acceptable, why is dressing up as a baby animal such a tremendous leap? you are essentially branding them perverts because you don't personally understand it. but what makes this really strange, is that, seemingly, other things that are fetishes are allowed, even if they involve animal (or animal based) characters. why is the line diapers? (again, please consider the numerous baby versions of cartoons - non adult cartoons). it's confusing.

no, its not stupid. diapers arent clothes or accessoires. you piss and poop in them.
its fetishy bullshit and not acceptable in public.

It's a dumb fetish for people who are too stupid to realize they are adults.

i wouldnt go that far. people are free to have their fetishes, i simply want them to keep that in their bedroom.

Its stupid. Grown up people shitting in diapers. WTF

its weird, yes. but its still their fetish and as long as they would keep it in their bedroom or just private in general you wouldnt even know about it. besides, as far as i know its not even about the shitting in most cases... they just... wear them O_o

besides, im a grown man (well, sort of. im 23) who collects model kits of giant robots. is that stupid as well? :P
hobbies and fetishes arent supposed to make sense. they are ALWAYS irrational.

But this is FA, so no one else's opinions or insight matter at all, sadly. I get owning a private site and making your own rules. But there are just some things like this that are blatantly judgmental and biased.

it falls into the fetish part of suiting...be like putting bondage on your suit i'm assuming that's not allowed as well.

collars and handcuffs are allowed on suits. Not hardcore bondage gear, but I'd hardly say a diaper is a fetish thing. What if the character is a baby character? Like looney tunes? I hardly would consider those fetish material just because they have diapers...

an adult in a diaper is considered fetish, the character may be "child" but if you yourself are not it doesn't matter

Far too much interaction between the admins and users here, you know this site would benefit from a flag picture system like youtube, a trouble ticket can make one feel dirty...

All hail lord Dragoneer!

I feel the opposite. There's not enough :P

Uh, gross.

...gross? ...how does the word 'gross' even apply to communication? You don't like the admins here keeping abreast of the communities concerns?

What? My comment was about having a flag system on FA, I didn't say anything towards disliking the admins.

You sure hell don't know me and certainly don't know what I dislike, so stop surmising and putting words in my mouth.

"The new policy now reads:
Clothing & Attire - Images containing human models must be properly dressed (top and bottom garments). Exceptions are made for swimwear provided the models are at an appropriate location (pool, beach, waterpark). Underwear, bras, and diapers are not considered acceptable articles of clothing. Latex/leather clothing and costumes are permitted provided the attire does not feature sexual modifications (crotch zippers, toys, etc) and are otherwise viewable by users of all ages."


Silly question. So if a male human model is not in the appropriate setting to be topless (Beach, Waterpark, Pool, etc), does that mean that the submission is in violation to the AUP?

I AGREE! ................... that IS a silly question!

Silly if you're a man in American, not so much so if you're like Canadian where topless goes for both men and women.

lol I'm in toronto and have NEVER seen any ladies take advantage of that! (other then the pride parade )

Saying "other than pride parades" means you've seen ladies taking advantage of it, and it's not a matter if they do, it's the fact they can if they choose to.

wow

Actually, it's a good question given it's basically an exception to a policy. However, given user feedback... it was an exception that was made to the existing rule.

Correct.

Actually, you brought up a good point and a potential loophole. I edited the policy to be more clear.

Not sure I like the latex and such being "relaxed" but I guess enough people like that kind of thing to have it changed...whatever the case thanks for the update!!

That was....an anticlimactic update to say the least. =I

lolatthepeoplearguingaboutnotwearing diapers.

come on guys, we see enough babyfur in pics :p i dont care what you do at home, i just dont wanna see a giant fox with a dude inside and a diaper on the outside :U

I like these changes for the most part. There were only 2 concerns I had:

1) This was brought up in the forum discussion; the policy on tattoo photos is a "by you, for you" rule, meaning if the tattoo was both designed by you and tattooed on you. What about tattoos that were designed by you, but for another person?
2) This is probably splitting hairs on my part, but I was bothered by the language on the clothing policies. While I understand and agree with the intent, I think that specifying that clothing can only be gender-appropriate is alienating to your trans, cross and GQ userbase (myself included). Again, I understand the meaning, but I think it does well enough to just say that photos of clothing need to be appropriate to be viewed by any age. I think that would get your policy across without making anyone feel like they're being singled out.

the "gender appropriate" thing sort of irked me as well. what about someone who identifies as genderless? where would they fit in this rule?

I also agree with your second point.

"Exceptions are made for swimwear provided the models are at an appropriate location ..... and are wearing proper attire for their gender (shorts for men, bikini/one piece for women)."

I don't think I found any clarification on this in the comments here, but is this to mean that girls can't wear man shorts
and men can't wear bikinis or one-pieces near a beach or pool? Where does speedos fit into the FA Proper Gender Wear judgement?

Not to mention that the policy's wording also seems a bit harsh toward transgender and genderqueer folk. :X I hope they fix this.

^

This

This

Dude in all honesty, I dount they may fix this :/ it seems kind of a low blow they would pull the "gnder appropiate" card, FA is tightening it's own noose and leaving it's users to travel to other sites to feel accepted it seems, it be nice if they fixed this, WILL they fix this? We can only hope...

this is all BS one thing i have to say im a little dissapointed ive lost all respect for this site that isnt right that i post things on my FA i get pictures removed off my without warning by an uptight admin for no reason now we have to be "gender approprate" and if this is what FA is Gonna be then im done im closing my FA i dont need to be part of a network who's admin staff is abusive with power no im sorry

I'm also disappointed, removing users pictures with some respect and dignity would be nice, maybe FA should take a leaf out of Youtube and Inkbunny's book?

excatly you cant police everybody and a little warning of consideration would be nice

Inkbunny blocks the users work, they never remove it, removing violated contents is solely down to the user, this is more of a honest and respected way.

