# Filter Revision Proposal - The /AH/ Autofilter



## Dragoneer (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm proposing a new form of filtering and want your information and feedback as to what your opinions are. *This is not set in stone*, and is just a proposal, so feel free to tear it down, propose something better, etc.

*/AH/ Filtration*
By default, FA will automatically filter out what we rank as "highly objectional" material and make it blocked by standard, that way we automatically spare the vast majority from what may rank as hardcore freaky-freaky.

People who would want to view this material would have to flag it on manually in order to view the images.

I do not have a list as to what would rank in the above auto-defaulted material as we have not taken that route yet. This is just to gauge you feel about the implementation of the above filtering.


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 2, 2006)

I think being required to op in to see these images is much better than having to op out - I support this kind of filtering.

Would there be sub-filtration, though? (just because someone wants to see ONE thing in the /ah/ category doesn't mean they want to see all of it, etc)


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 2, 2006)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> I think being required to op in to see these images is much better than having to op out - I support this kind of filtering.
> 
> Would there be sub-filtration, though? (just because someone wants to see ONE thing in the /ah/ category doesn't mean they want to see all of it, etc)


No. The basic rational is that truly hardcore/OH GOD MY EYES! art would be filtered on default. More precise filters would be added and implemented for those items which are not yet covered. This would be implemented into Ferrox, which is still in development.

This would not be a draconian system where we filter anything and everything based on a few people being offended by it. FA is not run like America*, and we're not gonna censor/banz0r everything simple because a few people don't like it.

_* You have full right to disagree with me on how America is run, but I don't believe in censoring something because a small majority disagree with it._


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 2, 2006)

*Note:*
If any of you disagree with me being laid back about how I discuss things please note that I do take this issue seriously, but I am not a politician and do not I enjoy butt kissing. I enjoy handling things on a direct heads-on approach and take no pleasure in watering down my delievery. =P

We're trying to come up with the best plan to handle everybody's concerns. Voice yer opinions (respectfully) and know that you ARE being heard.


----------



## Growly (Nov 2, 2006)

I like this idea, if I am understanding it correctly.

We CAN choose to see certain themed /AH/ pics, correct?
For example, I could filter out see cockvore, but I could see beast art, if I wanted. Is that right?

It's kind of like what we already have though... Maybe I'm not getting this. ^_^;


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 2, 2006)

Growly said:
			
		

> I like this idea, if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> We CAN choose to see certain themed /AH/ pics, correct?
> For example, I could filter out see cockvore, but I could see beast art, if I wanted. Is that right?
> ...


Basically they would be *blocked by default*, and you would have to "opt in" to see them. This may frazzle a few artists, but... I think it's for the better long term. This would be retro-active for all accounts as well.

People will have varying degrees as to what we consider extreme, but we will do our best to compromise with the tastes of the majority.


----------



## Growly (Nov 2, 2006)

Okay, that's cool! Thanks. :3


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Nov 2, 2006)

So basically it'd be like this then?

User A likes Fetish 1, but not Fetish 2. Both are considered /AH/. User A opts out of the /AH/ filter and now sees both Fetish 1 and Fetish 2 without the ability to opt out of the one he does not prefer.

Is that right? I like the idea, however I think it should have (like Hanazawa said) subfilters you can turn back on if need be.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 2, 2006)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> So basically it'd be like this then?
> 
> User A likes Fetish 1, but not Fetish 2. Both are considered /AH/. User A opts out of the /AH/ filter and now sees both Fetish 1 and Fetish 2 without the ability to opt out of the one he does not prefer.
> 
> Is that right? I like the idea, however I think it should have (like Hanazawa said) subfilters you can turn back on if need be.


Essentially, it would be a series of different filters all labelled under "extreme". Users can select which of them they want to turn off, so they can pick and choose which what they want to see.

Simply put, The /AH/ filters are a category which different filters fall under. Any filter that falls under the /AH/ category is defaulted to block the content unless people turn it on.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 2, 2006)

Sounds like a good idea to me.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 2, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> */AH/ Filtration*
> By default, FA will automatically filter out what we rank as "highly objectional" material and make it blocked by standard, that way we automatically spare the vast majority from what may rank as hardcore freaky-freaky.
> 
> People who would want to view this material would have to flag it on manually in order to view the images.



I like the idea, but whether or not it works is dependent on the artists properly labeling their work. Also, "Highly Objectional" can be subjective too. Where does one draw the line at "Highly Objectional"? Hyper-herms? Watersports? Scat? And as mentioned before, should certain "Highly Objectional"  subjects, such as under-age porn, not be allowed at all? (although, that's a bit off-topic for this thread).

I cast my vote for a 'tentative Yes'. I'd much rather have highly objectionable art automatically filtered out, but 1) I have some doubts as to whether or not artists will remember to properly label their pictures and 2) If you implement that filter, you will then need to decide what is "Highly Objectionable" and where to draw the line.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Well if you have gallery moderators and people reporting mislabeled submission it will help. You might want to enact certain penalties for those who feel they're above labeling such stuff (not to be confused with people doing it accidentally).


----------



## Suule (Nov 2, 2006)

You know my opinion on this.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 2, 2006)

You already know mine as well, as stated on the other thread.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 2, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Well if you have gallery moderators and people reporting mislabeled submission it will help. You might want to enact certain penalties for those who feel they're above labeling such stuff (not to be confused with people doing it accidentally).



Definately and "Agreed!"
The mods and admin will really have to be on top of this one and catch mis-labeled art quickly, or else there will be no point in having the filter.
And yes... penalties for those will-fully mislabeling (although proving that can be hard.)


----------



## shinmew (Nov 2, 2006)

I think it is a great idea. I'd rather people be able to see or post art they like in an filter then not be able to at all. No matter how painful it is to some others. That way the don't have to see it and the ones that do.... can. It can make both parties happy.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 2, 2006)

My opinion has been stated as an overwhelming and fixed, "No filter, Ban the pedo." 

I'm about 5 seconds away from leaving FA so I'm not supporting pedo rubbish. It's no different than drawing made up human children in adult situations, and some of the crap I found today was absolutely enraging. If it's not banned, my respect for this entire site and those who agree with keeping it up will be completely lost.

Filtering "cub porn" is like sweeping your dirty secrets under a rug.

I don't want to be one of those people who get's caught up in it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> My opinion has been stated as an overwhelming and fixed, "No filter, Ban the pedo."
> 
> I'm about 5 seconds away from leaving FA so I'm not supporting pedo rubbish. It's no different than drawing made up human children in adult situations, and some of the crap I found today was absolutely enraging. If it's not banned, my respect for this entire site and those who agree with keeping it up will be completely lost.
> 
> ...



You are free to leave then. I understand people upset over the issue, but the "I'm gonna leave" is kinda...playing the child's game of bluffing.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 2, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Ahkahna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh?
Well ok then.

Bye bye to babyfuckers then  Because in cases like pedophelia, I DONT BLUFF WITH THAT SICK SHIT.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 2, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> Oh?
> Well ok then.
> 
> Bye bye to babyfuckers then  Because in cases like pedophelia, I DONT BLUFF WITH THAT SICK SHIT.




You know, you don't have to leave just yet. We're still in the process of discussing it. I'm all for banning pedo-art too, but people are still inputting their thoughts and votes.
In fact, I was just in a discussion with someone here on FA who didn't think that "lots" of artists were mad about the pedo-art. He basically accused me of over-reacting. Which means many people haven't cast their votes publically or let their voices be heard publically yet (although plenty have been yelling behind locked doors). If everyone speaks up in a polite, mature and diplomatic way (and doesn't just up and leave), perhaps changes will be done. If not, THEN it's time to go. Til then, leaving is pre-mature.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 2, 2006)

XianJaguar said:
			
		

> Ahkahna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fact that It was allowed in the first place doesn't suit me. I have a website I can use and feel comfortable with. If something changes in the future and it's banned, because god knows when it will, then I'll be more than happy to come back. Until then, I'm gone. I don't want to be associated with that kind of filth.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Well the person said five seconds Xian, so it's obvious to me they don't want to be thoughtful over the matter. It was a take it or leave it situation. I really don't think that kind of tactics or behavior was necessary but what can I do 

Like I said, I don't particularly like seeing that kind of material on the site, but there is really good and hard look at the slippery slope argument of when is it going to end? Vore, and rape aren't always acts between "consenting" adults. What about people who were victims of rape that find this kind of material hitting too close to home for example?

But that is off topic. 


Back on topic. I do want to mention, I do like the idea of filters but tags don't work, search has been disabled, so how much confidence can one have to see the idea actually be implemented. I mean it's great when I see a post offering a solution, but if things aren't going to get implemented what's the point?


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 2, 2006)

thread derailing in 3...2...1...

Here we go again with people trying to impose their silly sense of morality where there is no legal precedent on it.  I said it was highly ironic on the other thread because it's just as silly as people calling furries "animal fxckers" or what have you as it is for the whiners to be saying that people who draw young looking characters are pedophiles.  This is not only insulting, but has derailed one thread and is well on its way to derailing another.  So, instead of continuing to entertain a retarded debate, I will hereby toss my ON TOPIC opinion on the original issue into the ring:

What qualifies an image as being auto filtered?  Is it a voluntary thing we do, or is it something the moderators do whenever they see something that bugs them?  Will it show on a gallery page how many images are being hidden from view?  Will it be easy to temporarily opt-in for a session?  These questions are all important, because certain artists (like myself) may wish to put our works into objectionable material every single time rather than having to hear people whine about its content.  And even then, that doesn't guarantee someone won't voluntarily expose themselves to that content and WHINE ANYWAY.  (See some of my submissions that have been deleted, for example.)

My two cents


----------



## Lyenuv (Nov 2, 2006)

While I'm for banning the pedo shit completely, a filter would largely subdue a lot of the "noise" around the site, at least for awhile. But like Arshes said above, with a majority of features not even working at present, there's not much hope for us that the filters are going to even work.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Wyrwulf (Nov 2, 2006)

My only concern is that it is made clear, especially to new users, that there is content being autofiltered and that they will have to switch off the filters to see everything available.


----------



## Spatsbear (Nov 2, 2006)

I was a bit heated in the my previous post... but I am with Ahkahna on this:

_My opinion has been stated as an overwhelming and fixed, "No filter, Ban the pedo." _

I watch too many good artists on this site, and I really hate to leave, but that may be what it comes down to, as well as several others I know.  I will not use a site that supports this type of material.

I am, however, going to wait and see the outcome of this first.

