smol

Smöll

It feels like dystopian novels - "Your physical appearance now illegal for our society"...

I understand the need for such a rule but I don't know as the way they have it will really be helpful...
They wrote it as "We closed that loophole" but it's more like a shoe to a bug. :/
The biggest problem is the site id damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Charged with being Smoll by the department of drawing morality

Thank you. That's probably the closest metaphor for a Demolition man scene i had in mind where John Spartan gets fined but he would abuse that system to its advantage.
-So much for sea-shells. 'Be back in a few.

Now all FA needs is the paper ticket dispenser to issue fines with!

i can hardly wait to see if i get banned for my shifu/tigress comic or something...

It's not like the change would matter: They wouldn't have been covered by the exception that's being removed anyway. So if you would get in trouble for it two months from now, you would have gotten in trouble for it to months ago.

(The underlying rule is about a decade old at this point.)

And the bad thing is they said they don't care if the character is 1,000 years old. If the character looks like a child, it's a child as far as they're concerned, even if you introduced the character as being 1,000 years old when you introduced the character 10 years ago.

Shock: The rule doesn't have a planet-sized loophole in it. Do you know what a DA or Crown Attorney would say? Something like "this is clearly an image of a child and the description just a meaningless fig leaf."

The amusing thing about all the whining about the slightly stricter enforcement of an existing rule is what the same crowd were whining about when the cub porn ban was brought back in the first place: They were all "ignore the lore, just go by the picture," because they had just found out that most Sonic characters were underage.

I ain't looking for a loophole, I'm looking for understanding. If I create a character that looks underage today, that's one thing but, if the character was created a decade ago and was introduced as an adult even though the character looks underage, there should be an exception for that. I'm somewhat concerned about one of my characters. I have a character sheet of her and I've admitted that she's 8 years old. (She's the daughter of another of my characters.) Because most character sheets, including hers, shows the character nude to show off the character's fur pattern, I'm afraid the sticklers for rules will demand that she be taken down OR I will be banned. I don't do porn. You can read any of my stories and, at best, you'll read insinuations of sex but you'll never read porn. I don't believe I need to write porn to get people to read my stories; I just need to write good stories.

That the background of the character was written, 1, 10, 100 or even 1000 years ago isn't going to change the legal issues. The _reason_ the rule was tightened up to specifically include "appears underage regardless of lore" is that people _were_ trying to use it as a loophole.

As for reference sheets, _please_ read the AUP before you make claims about what it does and does not prohibit. It specifically defines nudity in a way that can easily permit a reference sheet with an unclothed character.

Nudity is defined as the open display of genitalia or exposed female areola or nipples.