Yeah, much better. More freedom there e__e;

Might I request another moderator review a fursuit photo of mine that was removed? I felt it fit the AUP, albeit narrowly. The moderator who removed it refused a clarifying dialogue with me.

ohh yea like a robot "boop can not compute im programed to be an uptight admin i obey and do as im told" ROFL

*boop "its my job to discuss my duites that im programed to do"

Sure, send me a note with a link to the file, I'll have a look.

Just incase I end up breaking the rules by accident. what is the embebbed account thing about exactley?

I mean to avoid breaking the rules by accident. what is the embebbed account thing about?

I'm glad you've allowed the group accounts, groups like  commissions are really helpful for artists and it'd be a real shame to lose something like that!

I'll think.
It's mean "Furry world's NWO"

"proper attire for their gender"

Very disappointing, folks. I expect to hear something like this from my grandfather, not a furry website for art and porn. There's nothing wrong with people wearing clothes normally intended for another gender. Not to mention the fact that trans* and genderqueer folks use this site too, and you can't exactly enforce this rule on them without being cis-sexist.

I think a clarification is in order, admins. If you simply want people with visible breasts to cover up, say that.

(Though really, we're going to allow almost every fetish known to man on site, but actual breasts are forbidden? As long as a person's gallery isn't completely filled with pictures of their tits, what's the problem?)

It is simple, FA used to be a place where you could express your "Furrieness" as you wanted. I joined the furry fandom and FA about a year ago, so I do not know all of the new things that are getting people angered and on edge, but I do know one thing. If you block and disallow freedom of art "Which in no way is like freedom of speech, because there are catch 22's" then you kill the purpose of art in general. The phrase "Art" is short for "Artistic" meaning it is what comes out of your head, your body, your soul, you feel it when you draw, photograph, sculpt, etc. Art comes in all shapes and forms and is kind of like a fetish wish rule type standards, "As long as it does not hurt anyone, it is okay." That has always been what the rules are Art were, if there were even any.


Back in the late 1700, 1800's, you would see naked sculptures of the human body with anatomically correct proportions ever where, "I.E. Penis's, Boobs, Vaginal areas" And it was the most beautiful form of art. Now taking this new rule into consideration, think what would have happened if there was a rule back then that disallowed people to sculpt and draw naked human bodies, art would not be where it is right now. I understand it is a diaper, but it is a form of expression, just like seeing a piece of art that has someone being tentacle raped and being beaten senseless as well as eaten whole in Vore. But see, those "fetishes" are allowed because it allows the individual to express their feelings, but suddenly when a diaper is in a picture, dear lord stop the presses, call Chris Hansen because we have a "Pedophile" here.


Now, for those that do NOT know what "Pedophile" means, I will state it here, "A Pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to infantile persons." Now, I don not believe a diaper on a ADULT is anywhere in that definition. So, point in case, open your eyes and realize that people can do/wear what they want as long as it does not hurt anyone. I myself have to be in diapers for life because of a skateboarding accident eight years ago. You would not believe how much I get hounded while I am out and about by people not minding their own business "And or don't look at my ass".


Anyway, I am also a Babyfur/diaperfur because I like the art and I think it is cute as do most people in the "Fandom". The reason we have such a bad name is because there ARE such individuals who are on the major creep scale, but that is about 1% of the fandom and we all know the negatives always rise above the positives. So, next time you see a Babyfur picture or what not, get to know the person, "Then if they are a total creep troll them". But I have said my piece, I know it is long and some may say TL/DR, but I type fast, so this took me about 2-3 minutes to type.

Jesus Christ, if you want to post pictures of yourself or pictures you took that are fetishy, sexual, or close to being provocative... this isn't the site for it. You wanna do that, go to Fetlife or a fetish specific website. Posting a picture of yourself in your diaper and pacifier while sitting in front of the mirror like this is some messed up version of a myspace picture is not what this website is for, it's not art.

There's a difference between fetish items in drawings and such, but there's another WHOLE different story involved when you put it in real life. Even if you "get in an innocent headspace" or whatever, it's still not technically innocent. It's a real life fetish picture that you're trying to put off as "Art". Post your pictures on another site where it's appreciated it and where it's appropriate.

Warning, opinions ahead!

1. For the people complaining about the 'appropriate for their gender' rule: Stop and think. FA said -gender-, not sex. Yes, they have a man / woman example, but if you're a post-op transwoman, I don't think FA is going to yell at you for wearing a bikini, which is appropriate for you. Or, if you're a post-op transman, FA isn't going to yell at you for being in trunks. It all has to deal with what is proper in the general public based on USA standards since FA is hosted in the USA.

2. People complaining about diapers: If you want to dress up in a diaper and bib, etc, please take it to an adult baby fetish site. That is sharing your fetish, not posting art. I doubt, however, FA would remove a fursuiter who uses a diaper as part of their costume to complete the character. There -is- a difference, and 'Neer will correct me if I am wrong. I am sorry if any babyfurs / adult babies are offended by my opinion, but please stop and think about why you wear a diaper and why you wish to show it off. (While I understand some people must wear diapers, it is still something not worth showing off here.)

3. People complaining that the latex suits are back: This is a bit different than my diaper example above. Not all people who wear latex suits are doing so sexually /for fetish purposes. Sometimes people like the look of latex suits better than furry ones because of the form-fitting possibilities. I can think of two people in my head who use fetish-like costumes but never once have done anything adult with them on FA. That's just how their suits are.

In the end, these rules are trying to help people who never had fetish context in the mind, and trying to rule out those who do. (Again, my apologies to babyfurs, but in the end the diapers are nothing more than a fetish. You know it, and I know it.)