I also think some users don't even check the forums, so they won't know this is going on.  If you want feedback, I suggest posting this on the main site as well, or as an administrator's notice banner.


----------



## Duo (Nov 2, 2006)

hmm. All I can say is, Until a filter is in place, bear with it and take it all with a grain of salt.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Okay first of all, I see many are playing the typical furry fashion of defending people who don't fully deserve it, believe everyone should have free reign as Furries are sooooo oppressed, legalities from non-lawyers, etc.

First of all, no it isn't illegal per se, but things need to be realized:

By hosting images of the intent of underage sex, FA opens the doors for potential suits as it is responsible to some degree for the material hosted.  Civil suits do not need to be over illegal issues.  As soon as one minor gets it by a pedo who wants to claim FA helped his urges (even if lying!) it will open up for legal problems.  Yes, I am aware they might claim the same for other offenses, but realistically the underage one would be much easier to claim against a site which hosts borderline material.

Secondly, by having underage material you will bring a much higher possibility of being in the  view of law enforcement or other people who do monitor things and personally I rather not be on a place that has big brother watching me with suspicion for who I share artspace with.  Gore, regular porn, zoo, etc fans aren't a big issue to law enforcement so I'd prefer to keep it like that.

Underage material by the majority of people is repulsive while being borderline illegal.  Some other kinks like babyfur make me nauseous, but unlike cub porn aren't iffy in people's minds on legality.  Also, the internet is so chock full of porn, the people who draw cub can get their rocks off elsewhere so barring one type of porn isn't going to harm FA at all.  The worst is a few furries who play the fursecution card will leave for two weeks before they miss the non-cub art, and people who are putting FA at civil suit risk leave (or happily post non-cub work).

Lastly, I can tell you that people who are into underage art are more likely to be doing that kind of stuff (though I know not all do!) as the material does convey for intent child molesting.  Sure, they aren't human, but as furries we give human qualities to animals so we can relate.  Human qualities and feelings put on animals + on a child animal + porn= ?  

As we the users do not control FA, the admins have full right to control the content.  If cub work goes bye, I won't miss it one bit and most others won't either.  Sure you oppress a few at your own safety and image.  Also, don't forget, some victims of child molestation could be users on this site and I think they can tell pretty well what is going on.


----------



## Rouge2 (Nov 2, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Der Der Der Der



It's a dumb idea.  We have enough filters.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Rouge2 said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[size=xx-large]
THEY DON'T WORK![/size]

The filter system has not worked for a long time.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Vermy, replace bestiality with "underage" and you also have a strong argument for Furry Porn too.


----------



## KurtBatz (Nov 2, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Underage material by the majority of people is repulsive while being borderline illegal.



Sums up my feelings on the matter nicely. Filtering is a very good idea. I for one, really don't want to be seeing this sort of thing, ta.


----------



## XeNoX (Nov 2, 2006)

Please...filter it...I can't take the millionth incarnation of this discussion anymore


----------



## PervDragon (Nov 2, 2006)

Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:



> Â§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
> 
> (a) IN GENERAL.â€”Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, *including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting*, thatâ€”
> 
> ...



This is not meant to be a discussion issue; just a note to the FA admins who happen to see this.  It's up to them to determine whether or not they'll risk their necks and the entire website on the premise that this law does not apply to anthro art, or that the cub art here has some sort of "serious artistic value" (note: anything intended to be primarily erotic almost definitely does not count as having serious artistic value).

As far as actual filters, I think two things should be done:
1) Get a cub filter working ASAP.  No matter whether or not you think it's legal, no matter what debate there is about banning, there needs to be a working filter for it as soon as humanly possible.  Even if it's not a final solution, it'll make all of us a lot happier.
2) A default /AH/ filter is an excellent idea, and I agree with it completely.


----------



## *morningstar (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't see why not, although there is going to be the challenge of coming up with fair, accurate guidelines and then consistently enforcing them. I have my filter preferences set so I don't see content that I know will squick me, but I can see how it would be upsetting to new users to run across galleries that were nothing but loli Sonic hyper inflation scat death porn. Fchan has /ah and 4chan has /d for a reason.

For all of you guys coming in here screaming about OMG PEDOS! - If you don't like it, don't look at it, simple as that. I'm not going to get into the implications of drawing cubs or lolis or anything else because frankly it's a dead horse, but there's a lot worse shit out there on the Internet to be upset about than someone posting a porn drawing of a baby _fantasy creature._ If that's all it takes to get your panties in a twist then maybe you shouldn't participate in a community site where underground material like that is going to be distributed. There's quite a bit of content on the site that I personally find distasteful, _which is exactly why I have my preferences set to filter it out._ It's not the end of the Internet.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Even though I'm repulsed a bit with bestiality, it is legal in quite a few places and no, the two don't interchange very well from what I see.  If they are I have some questions for you:

What are the chances of a civil suit due to sex between a thinking human and a non-comprehending-the-situation goat (which is legal in most places)?  Now what are the chances and risk of human on child?  Way different league. 

When was the last time Dateline did "To catch a furry!" ?  

Do you want two negative stigmas to furry or just one?  And the zoophile one furries already have is easy to disprove and doesn't leave people wanting to attack you.

Beastiality even though to me fairly gross, is not on a child, and not the same risk or law enforcement concern.  Animals at least know enough to bite and scratch.  Kids often won't figure out what was truly happening til later.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Even though I'm repulsed a bit with bestiality, it is legal in quite a few places and no, the two don't interchange very well from what I see.  If they are I have some questions for you:
> 
> What are the chances of a civil suit due to sex between a thinking human and a non-comprehending-the-situation goat (which is legal in most places)?  Now what are the chances and risk of human on child?  Way different league.



It's not legal in all places and many have changed their law to enforce tougher bestiality laws. I do recall owners pressing charges on people who touch their animals, and I do know people who go to jail for bestiality, so yeah what does a civil suit have to do with anything. You don't need civil suits when you actually break the law.



> Do you want two negative stigmas to furry or just one?  And the zoophile one furries already have is easy to disprove and doesn't leave people wanting to attack you.



There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.



> Beastiality even though to me fairly gross, is not on a child, and not the same risk or law enforcement concern.  Animals at least know enough to bite and scratch.  Kids often won't figure out what was truly happening til later.



Animals don't exactly bite and scratch when it happens, there have been many incidents of dogs and other animals howling in pain, but are obedient to their masters or have a temperament that doesn't cause them to bite or scratch because they're domesticated.


----------



## KurtBatz (Nov 2, 2006)

PervDragon said:
			
		

> Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Growly (Nov 2, 2006)

Ah... now that I know that pedofur art IS in fact, illegal, I change my stance from "let it stay, with filters" to "ban it forever plz".
I love FA, it is my favorite place to post art, and I do not want to see it disappear.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Kurtz, yes, because the usual argument was that it was struck down, however, that was in 2002. It was added in the Amber Alert bill of 2003, so I brought up the websites talking about this 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53510,00.html

_"The Supreme Court settled this issue -- if the image is not of an actual person under age 18, it cannot be criminalized as kiddie porn," said Jon Katz, a First Amendment lawyer based in Maryland._

Actual children being harmed no.

But as I stated previously my argument is along this lines and it is a *better* argument to make.
_
"Pedophiles use these images to desensitize children and engage in criminal activity," said Colby May, director of governmental affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice._


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> It's not legal in all places and many have changed their law to enforce tougher bestiality laws. I do recall owners pressing charges on people who touch their animals, and I do know people who go to jail for bestiality, so yeah what does a civil suit have to do with anything. You don't need civil suits when you actually break the law.



If those come up, sure, there is a problem.  Though saying zoo suits are as frequent, high priority, or seen in civil issues is being a wee bit naive. (most actually are more likely to get charged with animal cruelty, not bestiality as it is easier to prove and also rarely does animal cruelty go to civil unless it dies)  Also, personally who would you rather have at risk of defending yourself on?  A child rapist, or a guy whose going to pay a $2000 fine and a week in jail if not probation?  Also, since you know people who do go to jail for bestiality, please tell me how many also get their info publically displayed and go door to door explaining themselves when they move in?   Guess what?  They don't!  Pedos do for a publically know reason. 



> There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.



To some extent, I do think you're just trying to argue for fun .  Anyhoo *kisses his man in public!*  Now I'm just a "fag" as far as people care, not a "dog-humper".  Easy no?  (and before you say "well, they might think that still!" people may think I'm a purple marshmellow poopin colobus monkey, though it is safe to believe they trust their eyes and non-pedos more) 



> Animals don't exactly bite and scratch when it happens, there have been many incidents of dogs and other animals howling in pain, but are obedient to their masters or have a temperament that doesn't cause them to bite or scratch because they're domesticated.



I'd love to see a pedo in court say "But judge, he's jus domesticated!" and see how far that goes.  That doesn't make it any less.  Children are given a heavier status than a dog in court as fido is listed as property.   

*changed as I was slow replying heh*

The main point I want to get across is that even if someone tries saying it legal, or no less harmful than something else, they need to ask themselves how much risk to civil suit and personal problems are they willing to go?  By offering a cheeto to someone I am at risk of them poking their eye or getting food poisoning, etc.  I find that a comfy zone nonetheless.  Do the admins here feel having pedo art > risk of having pedo art?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Also, since you know people who do go to jail for bestiality, please tell me how many also get their info publically displayed and go door to door explaining themselves when they move in?   Guess what?  They don't!  Pedos do for a publically know reason.



Ever look at the sex offender registry lately? Various ones do have it listed.



> There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.





> To some extent, I do think you're just trying to argue for fun .  Anyhoo *kisses his man in public!*  Now I'm just a "fag" as far as people care, not a "dog-humper".  Easy no?  (and before you say "well, they might think that still!" people may think I'm a purple marshmellow poopin colobus monkey, though it is safe to believe they trust their eyes and non-pedos more)



How does kissing someone in public disprove anything? You can say you're not 'gay' and kiss a woman too,  especially if you're still visiting glory holes at night. It's just a matter if you're caught or not. It hasn't disproved anything. Again you said it was easy but this example still fails.




> I'd love to see a pedo in court say "But judge, he's jus domesticated!" and see how far that goes.  That doesn't make it any less.  Children are given a heavier status than a dog in court as fido is listed as property.



Grasping at straws? This is jumping from the original point, you said "at least animals know how to bite and scratch" not about what weighs heavier.

Here is the whole point, you guys are making the *wrong* argument which is Drawings = a 'phile of that nature.

