the one to the left!

its the middle one *crosseyed*

I see no difference

For UVS I could help some. found a patch in Zbrush who allow you to unwarp in automaticly. So instead of 10 hours to do a nice UV manually. You just need a hour to fix the small mistakes did by the patch :3

The unwrapping is no problem, pinning the islands into something that makes sense so a human being can draw on it is.

Well Zbrush allow you as well to color directly on your character and unwarp it to fit the UV

Zbrush's unwraps are a clusterfuck

I'm serious. It work well in Zbrush 3.5 or 4.0. I did the uvs of that one in it and needed only to fix little mistakes after. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4380048

The left one has a bigger head so = the baby! A naked one!

BAN'D BAN NAO!

It's okay, it has no skin yet and guro is a-okay.

May have a bigger head, but also has bigger hips/shoulders. Left one is older :P

Not seeing the hips and shoulders. So I say left is younger x3

>.>;;; You viewing it at 100%? It clearly has a bigger frame XD

The head is literally the only thing that changes in size.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3715/framei.gif

Besides that point being made. Do you further see how stupid this new rule is? xD

I see how banning adult depictions of characters under 18 may strike up some issues (especially in the case where copyrighted characters are under 18 as canon), but personally? I'm all for it, it's not at all stupid. It's up to us artists to correctly portray characters at a mature age in pornographic situations.

Unfortunately it's counter productive to certain artists with toonish/cutesy/chibi styles. I honestly doubt everyone will go unscaved by a completely subjective rule. Not everyone is a fan of huge pecks, D cups, and large hips. It's damn stupid because of how this rule has to be enforced. And it's also subject to abuse as well.

Huge pecks, D cups, and large hips aren't required in order to make a character appear mature, this is important to state. And it IS possible to portray a mature character in such styles. However, you're correct in that some artists will be wrongly affected by the ruling, and I understand the problems in this whole deal. :X

At the end of the day though, the ruling is really the lesser of two evils. Either FA tanks it as a result of keeping all creative options open due to a lack of income, or we adapt to this ruling for FA's financial sake.

An alternate payment method could have been opted. Or negotiations for freedom of speech and expression.

Suffice to say, FA has checked through a number of alternatives, it hasn't just been PayPal and AlertPay. :X This isn't a matter for freedom of speech and expression, it's financial.

I cringed when you said "correctly portray".
Who is arrogant enough to say what "correct" and "incorrect" is when it comes to art?
Let me give you a hint: The freaking nazis were.

People can draw the trololololol guy eating babies for all I care and be the most harmless persons in the world who didn't even hit anyone in their whole life. Did that ever occur to you?
I have met perfectly normal, nice people who just so happened to like the creepy stuff I draw for what amounts to shits, giggles and entertainment.
There is absolutely nothing that indicates that this would be different in any way for "cub" artists.
They draw the same goddamn lines and circles I do after all.

How can you seriously, without probably even knowing any of them, say "this is not stupid, this makes perfect sense"?
Because furries have "image problems"? Or are you seriously believing that fantasy=actions?
People are calling other people "pedophiles" over drawings. People go to jail for that!
What the fuck is "right" about that?

Also why be so selective and limit it to "children" (who are not even actual children anymore but fantasy creatures for crying out loud, sonic is a cereal mascot!) in "sexual situations"?
Aren't you a giant hypocrite if depictions of exaggerated violence like someones arms being ripped off while they're screaming are a-okay but as soon as imaginary pseudo-children are endangered, it is something completely different?
What kind of sick priorities are that anyway? What the hell is wrong with people?
THAT is much sicker than any amount of drawings could ever be.
Cause first and foremost, that is exactly what they are. Drawings.

You'd think that being part of a community widely regarded as "deviant" by the public would give you a lesson in tolerance and humility.
Sorry for sounding harsh but by saying "this is okay", you say that slander, unbelievably broad generalizations and ignorance are "okay" and I do not agree with that whatsoever.

You incurred Godwin's law at the third sentence.