If you actually read my previous posts, the better argument is that the imagery is used by ACTUAL pedophiles to abuse children. That's where people don't want to take accountability. An artist who draws underage illustrations is not a peodophile, however there are real pedophiles that use the art.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

First of all, I see no matter what is said you will argue hypotheticals made from anything *shrug*

Here is something taken from the US Gov't National Sex registry: 
This Web site is provided as a public service by the U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"). Using this Web site, interested members of the public have access to and may search participating state Web site public information regarding the presence or location of offenders, who, in most cases, have been convicted of sexually-violent offenses against adults and children and certain sexual contact and other crimes against victims who are minors. The public can use this Web site to educate themselves about the possible presence of such offenders in their local communities.

See anything about dogs?  Nope. Sorry, but unless your local paper decides to post a beastialist on their own and he publically wants it out there I don't think there are any listed in news/web.  Please provide backing up of your example from a US database.  

nsopr.gov if you would like to check for me.  ^.^

Next, please don't accuse me of changing topics when you first came in to say "well, you could say that about bestiality".  I was talking about one thing and you another before me.  Though I am willing to argue back, as I'm honestly sitting here with a cold and don't mind.

I am happy to see from your own argument as to why you are against the material, though I remain fervent in mine as well despite you feeling it isn't as good of one from your point of view.  *^.^*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 2, 2006)

Look up "Buggery" http://www.rcsd.net/offender/offender-law.htm

That's one example because most think it's just "bestiality"


----------



## Bravo (Nov 2, 2006)

Ok I don't even understand why this is an issue.

This isn't CubAffinity. This isn't PoopAffinity. This isn't even VoreAffinity.

*FUR*Affinity.

If you want the hard stuff that makes people look at you like a filty, dirty freak, I believe you should be polite enough to go to a site that better suits your needs SPECIFICALLY.

You want macro? That's fine, but you'll find a community suited to you better at Macrophile.
Toons? There's a toonfur group that would love to have some new life. Or copywrongs... there's that as well.
Hyper? I believe there's a hyperfur community.
Vore? Vor-com. Bam.

I really don't want to segregate, but I think some lines really need to be drawn, and I don't think it's fair that a potentially dangerous subject material should be allowed to jeopardize FA and the users who are NOT interested in this questionable subject material. 

Tell the /AH/ to stay in AH. If I want to see /AH/ material.... I'll GO to /AH/. We don't need another /AH/. 



> If you actually read my previous posts, the better argument is that the imagery is used by ACTUAL ******** to abuse children. That's where people don't want to take accountability. An artist who draws underage illustrations is not a ********, however there are real ******* that use the art.



Sorry, I can't even stand to acknowledge that this exists and is BEING ARGUED.

Ok, you gave a valid point. So why are you fighting for them? All that suggests is that this action is silently supported by FA.

Making a filter is only going to place a small hurdle that anyone can easily get over to get what they want. Must be over 21 to enter? Click to enter? DUHHH. *click*


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Buggery also applies to all forms of anal.  Male on female, etc.

Please do provide me info of a regisitered sex offender who goes door to door due to bestiality and not a general law that can mean gay men.

Also, please let me know when you wish to answer my question about Dateline doing a "To catch a furry!"  episode.  Then let me know when they do a sting on pedos.  Which will we see first?  Hmm...   Oh wait, let me answer that one. Most folks in law enforcement in media don't give a flip on bestiality and the pedo one is on this week.  Which one do you honestly think is considered a bigger issue here?

I am aware that anything here can be argues down into philosophical nothingness if you want, but I like to draw the lines with where society publically does.  But where do they draw the lines? What is to say there is a line? What is to say tht? Why does someone get any say so over another person? ad nauseum.


----------



## Visimar (Nov 2, 2006)

Oh for the love of god...just stop snarling at each other already!

Seriously.

Arshes has already shown that VIRTUAL (key word) porn of kiddies is allowed, and by virtual this means not actual photos but something else, ie drawings. Photomanipulations are just edits of real photography and thus should not be labeled as 'virtual.' There is still the issue of pedophiles using said virtual images as an excuse for sexually abusing children, but that's all it really is. Just an excuse. Yet, people like to point fingers not at the actual offender, but something related to it instead, and thus is the cause of the problems to begin with.

And as what already been said above, the ones who draw expilict minors are not pedophiles (Unless, of course, they draw it just to satisfy their urges due to actual acts of pedophilia being illegal), it's the ones that utilize the imagery that are a major problem.

Now please start acting like civilized people and GET BACK ON TOPIC.

I say go for the filters. I don't think anyone who registers for the site would want to see a certain type of fetish that they dislike upon logging in for the first time, and if there is one or more of the fetish types that they like but can't see, they can just enable it manually. It won't disable all of it due to submission organizing issues, but it'll cut down on the ones that are labeled properly, for sure. If anyone enables the disliked content just to whine and groan in order to shift others' attention to them, that's their problem. FA didn't make them look at it, they themselves did.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm for the working filters.

I'm not for banning cub, loli, or shota. If we ban that, then we must ban all rape artwork, and all violent artwork. Last I checked, things like rape and murder were also illegal and morally wrong. Even if they do depict adults.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

> Oh for the love of god...just stop snarling at each other already!


 Aka you are okay with drawings of kid porn and wish the rest of us would be content because you are?  The forum mods closed the topic on the subject and told us to come here and say what we felt.  So here we are, and hopefully more will come and get the admins to side with caution.  

I am not here wanting to argue whether it is legal or not.

If allowed, I know a few who will leave.  This isn't a whine or plex.  Just an honest statement FA needs to either be child porn depiction friendly art site, and a non-child porn depiction friendly art site as this is a drawing line for some.  I'm betting some will leave either way they go on the issue, it is FA's choice on which way they want their image to go.  I likely would move to what I feel is more wholesome.  And when I consider gore and tentacle demon spooge pics more-wholesome than something else, well.  I am looking to alternatives in case ^.^

What I want to say is: I am super highly against child porn even if not real.  Please go back in time to lose your virginity before you learn cursive to an adult and let me know your opinion on it.  Legal or not, it doesn't change it is on the border of legality (in a year or two, it'll be 100% illegal again knowing it), and a very dangerous risk to civil lawsuit for FA.  Lastly, does FA want to risk problems, and what image do they want for the site?  Not what the users, nor the people who are 'fursecuted' by me speaking my mind, or my own opinion be guaranteed what admins decide on.  However, I want to let them know my opinion.  Not mad here, just wanting to get my say out.  ^.^


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

InvaderPichu said:
			
		

> I'm for the working filters.
> 
> I'm not for banning cub, loli, or shota. If we ban that, then we must ban all rape artwork, and all violent artwork. Last I checked, things like rape and murder were also illegal and morally wrong. Even if they do depict adults.



I'm not too big on rape either, or intentionally meant as murder of another person pics (violence, gore, or things under R-rated movies to me are fine such as orc beheadings, accidental, non-intent pics like "omfg you stole my triscuit, STABBITY!").

If those have to go to get rid of cub work.  Then that is the price to pay.  What is the worst to happen?  4-Chan gets 10000 more hits, and FA gets a better image while keeping Porn and R-rated furry art.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 2, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> If those have to go to get rid of cub work.  Then that is the price to pay.  What is the worst to happen?  4-Chan gets 10000 more hits, and FA gets a better image while keeping Porn and R-rated furry art.



FA is a site that openly welcomes furry porn. It will NEVER have a better image. The rest of the world will still look at us as evil animal rapists.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

InvaderPichu said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Openly welcomes, and could use a limit on No Child Porn.  Art or not.  Right now, it has a fairly good image, but for how long?  When FA started, I don't recall much cub-porn at all.  Now it is getting a daily basis and more I am sure will come.  It has an okay image, but could be better.  There are sites others are working on which allow porn, but have enough sense to say enough is enough to some things.  

You personally feeling it is peachy to have Cubbi Gummi getting raped while licking off spoo, doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the site or the image of FA.  Sure we show furry porn.  However, it it can be either "Omg! Foxwomen with eight tits humping a horse!", or "Omfg! child porn, and they're humping a horse!".  Penthouse, Playboy, Foxx, and hell even Milky Maidens (IRL pregger pron mag *whistles nonchalantly*) have porn though are smart enough to know there should be a line.

The issue needs to remain:  Child porn:  Will FA welcome some forms of it?


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 2, 2006)

InvaderPichu said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And allowing "cub porn" makes it ANY better for the fandoms image? 

LOL OMG
that's really too funny.


----------



## ShadowCub (Nov 2, 2006)

PervDragon said:
			
		

> Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:



Except that you left out the definitions section of the act which makes it clear that the images in question are those which depict, or can reasonably be believed to depict, an actual minor. Granted, it is not a defense that the minor in question doesn't actually exist, but the depiction MUST be of a minor. "Minor" is defined in many locations thoughout Federal Law as a human being of less than 18 years of age. It is unlikely that this law could be used to prosecute even obcene depictions of underage, antropomorphic cars, trees, dogs, etc.

You also left out that this law mirrors a similar law passed in 1998. That previous law has already been declared uncostitutional by the US Supreme Court. The replacement law is also making it's way through the courts and is currently enjoined from being enforced.

If you don't like cub porn, that's fine. If you don't want it allowed on FA at all, that's your right. But don't try and say that a law about images of humans will mean that allowing a picture of the looney toon babies having an orgy will get everyone sent to jail. That's like saying that since Osama Bin Ladin is Islamic, and people in Iraq follow Islam, so we have to invade Iraq to prevent a repeat of 9/11.....


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> [


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Ahkahna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 2, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> InvaderPichu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where did I say it would make the image look any better? Where? Tell me, and I'll give you a dollar.

Besides, who fucking cares about an image that won't change no matter what the furries do. It's the goddamn internet. Christ. 

P.S. No VermyFox, CP should not be allowed. But we're not talking about CP. We're talking about artwork.


----------



## PervDragon (Nov 2, 2006)

IceDragonVisy said:
			
		

> Arshes has already shown that VIRTUAL (key word) porn of kiddies is allowed, and by virtual this means not actual photos but something else, ie drawings.



Actually, you seem to have misinterpreted things.  Kiddie porn of any form, virtual or otherwise, is illegal in the USA.  Please see my post on the second page.

The links Arshes Nei provided point to a decision made by the Supreme Court on an older law, in 2002.  The current law which bans all forms of kiddie porn was approved in 2003.

It's possible the SC will end up striking down those provisions of the current law at some time in the future, but that's then.  This is now.  As of now, it's illegal.

The only thing providing any bit of safety to FA is that the minors depicted are not human.  But even that's iffy, and I have a feeling the reason FA hasn't been contacted about it yet is simply a case of the feds not knowing / not caring.  But lack of policing does not imply approval.

FA is walking a thin legal line, and I'd rather they ban it and err on the side of caution.  Otherwise, their luck will run out some day.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 2, 2006)

Though personally, I feel that depictions are borderline material on a hot issue in the media and law.  Since they are image depitcions of a highly heinous act of such a nature, type of material commonly possessed and used by those practicing (like decorative water pipes and cigarrette holders), and a civil liability, I really wish FA chooses against it.

The admins have the final say so, and while I know a few are okay as long as it is filtered, I personally feel that FA would be better off erring on the side of caution in this issue or any other which could cause severe problems down the road.  Like with the Arcturis issue, I'm not the most for the side they took and they left themselves open for possible problems, but the admins got the final say so of what risk they are willing to take.  Me, I can handle the risk for gain of improved site security.  On cub depictions, I'm leaning towards going back to DA or Sheezy.


----------



## PervDragon (Nov 2, 2006)

ShadowCub said:
			
		

> Except that...



All your points are true.

The law I quoted does not apply directly to furry porn.  I mentioned this.

The only defense cub-porn has is that it's not a human being depicted.  But the issue I wanted to raise was - *how good* is this defense?  Is FA willing to risk legal troubles based on the definition of a single word (minor)?

Even if the current law is eventually struck down as the similar law was before, FA could be called on it /before/ that happens.  And no sane furry wants to spend the money to fight such lawsuits, not to mention giving the fur fandom even more negative publicity (Sweet, let's get in the news for trying to save kiddie porn! [at least, that's how the public will see it]).

Truthfully, I think FA will keep allowing cub porn until threatened by some kind of lawsuit.  After that, it'll simply get banned and removed.

I think the best move is to adopt filtering, and retroactively tag anything that could be considered cub porn.  That way, when the banning inevitably comes, all the offending material can be removed in 5 minutes.


----------



## UnicornSpirit (Nov 2, 2006)

woa..... lookit all that big wad' o' drama :O

anyways.... I liked what Arshes Nei quoted:

"The Supreme Court settled this issue -- if the image is not of an actual person under age 18, it cannot be criminalized as kiddie porn," said Jon Katz, a First Amendment lawyer based in Maryland.

Yah, I'll just go on & agree with that. 

*It's just ART, folks....... Jesus. xD


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 2, 2006)

oh geez...*shakes head despairingly* you guys are wasting your time with all this arguing about what fa should and should not allow. the admins have already made up there minds a long time ago so stop with this stupid debate. also stop derailing this thread please. it's supposed to be about whether you do or don't support the idea of a new filter being set-up, not whether cub porn should be allowed.

and to that end i myself don't support this filter idea. it seems like a waste of time and energy. think of all the extra work you will have to do to make it work right. not to mention the fact that the current sytem works fine. it's just that some people are too lazy to change their filter settings in there control panel or to high and mighty to just ignore what they don't like.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 3, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> it's just that some people are too lazy to change their filter settings in there control panel or to high and mighty to just ignore what they don't like.



I am far from high and mighty. I have an 8 year old and 2 year old nephews, so seeing or hearing ANYONE tell me that this cub porn shit should just be ignored because I "Don't Like It" is fucking retarded. I AM A CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

Bravo said:
			
		

> Ok I don't even understand why this is an issue.
> 
> This isn't CubAffinity. This isn't PoopAffinity. This isn't even VoreAffinity.
> 
> *FUR*Affinity.



I don't think this is GayAffinity, or HermAffinity either, but hey, some people think those are people who are outright freaks. I don't know when people will stop drawing the line. 



> Ok, you gave a valid point. So why are you fighting for them? All that suggests is that this action is silently supported by FA.
> 
> Making a filter is only going to place a small hurdle that anyone can easily get over to get what they want. Must be over 21 to enter? Click to enter? DUHHH. *click*



Because I'm tired of knee jerk rhetoric that people give that if you draw something that you're automatically what you draw. I also made the legal ramifications of the fact that users have commercially licensed characters from kids shows known in pornographic, and I could just turn them over and watch FA shutdown really fast. However, knee jerk responses don't help out overall.

I'm also aware it's a sensitive issue, but I remember back when people equated homosexuality to pedophilia, anime to pedophilia and here we're talking about fantasy. I'm not for it and I have my other reasons, but I'm not going to automatically equate people who draw it as pedophiles. It's just as wrong as what other people equate furries to. The fun part is, I'm not a furry, or otaku just an artist. I'm trying to look at it from both sides.


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 3, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> I am far from high and mighty. I have an 8 year old and 2 year old nephews, so seeing or hearing ANYONE tell me that this cub porn shit should just be ignored because I "Don't Like It" is fucking retarded. I AM A CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL.



And if you don't watch your "mouth" you will find yourself in time out very quickly.  Keep is civil, or leave like you already said you would.


----------



## Olin (Nov 3, 2006)

Agh. I'll say this.

Ban what is illegal.
Make filters for that which is out of the "norm."
Make sure people use these filters properly.
Maybe limit the amount of off-topic material being uploaded.

Very simple. No "omg I hate fa bye guyz"

Stop being so hostile about the issue. This is the internet and all of this is simply artwork. Just because an action isn't being done RIGHT NOW doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Be thankful that the site is what it is and that they're working to improve it. I don't browse these forums all the time, but seeing people do ridiculous things like leaving/deleting all of their artwork made me have to say something.

And yes, the /AH/ filter is a great idea.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Also, please let me know when you wish to answer my question about Dateline doing a "To catch a furry!"  episode.  Then let me know when they do a sting on pedos.  Which will we see first?  Hmm...   Oh wait, let me answer that one. Most folks in law enforcement in media don't give a flip on bestiality and the pedo one is on this week.  Which one do you honestly think is considered a bigger issue here?



Because your question is based on assumptions of ridiculousness. Just because there hasn't been some Dateline show on the abuse of animals doesn't mean there couldn't be. A ratings grab doesn't always equate to the actual feeling or well being of children.

In fact, it wasn't until Perverted Justice involvement were they doing it the right way to get rid of actual predators. It was the equivalent of Jerry Springer. Their "interviews" to get the other side is a farce, and just for sensationalism.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 3, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> not to mention the fact that the current sytem works fine.



I disagree. There are some material that even *I* don't want to see(scat & vomit). It would be nice to have a filter so I don't have to see this kind of stuff. I don't care if people draw it, I just don't want to see it.


----------



## Kilroy (Nov 3, 2006)

I am honestly surprised that this is even being discussed. Also surprised to hear it was banned, but now not so much? What happened?


----------



## Growly (Nov 3, 2006)

Olin said:
			
		

> Agh. I'll say this.
> 
> Ban what is illegal.
> Make filters for that which is out of the "norm."
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Nov 3, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I don't think this is GayAffinity, or HermAffinity either, but hey, some people think those are people who are outright freaks. I don't know when people will stop drawing the line.



Being gay or a hermaphrodite in real life isn't illegal, however.

I understand that the law does not apply to furry porn. However, the fact remains that some art depicts pedophelia. It should not matter exactly what the characters involved _are_, but the _act depicted_ should.

So, should I think that the pedo art should be banned on FA? To be fair, it's a complicated situation with a lot of gray area. 

On one hand, FA had its beginnings in being a place that accepted anything. That's part of it's allure, and why more furs are on here than on, say, dA. Supporters of this side would say that if everything else is allowed, why should pedo art be banned?

However, I believe we should draw the line at legality. Are you of age? Have all the wild, kinky sex you want. Are you a little kid? Then that's just wrong.

Of course, this line of thought would eventually lead to the issue of consent between adults, and we'll be feverishly typing for hours. I'm just not going to go there.

Now, to the actual topic of the thread Â Â I think that a blanket autofilter is a good idea, but it has the possibility of it being implemented badly. I think the best course of action would be subgroups. Everything that would be covered under the Autofilter wouldn't be labeled as simply "highly objectionable", but would be put into groups that would be taken as highly objectionable. That way, all of that stuff will be disabled for first-time users, but they would be able to unblock material of the certain categories that they would want to see. For example, they could check the box that corresponds to "see this type of freaky stuff".

/Just throwing in my 2 cents.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> Ahkahna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh trust me, I've cleaned out my FA page and all of my work. And as far as I am aware, so have a number of other people as well.

I'm just being proactive in stating my distaste for something that should clearly be obliterated from the site. But no matter, I'm not the problem you should be concerned about


----------



## RainbowEyes (Nov 3, 2006)

HEY! Shut the fuck up about it.

I'm for cub work, but unlike you retards who mistake fantasy for reality, not to mention fictional RACES/SPECIES! I have a grip on reality

I have a 3 year old brother. "U LIEK CUB P0RN! UR GUNNA R@PE HIM LOLZ!!11" -.- Stupid people...

Having children is no excuse to be an asshole, same goes for relatives.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4108

Take your bullshit there and let this topic get back on track.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Cubcentral and several other sites had that kind of filter so you could view various fetishes or even settings (Male with male, male single, etc). It had a default block on all adult work as per usual as well as the naughties. They also had an agreement that you clicked agreeing that you understood about the more filthy and gross stuff.

Before you freak out about cubs again, I'm using it as a fucking reference, twits.

Dang, I've cursed 89 times in the past hour.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 3, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> Oh trust me, I've cleaned out my FA page and all of my work. And as far as I am aware, so have a number of other people as well.
> 
> I'm just being proactive in stating my distaste for something that should clearly be obliterated from the site. But no matter, I'm not the problem you should be concerned about



Hurry up and get off this damn site and pay attention to the larvae you say you "care" about, then.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Nov 3, 2006)

I, for one, am proud to be doing my part in the Great Pedo Flamewar of 2006.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 3, 2006)

InvaderPichu said:
			
		

> Ahkahna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Okiedokie . But don't send me any more emails with your snide bullshit. I'm done unless you want to continue harassing me through emails any further? Or here? Because I can continue posting them either here on or my livejournal with much pleasure.

On 11/3/06, InvaderPichu <SalemAngel@gpknow.com> wrote:


    """I am far from high and mighty. I have an 8 year old and 2 year old nephews, so seeing or hearing ANYONE tell me that this cub porn shit should just be ignored because I "Don't Like It" is fucking retarded. I AM A CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL."""

    Get over it, hag. Nothing you say or do will stop people from drawing it. Nothing.