Now at what point in my reply did I draw the line between this ruling, and pedophilia? Or gore and exaggerated violence, or anything else you mentioned?

I understand that this whole deal has bothered you, but you've blown up at me over three sentences, over details that I'm not even touching on.

You said you're "all for it", then you said artists should "correctly portray" their characters.
So how is what I said not relevant to that again?
Or did you stop reading after the third sentence because of some internet rule?

I brought up the topic of gore and exaggerated violence, didn't I? That would say that I did actually read your comment through, rather than ignore it outright.

If I'd just said "portray," rather than "correctly portray," would you have reacted the same way? If this is about my choice of words, I apologize. \ |: / But I am okay with this ruling, because as an artist, I believe that I should be working towards that ability to convey the genera age of a character, despite whatever style is being employed. And I tend to experiment and fuck around with styles a lot (when I'm actively drawing 9u9; ) , so, y'know. In the event of any of my works, I'd like to think that I'm getting that "yeah this character is over 18" deal across.

I was trying to say that you can't be for meat and then turn around and be against butchering animals, brah.
If you're for meat, you are for butchering animals, no ifs and buts. So think carefully what it is that you support.

To put it to context: You're saying I can't be for art, and then turn around and say that I'm fine with particular adult works being banned if the characters appear to be under 18.

It's a broader gray area than simply butchering animals for meat. However, I do see and accept your point, and without delving into the ineffective "but there IS such a thing as too young" spiel, I cannot argue against it.

So, call this a case of "It doesn't affect me, so I'm alright with this." u '<' u

No, to put it in context: You can't be for the ban but against all the collateral damage it entails. That is a fixed part of it.

You see, the staunchest supporters of this ban won't be able to tell you exactly what a "cub" actually is.
They have no actual idea of its implications and are for it purely "on principle".
It's pretty comical if you think about it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Wait, hold up. Exactly where have I said that I'm against the removal of works affected by this ban?

I've said (in comments above) that I understand that some artists will be unfairly caught up in this. And I know that FA generally has a "delete first, notify later" stance when it comes to removing submissions, which IS a stance that I do not agree with. But under the ruling, and given the financial reasons behind the ruling, I can accept that the removal of works that decidedly break this new rule IS necessary.

So you're "for it" because it's necessary and not because you agree with the intentions behind the rule (aka protecting imaginary children)?

As stated by the administration of Fur Affinity: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa.....-Policy-on-Cub
AlertPay canceled, and specifically cited cub art as the reason. We were given no options to appeal. With that cancellation, a fairly sizable amount of money in our balance from ads and donations have been lost, which has effectively crippled the website from having ways to fund itself long term. We will not be able to maintain and improve without a reliable payment processor at our backend, and that can not happen while they continually have a disagreement regarding certain specifics with what we host.

Right now we have to make a choice. Do we continue on with cub artwork and protect the artwork in the name of freedom of speech? Or do we remove the one Achilles heel that has proven itself to be a liability and a frustration?

If we want to keep Fur Affinity alive we have no choice but to remove cub art. It's been a limiting factor for us, and it's been impacting us for a while. But now it's become something we can no longer turn our eye away from.

The intentions are to keep a financial option open, in order for Fur Affinity to continue to operate. This is not the fault of Fur Affinity, but of laws about depictions of minors - that is, those under legal age, even if they are seventeen - in pornographic scenarios. Fur Affinity understands that cub art does NOT equal pedophilia. The law does not. This impacts financial options necessary to keep Fur Affinity running.

Well you sounded like you are for the rule itself while you actually are for the decision to introduce it.
That is something else entirely. It's not like I blame dragoneer for deciding to keep the site alive nor would I ever blame the staff for enforcing it.
It's people that say, independently from the fact that it was forced upon everyone, "I like that rule, it's good that they added it" that this was directed at.

It seems I misunderstood you then.
My apologies.

Hahh it's fine, miscommunication blows. I'm sorry too!

is this one of those cross-eyed stereogram thingies because it's not really working~

Righty, due to the size of the character's head. Proportions!