----------



## RainbowEyes (Nov 3, 2006)

Bringing emails into question is harassment in itself and not site related. You said you were leaving, so leave and quit posting in the forum. Everyone else, get back on topic.

The tag system would require some coding, but I think some of the story sites use them for filtering... If I can recall correctly


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am not assuming anything nor is it ridiculous to say what I did.  The pedo issue is a bigger one to public, hence my mentioning the show as an example of proof it is a concern.  While you mention Perverted Justice, you must be smart enough to know they go after pedophiles and people who supply material to them.  There are many other groups like them.  For beastiality there are likely a few backwater ASPCA workers maybe for just that issue I am sure, but again that is not my issue I'm wanting to deal with (yet seems to be your fave hot topic ...).  

You are assuming that we all equate people who draw cub porn to pedos as you mentioned earlier in another reply.  I don't.  Due to the stickyness of the subject matter, along with being highly controversial, barely legal if that, a high risk for civil problems I feel FA should still say no to it for caution.  I'm dealing with the 'art', not what ifs and wanting to compare every apple and orange.  One issue, let's try to refocus for just it?  ^.^

As far as filters, yes FA needs working ones, no one would disagree.  For /AH/ we already have 4-Chan out there, and I honestly cannot see how allowing cub material is in the best interest of the site at this time.  I am for freedom of expression, however when said expression disregards the welfare and well-being of others and this great site, then I rather put my foot down.


----------



## Growly (Nov 3, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> Dang, I've cursed 89 times in the past hour.



There are better ways to make a point.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 3, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> InvaderPichu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not harassing you. :3 You can call it that if it makes you feel better. 

P.S. Feel free to post that email anywhere.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

What is with the "I'm leaving posts" and not actually leaving?


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 3, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> What is with the "I'm leaving posts" and not actually leaving?



I'd like to know this, too. : It's just making the poster look silly.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 3, 2006)

I'll tell you why.

Drama, baby.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 3, 2006)

Growly said:
			
		

> RainbowEyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed 100%. 
This thread could have done without the cursing hissyfit. We're all adults and capable of discussing points logically and calmly.


----------



## RainbowEyes (Nov 3, 2006)

I never said I was fully leaving, I just stopped posting and only looked at work as many have said is a good idea.


----------



## RainbowEyes (Nov 3, 2006)

XianJaguar said:
			
		

> Growly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you use tiny words, they freak out. If you use big words they explode. If you use bad words, they get angry, but pay attention.

If you don't try to use negativity, you won't get their attention. If you try to be possetive, you'll get nothing. This a psychological thing I have learned over the years, at least with myself and others.

Be nice, they'll walk on you.
Be mean, they'll get it in their head.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Nov 3, 2006)

There are better ways to argue than threatening to do something that doesn't affect anyone else, regarding the leaving thing.


----------



## Growly (Nov 3, 2006)

To the mods:

Please don't lock this thread... It is obvious by the explosion of activity here that this topic is needed- we need to duke this out here. Please give us our duking space.

*bows*


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> HEY! Shut the fuck up about it.
> 
> I'm for cub work, but unlike you retards who mistake fantasy for reality, not to mention fictional RACES/SPECIES! I have a grip on reality
> 
> ...



Wow all the cussing and you say we're the rump-holes and harrassing?  *golf clap*  Btw Damaratus told us to come here...

Real or fake, what *is* the act going on in cub porn? Is it:
()An adult having sex with a child
()Two adults going at it.

Even if you yourself do not have sex with children, it is the fact that this type of art whether legal or not, is putting FA at a high potential for problems.  Btw, show your parents your cub porn.  I bet you they won't be as trusting with you and your 3 year old brother.  Even though it is pictures, the act in said art is a risk for this site, as most people will err with caution.  Me, I'd not let you near my nephew if I saw you into cub work even if you're clean as I rather not risk the chance.  No one in their right mind would.  Sorry if that irks ya, but tis a rational response.

Sticking it behind a filter doesn't 100% give a safety net.  It helps, but we have no real verification process off of things like credit card to verify age either, so we'd have little case.  Filter what we can, but draw the line at cub porn.  Cubs in non porn=FINE, Cubs decapitated=prolly fine, Cubs in porn=FA can make it's choice despite what I think though they have to live with it.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Growly said:
			
		

> To the mods:
> 
> Please don't lock this thread... It is obvious by the explosion of activity here that this topic is needed- we need to duke this out here. Please give us our duking space.
> 
> *bows*



QFT!

I'd really like to see the devs put up some sort of poll available outside of the forums on the front page asking our opinion so we can get on with it heh.

Just a :  Should FA keep CP?
()Yes, and unfiltered!
()Yes, and filtered!
()No, I do not want cub porn on this site.


----------



## RainbowEyes (Nov 3, 2006)

See? If cursing on the internet gets on your nerves, you don't belong. They're just words, just like 'cub porn' is just a drawing of a fantasy character that never existed.

As a patron of FA who has been part of FA for almost the entirity of its life, I say lock this thread
We've faught about this... 4? 5 times? I lost track. FA Admins say the same thing... SHUT UP!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

Growly said:
			
		

> To the mods:
> 
> Please don't lock this thread... It is obvious by the explosion of activity here that this topic is needed- we need to duke this out here. Please give us our duking space.
> 
> *bows*



*Gets out the brass knuckles and starts cussing like Samuel Jackson*


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> I'd really like to see the devs put up some sort of poll available outside of the forums on the front page asking our opinion so we can get on with it heh.
> 
> Just a :Â Â Should FA keep CP?
> ()Yes, and unfiltered!
> ...



AGREED.
I think a poll here on FA would be VERY good.
Although, I'd word "cub porn" differently though, since some of the porn pics here on FA involving under-age characters are copywritten characters, like Animaniacs, which to me, is even worse, since that's really touching on two issues (under-age+copyright laws).
(Also, not everyone may understand the term "cub porn". Calling it "Under-age porn" or "Porn involving children" or something like that might be better.)


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Wow all the cussing and you say we're the rump-holes and harrassing?  *golf clap*  Btw Damaratus told us to come here...
> 
> Real or fake, what *is* the act going on in cub porn? Is it:
> ()An adult having sex with a child
> ...




Yeah, bet if you showed someone your stash of bestiality porn that they'd want you to stay away from their pet too.  In fact, show any of your sexually based furry artwork to your parents and they probably wouldn't look at you the same way anymore.  Just like any fetish, most people do not go around parading it to other people.  They keep to themselves and that's about it, for the exact reason that it would breed distrust in those who do not like it.  

I can fully understand mistrusting someone around youngsters if you knew that they liked cub art.  Not that your feelings would be fully justified (in my opinion), but hey, that's your choice and your feelings.

It's also true that filters do not solve the problem entirely, but think of it this way.  If something like cub is allowed on the site, then there will be tagging needed, if they do abide by the rules then, as PervDragon said, it'll all be readily identifiable if it has to be taken down due to threats of actual lawsuits or pending changes in the law itself then it could be gone in a flash.  If they don't abide by the rules, then they'll lose the privilege.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> See? If cursing on the internet gets on your nerves, you don't belong. They're just words, just like 'cub porn' is just a drawing of a fantasy character that never existed.
> 
> As a patron of FA who has been part of FA for almost the entirity of its life, I say lock this thread
> We've faught about this... 4? 5 times? I lost track. FA Admins say the same thing... SHUT UP!



Cussing doesn't bother me.  However seeing how easy you fly off the handle means we are on to something.  In other words, you are nervous we find your personal fetish gross?  Btw, please go show your parents your cub porn and let me know how it goes on babysitting your bro.  Bet you'll ignore me being right on that part and demand this gets locked before your dirty little secret fetishes leak 

To pictures being just fantasy, please draw me a pic of you murdering the Pres and mail it to the White House and see if they feel the way I do.  Pictures and art exist as a means of communication and expression.  If your expression happens to be cub porn, then for FA's sake take it to 4-Chan and leave it there. 

The only admin I see saying anything is Damaratus, which was to move the topic here.

To you being long on here doesn't mean you should stay or have any more right than we do.  We use this site, and can contribute money just the same.  Please stop your entitlement tirade of why you're so much better than us and get on topic.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> It's also true that filters do not solve the problem entirely, but think of it this way.Â Â If something like cub is allowed on the site, then there will be tagging needed, if they do abide by the rules then, as PervDragon said, it'll all be readily identifiable if it has to be taken down due to threats of actual lawsuits or pending changes in the law itself.Â Â If they don't abide by the rules, then they'll lose the privilege.



Which is perfectly reasonable. That would go along nicely with a "Report Violation" button.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Even if you yourself do not have sex with children, it is the fact that this type of art whether legal or not, is putting FA at a high potential for problems.  Btw, show your parents your cub porn.  I bet you they won't be as trusting with you and your 3 year old brother.  Even though it is pictures, the act in said art is a risk for this site, as most people will err with caution.  Me, I'd not let you near my nephew if I saw you into cub work even if you're clean as I rather not risk the chance.  No one in their right mind would.  Sorry if that irks ya, but tis a rational response.



Ummm, I don't think I'd show my parents ANY porn, especially furry porn. ;; In fact, if someone just whipped around and showed me porn and I have children around, I wouldn't let them near them AT ALL. Mainly because it's just really classless.


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 3, 2006)

WelcomeTheCollapse said:
			
		

> Which is perfectly reasonable. That would go along nicely with a "Report Violation" button.



I have no problem with that existing either, as long as it was implemented better than other ones I've seen.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, my parents know about furry as do most people I work with (though funny thing is I really don't have any pron   , I know I'm weird on that).  Also I'd expect people to be leery of me if they saw that type of thing on my comp.  However, truthfully which of the two cat/kid would you rather have everyone with an inkling in their brain of?  Just being honest. 

Though filters aren't failsafe, and most don't use them at all (aka, Sonic fans, I am soooooo looking at you for this! hehehe).  Even if one is taken down under threat of suit, how do you handle the ones still there any first year law student would copy for the case?  I appreciate the thought of taking things down if a problem occurs, but do you feel prevention or public vote might be a better gauge first?  

If FA decides to keep it, I may still have work here, though I have to be realistic of the old "birds of a feather" mantra and be cautious, though it is admin choice.  I bet you most people will say babyfurs poop themselves in public, which only maybe one or two have.  Though them hanging out with them still and what do we all think when we see Osh Kosh?


----------



## NightfallGemini (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> RainbowEyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahaha oh god

I've seen FAR, FAR worse shit on FA than cub porn. :I

ps FA can't get blown up by the government for OH GOD CP because of that wonderful little first amendment. as long as the shit doesn't resemble certain human beings (as in, as long as it isn't with people and isn't super ultra hyper realistic), FA is fine.

get off the soapbox

EDIT: 6TH PAGE :V


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol! true true on that last part! XD

Though I won't lie, I'd rather show them furry porn than some of my med manuals.  At least some half of furry porn isn't csary enough to make me hurk .


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> VermyFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd also like to point out that other extreme fetishes would probably be filtered as well, like scat, guro, or something else along those lines.  I personally don't give a crap about cub pr0n, but scat, guro etc. makes my stomach churn. (Thank god that most artists have a warning in their thumbnails, and I thank them for that.)  I support the /AH/ filter for  the reason that it would allow me to browse FA without viewing  what I view as disgusting, yet allow others to opt into viewing /AH/ material.


Verm, we're talking about _FILTERS_, not why cub pr0n is bad or whatever you're on about.  Who cares if Rainbow's being an asshat?


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Though filters aren't failsafe, and most don't use them at all (aka, Sonic fans, I am soooooo looking at you for this! hehehe).  Even if one is taken down under threat of suit, how do you handle the ones still there any first year law student would copy for the case?  I appreciate the thought of taking things down if a problem occurs, but do you feel prevention or public vote might be a better gauge first?



The problem is that a public vote isn't a simple one.  Many of the artists who have wanted such things have been bullied into silence by those who are voicing their "moral outrage" on the subject.  You can't be progressive if the public vote is biased.  

I think prevention comes first, testing the waters with well placed caveats.  First year law students probably wouldn't bother with such things, otherwise places like fchan and YGallery would have been long gone by this point.


----------



## kitetsu (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Just a :  Should FA keep CP?
> ()Yes, and unfiltered!
> ()Yes, and filtered!
> ()No, I do not want cub porn on this site.



()I don't give a shit, because my shittacular porno-producing skills are a disgrace to my family honor.

It sickens me how there's no "gray" choice. :I


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Sorry, but we were redirected to this forum by Management to further discuss it.  If the flamewar, er topic were reopened I'd gladly have my posts moved there in a heartbeat.  *^.^*

Anyways, I agree with filters as poo play and watersports are kinda yucky and I rather it be set so someone has to intentionally undo the filter over the other way of seeing-then-blocking.  so /signed and props and all that jazz and some beer too for that! Woot!


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> The problem is that a public vote isn't a simple one.  Many of the artists who have wanted such things have been bullied into silence by those who are voicing their "moral outrage" on the subject.  You can't be progressive if the public vote is biased.
> 
> I think prevention comes first, testing the waters with well placed caveats.  First year law students probably wouldn't bother with such things, otherwise places like fchan and YGallery would have been long gone by this point.



The vote could be anonymous.  Since the bullying goes both ways (I've been harassed in Furrydom for clean art!), you sometimes may have to be willing to tell people "Vote, or don't come whinin' when it goes the other way!".  It isn't your duty to cure their own personal issues dude, tis a noble effort, but sometimes you have to make them choose.  I myself been nervous about speaking my mind on these forums as are other artists I know of who likely wn't say a peep over this as they usually get chewed out for their views, and it goes thermonuclear quick.  Tis the net, and we all know a topic starting with "Chocolate=good" will finally end up in someone threatening to murder another.  XD

Testing the waters as you say I can handle.  Seeing what people really think, good/bad, or such and imposing restrictions if needed I will wait out for if need be.  Though I still have my feelings on the subject as do a few others.  ^.^

Btw don't forget MySpace.  Those first year students are out into new law territory with the net, and many are willing to take on anything for their name in papers.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> lol! true true on that last part! XD
> 
> Though I won't lie, I'd rather show them furry porn than some of my med manuals.  At least some half of furry porn isn't csary enough to make me hurk .



I dunno about that, considering the amount of content/quality control on FA, which is to say there is none, it falls in the lines of 99% of everything is crap.  

I'd put myself in that category too considering finding something of quality that many people can agree on is actually a hard find.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 3, 2006)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> The problem is that a public vote isn't a simple one.Â Â Many of the artists who have wanted such things have been bullied into silence by those who are voicing their "moral outrage" on the subject.Â Â You can't be progressive if the public vote is biased.Â Â
> 
> I think prevention comes first, testing the waters with well placed caveats.Â Â First year law students probably wouldn't bother with such things, otherwise places like fchan and YGallery would have been long gone by this point.




Personally, I disagree with the 'bullying' part. In fandom, it *seems* that the weirder/more controversial the fetish, the louder the artists are who draw it and the people are who support it. Many people in furry fandom have a 'screw the morals, I'll draw and say what I want" attitude (no, I'm not saying ALL people in fandom are like this or even that it's necessarily bad.) 

But what I am saying is that I think very few artists are "bullied into silence". In fact, usually it's the 'moral outrage' folks in fandom who are scoffed at and laughed at and told they are 'close-minded' and 'if you don't like it, don't look at it'.

Also, something that I haven't really seen anyone discuss much is the issue of copy-written characters engaging in sexual acts. This seems to be a no-brainer when it comes to the question of "is it against the law". It's obviously against copy-right laws, isn't it? Many companies don't mind fan-art using their characters as long as you don't sell them, but I know that companies tend to get mad if you use their characters in porn pics (I've heard stories). Trying to hide under the "parody" law doesn't always exactly work if it's fairly easy to prove that it's not parody and just porn.
Am I missing something on the rules here for porn involving copy-written characters? (I don't claim to be an expert on copyright laws by any means.)


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 3, 2006)

Ahkahna said:
			
		

> The fact that It was allowed in the first place doesn't suit me. I have a website I can use and feel comfortable with. If something changes in the future and it's banned, because god knows when it will, then I'll be more than happy to come back. Until then, I'm gone. I don't want to be associated with that kind of filth.


Akhahna, please check the current TOS. You will see that is pedophilic/cub art is not allowed.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 3, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> You will see that is into allowed.



Uh, you might wanna run a grammar-checker over that last bit, Dragoneer.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

XianJaguar said:
			
		

> Also, something that I haven't really seen anyone discuss much is the issue of copy-written characters engaging in sexual acts. This seems to be a no-brainer when it comes to the question of "is it against the law". It's obviously against copy-right laws, isn't it? Many companies don't mind fan-art using their characters as long as you don't sell them, but I know that companies tend to get mad if you use their characters in porn pics (I've heard stories). Trying to hide under the "parody" law doesn't always exactly work if it's fairly easy to prove that it's not parody and just porn.
> Am I missing something on the rules here for porn involving copy-written characters? (I don't claim to be an expert on copyright laws by any means.)




Actually I argued this many times the "child porn" was brought up. I was told this was a completely separate issue so meh. It is in some ways and some ways not. 

The "don't look at it" argument is a pet peeve of mine because you really can't "unsee" things. People are bitching because they can see it.


----------



## cooner (Nov 3, 2006)

Just my $.02 on the original thread topic, about "highly objectionable" filters being set by default:

1) I have no problem with this, assuming filters start working.  I imagine just a subset of filtered keywords would be turned on by default when a new account is created (and perhaps blanket applied to existing accounts once this is implemented?).

2) You would have to make it clear to folks with some kind of announcement or something that a lot of filters are on by default, and it's their choice and responsibility to turn them off if they want to see any of the "highly objectional" material.

3) You'd also need to find a way to strongly encourage people to make sure they set those filter tags when they're posting artwork. Maybe put some kind of gateway in the upload process that won't let the upload finish posting until the user sets SOME tag, even if it's a 'no tag' tag?

4) You'll also need a way for users to flag violations and improperly tagged images. HOWEVER, based on problems I've seen on other boards:

4a) Anonymous reporting is problematic; it's too easy for people to report artists just because of a grudge, or to overzealously report images they personally have a problem with, or perhaps don't understand the filter guidelines of what is and isn't appropriate. If there's a paper trail to the reporting ... Well, if an artist improperly tags an image, or if a user improperly reports one, we can assume it was an honest mistake. If it happens repeatedly or willfully, you can look into the problem and see about either educating or disciplining the artist OR the user.

4b) Reported images will need to be dealt with quickly, whether they need to be retagged or removed, or the report against them removed if it was reported in error. Otherwise it can lead to artists feeling persecuted if their work is improperly or unfairly reported by overzealous users.

Anyway, those are my thoughts ... Once more into the breach, dear friends.


----------



## Olin (Nov 3, 2006)

Instead of having images hidden when reported, they should have a warning page come up when other users wish to see the image until the report has been dealt with.

1.) User views image
2.) User reports image
3.) Image is "flagged"
4.) User goes to view image
5.) User is warned
6.) User continues/goes back

Replacing the thumbnail to an image for being reported would be good too.


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 3, 2006)

yah know even though he?/she? was a bit off-topic i'm gonna have to agree with olin on that one. tis a good idea.


----------



## KurtBatz (Nov 3, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I dunno about that, considering the amount of content/quality control on FA, which is to say there is none, it falls in the lines of 99% of everything is crap.



Like mexicans in thongs showing off their hairy rear ends in the 'general' category, which is apparently an acceptable submission these days for this community?


----------



## KurtBatz (Nov 3, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Akhahna, please check the current TOS. You will see that is pedophilic/cub art is not allowed.



Then why are we having this argument? If it ain't broke, etc etc.


----------



## ghostmoths (Nov 3, 2006)

KurtBatz said:
			
		

> Then why are we having this argument? If it ain't broke, etc etc.



Hear hear.

(two cents) A nastystuff filter may be good, but should not created as a cover to allow potentially illegal material, since "oh its okay most people cant see it anways =^_^=".


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 3, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> By hosting images of the intent of underage sex, FA opens the doors for potential suits as it is responsible to some degree for the material hosted.  Civil suits do not need to be over illegal issues.  As soon as one minor gets it by a pedo who wants to claim FA helped his urges (even if lying!) it will open up for legal problems.  Yes, I am aware they might claim the same for other offenses, but realistically the underage one would be much easier to claim against a site which hosts borderline material.
> 
> Underage material by the majority of people is repulsive while being borderline illegal.  Some other kinks like babyfur make me nauseous, but unlike cub porn aren't iffy in people's minds on legality.  Also, the internet is so chock full of porn, the people who draw cub can get their rocks off elsewhere so barring one type of porn isn't going to harm FA at all.  The worst is a few furries who play the fursecution card will leave for two weeks before they miss the non-cub art, and people who are putting FA at civil suit risk leave (or happily post non-cub work).
> 
> Lastly, I can tell you that people who are into underage art are more likely to be doing that kind of stuff (though I know not all do!) as the material does convey for intent child molesting.  Sure, they aren't human, but as furries we give human qualities to animals so we can relate.  Human qualities and feelings put on animals + on a child animal + porn= ?



1.  Liability is only on FA's hands if they violated COPPA by not adequately checking the age of the users.  Since there's already measures in place to keep underage users from looking at porn in the first place, your point is either moot or we've already been faced with that situation whether or not the cub stuff's there.  

2.  If you're into underage art you're more likely to be into "that kind of stuff"?  Let's assume this is true for a second.  If that's the case, I'd argue that it's also the case that if you're into furry you're more likely to be into zoophilia, which is also illegal in many areas (including many parts of the US).  Since your point regarding this was open-ended and not accusing people of any slippery slope, I will simply point out that you should think about what I'm saying, here.  Saying these two things are somehow "different" in how people who view or produce such works on a moral standpoint has no logical argument, only smoke and mirrors.  You must either choose to admit that both are equally "wrong", that neither are, or that you feel that one is and one isn't and you have no way to explain the contradiction between the analogous comparison.  The latter of the three is admitting that such an argument is irrational.




			
				PervDragon said:
			
		

> Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



iirc, the parts in bold were overturned in almost the exact same places you pointed out in the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

EDIT:  I was correct, these very portions you quoted were struck down in the courts.  It is not against the law to draw the stuff outlined in the 2003 edition of the PROTECT act.  For the lawmakers to have made this broad a reach was clearly wrong, and furthermore to try and claim such pictures are illegal in the US is downright *unconstitutional*.  http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=253



			
				KurtBatz said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's broke.  A new version will be forthcoming on the FA wiki which will contain 90% less bullshit, contradictions, and the like.  Hopefully it will eliminate the wide scope of its current definition of "harassment" too but I wouldn't get your hopes up.  There needs to be some sort of elastic clause in there for the admins to punish people with.


----------



## Dervacor (Nov 3, 2006)

There's a lot of drama and hobbyist lawyering going on here.

I would suggest not speculating on legal issues in this kind of depth without a lawyer.  It all becomes blathering from both sides otherwise.

While I believe this is an important topic, it comes down to these few arguments:

1. If one form of kink is banned what's to say another form should not be banned... And then another... Until all we have is PG-R stuff without any kinks or possible violence at all?

This is kind of a straw man argument against the point... But there's still that truth.  A line needs to be drawn and by its very nature that line will be ARBITRARY.  Get over it.  As is that arbitrary line -currently- excludes Cub art specifically though I'm certain I've seen some on here anyway.  Notice that non-furry art is also not allowed.  This isn't meant to be a "Post all kinds of anything" gallery, nobody is quashing your freedoms by disallowing particular kinds of art.  Nobody is forcing you to post here, if you want to express yourself in a way that disagrees with this site I would suggest making your own.

2. Cub art is vile and will give FA a bad rep:

Even if it is vile, Furrys as a group are so on the fringe that most people in the working world do not even realize we exist.  Beyond this, you'd have to be pretty in-tune with the furry fandom to even know about Furaffinity.  Beyond THAT you'd need to actually visit this place often enough to discover that "OMGEE weird cub prons is allowed!"  And at this point I guarantee that the person we are following is no idle spectator of the fandom waiting to pass judgement and a news report.  They are actually a member of the fandom themself.  Even most news reports don't really get deep into the fandom... Certianly not deep enough to read the goddamn TOS on this site.

Who will notice?  Us and only us.  Let's worry about the group that this site is dedicated to... Furs.  Don't worry about what other people are judging us by, only those interested in furry art will even take the time to realize what this site is abut.  If someone wants to dig up dirt on the fandom they will do so by looking at Cub Central, Fchan, or any of the other fetish sites available to our happy home.

That said, it does not affect or associate you with those who do draw this type of thing if it's well sectioned off in an opt-in section.  And if it isn't something that the administrators want to deal with... They won't and so it won't matter anyway.  I can guarantee you aren't hosting your professional portfolio on this site and as a result only furs familiar with fchan will be viewing your profile.  And as such, they will understand what kind of art you post and if you don't post cub art you won't be associated with that in any way.

I don't care one way or the other about this issue.  I really don't.  If it starts to affect other things I might, but cub stuff is not my bag... Neither is rape nor blood... Though I don't really see the point in banning it especially if it's hidden away by an opt-in.


----------



## Zippo (Nov 3, 2006)

Filters = sanity, and the user choice, and my choice. :3

-Z


----------



## yak (Nov 3, 2006)

I have a better suggestion.
4294967295 categories for art  - is that enough to encompass and categorize all of the possible fetishes the fandom can come up with? if not, then will this number 18446744073709551615 work?  
I have a few ideas how this will work.  You will be able to individually select /every and any/ possible category and/or subcategory you want to actually /allow/ to see, because nothing besides general art will not be viewable by default.
And there will be a report button, if you find a misplaced/categorized submission somewhere and would like to report this.

In other words, filters will work and they will be easy to use. Hope that satisfies some people. All that's left is to make this work fast with the database, and to re-categorise all the art on FA. Bear with us, please. The work is commencing.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

KurtBatz said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why does the race of the person matter?


----------



## Ryuusei (Nov 3, 2006)

It doesn't. 
Why does it matter that they mentioned race?
Answer: It doesn't.

To hell with the filters - where is the search function?


----------



## *morningstar (Nov 3, 2006)

God damn guys, way to totally shit up the thread. If you're going to bitch about how FA sucks and you're going to leave, then please leave. It would make it that much nicer for the rest of us. If you're leaving, why do you care so much about site policy? Methinks it's because arguments on the Internet give some people stiffies. You can scream and berate other users all you like, but it's not going to change the legality of a certain kind of art that you have a vendetta against. *While discussion (discussion, not blind rage arguments) of the cub issue is important to some people, this thread is about filters, not about the moral and legal status of adult artwork.* If you want a tread about the morals of cub porn, then go start one and leave this one for users who actually want to come in and discuss the filtering system like adults. People are actually trying to get stuff done in here, guys.

Back on topic.

I know Fchan has an /a category for the kind of werid stuff and then an /ah category for the watersports, toons, beasts etc. While I think that all of the /ah stuff should also be filtered here, how much of the more 'normal ' alternative content should be filtered? With the current system, there's no way to tag a picture if it's non consentual, so there would be no way to filter it if that's what the community decides on. Just an example. And some pictures have multiple facets, but the artist can only pick one when submitting. I don't think a filter system can work if there's not a good classification system behind it.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Nov 3, 2006)

*morningstar said:
			
		

> If you want a tread about the morals of cub porn, then go start one and leave this one for users who actually want to come in and discuss the filtering system like adults.



There was one a bit ago, but it's closed and we're not supposed to start new ones. Zoop.

I do support a filtering system following these lines though, with an opt-in approach.


----------



## *morningstar (Nov 3, 2006)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> *morningstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's kind of a shame, but I can understand why, considering that these kind of 'discussions' tend to degenerate into flame wars pretty quickly.


----------



## KCat (Nov 3, 2006)

I must be missing something. Isn't all adult art already filtered by default? At least, you can't see it as a guest, and you have to explicitly enable it after signing up..


----------



## Devon (Nov 3, 2006)

KCat said:
			
		

> I must be missing something. Isn't all adult art already filtered by default? At least, you can't see it as a guest, and you have to explicitly enable it after signing up..


yeah it is but I think this would take it a step further, and allow the user to select which of the he/she wants to see, of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Ruffy (Nov 3, 2006)

hey i like the idea, that way it would keep the whiners happy and the rest of us could carry on our happy browsing and posting

if they dont want to see that art then i dont want them to either ya know =^.^=


----------



## KCat (Nov 3, 2006)

So, you're basically discussing having one very broad, somewhat vague, filter item, or a wide ranging array of them? I'm.. sorry, but I don't really see what needs discussion about that..


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

Guildmaster Van said:
			
		

> It doesn't.
> Why does it matter that they mentioned race?
> Answer: It doesn't.
> 
> To hell with the filters - where is the search function?




Is it?

I mean what if it was a nice Asian ass?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 3, 2006)

They opened the other thread back up by the way.


----------



## vulpin (Nov 3, 2006)

PervDragon said:
			
		

> Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good information on the PROTECT Act (gah, I'm sick of laws being cute acronyms!), except the relevant portion was found to be overbroad and the government didn't appeal (source: wikipedia):

_On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified in 18 U.S.C. Â§ 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

    advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, Â§ 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling._

Interestingly, the courts aren't happy with another provision in PROTECT, that requiring manditory minimum sentences due to it hamstringing the justice system of the country and putting the Legislature above the Judicial.  This hasn't been tested by the SCotUS yet either, as far as I know.

On the main topic, I'm pro-filtering/anti ban for reasons of "don't banninate legal if fringe things" - cub art (personal feelings either way notwithstanding) is legal, as is bestiality art, vore art, rape art, and so on.

-Vulpin


----------



## Almafeta (Nov 3, 2006)

Would 'adult/hard' be another setting in the 'general/mature/adult' line?  Or would it be a one-click setting for a number of smaller filters (opt in to all adult/hard, opt out of all adult/hard, default is opt out) that could be set individually?  I think it's the latter, but I'm not quite sure.


----------



## Ansuru (Nov 3, 2006)

Eh, I prefer making people opt out of seeing things; I don't want to have to figure out another confusing toolset just because I prefer to trust my own brain over a scripted filter to decide what I do or don't want to see 

Really, if I don't like something, I just close the Firefox tab and go on to the next. Not tough, not something that should need to be fed to the server; poor thing already works hard enough for us


----------



## Torin_Darkflight (Nov 3, 2006)

I draw lots of quite extreme artwork, and FA is really the only good place I have to display it. An outright ban would be devastating for me, because banning the particular subject matters I draw from the site would essentially be the same as banning me from the site. With that said, I am for any "middle ground" option that'll allow me to keep my art on FA. Yes, it does sadden me that almost no one will see my art if such an automated filter is used, but I have to admit defeat in this. If keeping my art on FA means losing 99% of my views, then so be it, I have no choice. What matters is that, filtered or not, FA is still a better place for me to display my artwork, as opposed to the clunky private server my other art gallery is currently on, which gets maybe only one visitor a week.

Well, that's how I feel about it. Unhappy at the potential possibility of being targeted by forced filtering, yet admitting that it's the only option other than an outright ban that'll let me remain on FA.


----------



## Phoenix-D (Nov 3, 2006)

Torin: you'd lose very few views, because the people that want to see your stuff would be turning the filters off in the first place.

I mean, as of right now -all- adult material is blocked by default. That's good, and it doesn't stop anyone from seeing your stuff. The system just, IMHO, needs a few more options ("fetish other" is..well, fucking broad, for one ) and filtering levels for the people that want to see "regular" porn but not the more extreme stuff.


----------



## Surgat (Nov 3, 2006)

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (tl;dr), but:

The effectiveness of the /AH/ filter will depend on the precision of the new TOS' definition of "underage." 

There will be disagreements as to whether or not certain pictures should be tagged /AH/ or not. Given past moderator decisions on what is and isn't underage, if the TOS is worded as bad as the old one on this issue, what's going to be different? 

Before: 
-Obvious/obviously child/childlike character in an adult picture-* 
-Mod: it's not underage. It can stay up. 

After: 
-Obvious/obviously child/childlike character in an adult picture-*
-Mod: it's not underage. It doesn't need the /AH/ tag.


----------



## Arkloyd (Nov 4, 2006)

*reads Dragoneer's Post, goes no further yet(
I just want to say AMEN.
You all don't like something? It offends your religion? Your intelligance? You have a choice to not look at it. All thumbnails I've seen of cub work are clearly labled.
I know their's some people who aren't content with that.
They want no book to contain the word 'Nigger', they don't want murder, depression, suicide, or... furries, no matter how important of a work it is, (Or how much that word crops up in movies and 'music' now.) 
No faggotry in my woodpulp!
Little old church addict ladies banning books, banning ideas.

Banning any form of art is the same thing.
Just because it offends you, doesn't make it right to keep it out of the hands of those that appreciate it and would not practice it.
Heck, A lot of what I see here I find offensive, but I'm not going to bitch about Vore, unbirth, HERMS, or other things that don't twitch my stick... Dragons! They don't have fur, BAN THEM!

I don't like raccoons in my art... B&!

I support the filter Dragoneer suggested. I'd like to see it come into use.

Yes this was meant to raise eybrows and possibly offend.
I'm an American. It's my right. I, for one, don't abuse it.


----------



## Issarlk (Nov 4, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Simply put, The /AH/ filters are a category which different filters fall under. Any filter that falls under the /AH/ category is defaulted to block the content unless people turn it on.



I think it's a great idea and I'm all for it.


----------



## cybercat (Nov 4, 2006)

Filters would be nice but the filters we have don't work. Besides that, filters don't stop the fact a type of 'file' exists on the site.  Aside me personally being opposed to cub art, I really am concerned about what reprocusions can occur legally for the site hosting such things.  Big brother is all about targeting pedophiles right now, as soon as anyone with any power hears that this might be a site that  those type of people hang out, it's going to be game over.  Not to mention the fact that the chat rooms could become hunting grounds for freaks who DO like to hurt children.  As adults, heck as people, we have to be responsible. That means acknowleding what our actions can do, the effects and the ripples. Just because you didn't Intend for something to happen doesn't mean you arn't responsible.  If people had more grit, more personal responsiblity and gave a damn about each other more, we'd have a lot less drunk driving accidents, a lot less pollution and a lot less violent problems in the world.  Please, please, take a stand. This isn't about Right or Left. This is about  doing what is morally and legally best for the site. Don't do a filter for mature cub art just BAN it, filter the other stuff, I'd love that personally  love it.  Most people have shown they don't care about cub art, they just are afraid of loosing their 'creative freedom'.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 4, 2006)

cybercat said:
			
		

> Please, please, take a stand. This isn't about Right or Left. This is about  doing what is morally and legally best for the site. Don't do a filter for mature cub art just BAN it, filter the other stuff, I'd love that personally  love it.



Ok then, define it. Clear and concisely so we don't have pitchforks and stuff on artists that draw a certain way that people perceive as cub art too. Because that's really the problem.


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 4, 2006)

but this filter isn't just for the cubby art. it's for all stuff that is /AH/.

personally i got a better idea. why not just set the filters to block out everything on the mainsite instead of trying to set up a new filter like this. it will only take people a few minutes to go into their respective control panels and turn off the filters that they don't wanna use so they can see what they want to see. by default when you join none of the filters are turned on. with my idea all start off as turned on. it may be better that way 'neer. maybe. just a bit. not sure really.


----------



## Lucedo (Nov 4, 2006)

The AH feature would be nice alternative if cub art is allowed. I remember that Fchan did have this feature. It states:

"/ah/ - Alt(hard):   Pictures of the really hardcore stuff and that which sqik's the majority of the fandom (babyfur, non-morphic, cub, guro, non-consentual, rape, scat, underage, violence, vore, watersports, etc.)"


----------



## cybercat (Nov 4, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> cybercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I understand that some subject  matter or styles are going to be debatable.  There is no way to get everyone to agree on something.  That's the nature of people. What is reasonable to one person isn't going to be so to every one. The best we can do is ban  anything in diapers (obviously ) recognizable 'child' characters from books/tv /other media, which i guess would be about 16 year olds since in many states that's the legal age of concent / able to get married ,  in extreme sexual situations (beyond hugging or simple kissing things approvable in childrens books!).  Poke-morphs and chibi styles are difficult but as a rule of thumb  if it has really child like qualities the artists are going to have to use their best judgements. The artist needs to take responsiblity here. They need to own up to the intention of their art.   They are the ones who know if it's supposed to be a child or not. 

Child proportions are generally easy to tell, especially from an artistic stand point. Eyes are overly large, the head is generally 3 times the size of the body, the body proportions and how the body shape is portrayed.

That could easily take out chibbies, but even a chibi-ized version of an adult looks more 'adult' even if it isn't doing something mature than a chibized version of a baby. 

It shouldn't be such a hair to split, really. Common sense is all we really are asking for.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 4, 2006)

Some people stylize their bodies to child proportions because it is a cartoon style. In fact anime was generally regarded as pedophilia because of the style. Some artists were targeted to have a loli complex because quite honestly it's not that they were sexually attracted to children. They liked the proportions they were using.

I have more problems with more recognizable licensed in the US but that is just me where it is more of a copyright liability issue because of infringement. 

Also, why 16? If that's the age of consent, do you realize that you now created an abitrary age where it's ok to have fiction for sex, but a person who wants to view mature artwork - not just sex, mature as in nudity, needs to be legally 18 to view? Even I don't get that. Heck that's why I even am confused at the real age of consent laws in the US. 

Ban anything in diapers, yay, ban babyfur! (heck if it were up to me I would but then again the definition of baby fur is an adult cosplaying in diapers - though someone can correct me on this)

Who can really do an age check on a fictional character. If the Turtle morph lives for 200 years, it comes into sexual maturity at 100 but doesn't mature sexual organs like a human, what do you do? I mean even in non furry situations, I love these characters that are 100s of years old. Let's look at the "undead" or a situation where the character is eternal but whatever reason their body stopped developing. I can't figure out what the heck the age of consent is, because her body is adolescent looking no sex for her in fiction!

Also, why 16? If that's the age of consent, do you realize that you now created an abritary age where it's ok to have fiction for sex, but a person who wants to view mature artwork - not just sex, mature as in nudity, needs to be legally 18 to view? Even I don't get that. Heck that's why I even am confused at the real age of consent laws in the US. 

Also what about written literature?

If there were common sense in art, we wouldn't see furries with tattoos on thick fur. We wouldn't see inflation, gore, and out there stuff I'd never conceive through my imagination.


----------



## blade (Nov 4, 2006)

I do agree with the principle of the /AH/ autofiler, though I think that it does need to be taken a few steps further.  Overdoing tends to be a little better than underdoing it in this case.


----------



## Snoot (Nov 4, 2006)

XianJaguar said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Currently we have a similar filter in place. When you upload you choose from general, mature or adult.  I didn't realize until recently, but if you're not a member of FA and you look at the site you automatically can only see the stuff uploaded as general.  I like this feature and I figure the new filter will just have more opinions.  There have been a few times I've uploaded something and I've forgotten to put it in the right category.  Every time I've been kindly reminded that it probably should be in a different category.  If this new filter system comes into play I would hope that artists are not harassed or 'punished' if they accidentally miss label things.  
If someone is purposely mislabeling things just to be a jerk, then that's another issue.  But I don't want to be yelled at if I do it by accident.
My only two opinions I would have about this new filter would be that it be easy and mandatory.  And by that I mean, one of the reasons I like FA so much is unlike DA you don't have to pick through huge long lists of categories and sub categories to perfectly and properly label your art work.  I think it should be very similar to what's in place now with the general, mature and adult options, only with more choices added. I don't want to have to go through 5 extra pages of categories before I can submit my artwork.  Over on DA it's actually something that makes me much less willing to be bothered to post.
And as for it being mandatory, I mean that you cannot progress to the next page without one of the options clicked.  I'm not sure if that's been fixed lately, as I've been good lately in remembering to properly categorize my work.  But I don't like that I can forget to categorize my work and it automatically gets posted as general.
I think the issues of what should and shouldn't be banned will never be resolved because it isn't black and white and there are too many shades of grey for any large number of people to finally agree on one thing.  However I do very strongly agree with the concept of not offending anyone.  I'm sure there are people out there who would dislike my artwork and the subject matter.  There's art out there I don't like for sure, but I have the smarts to not look at it, not flame the artists just because we have a difference of opinion and to at least attempt to try to understand it rather than just get angry about it and think it's shit.  At the same time I don't get angry if I'm asked to categorize my work so that I'm not shoving potentially offensive images in someone's face.  Nor do I feel censored for being asked to do so.  
I think the idea of a filter system is great.  However I will be very disappointed if artists get upset that they will be asked to further categorize their work for this purpose or of people continue to complain about offensive images because they choose to look at work they know will offend them.
I wasn't going to comment on any of this, but there's my opinion.  I really do feel the admins are trying very hard to make the best choice for an impossible situation.  I appreciate their efforts.  In the end, not everyone's going to be happy with the outcome and that's the fault of the individual, not the admins.


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 4, 2006)

Lucedo said:
			
		

> The AH feature would be nice alternative if cub art is allowed. I remember that Fchan did have this feature. It states:
> 
> "/ah/ - Alt(hard):   Pictures of the really hardcore stuff and that which sqik's the majority of the fandom (babyfur, non-morphic, cub, guro, non-consentual, rape, scat, underage, violence, vore, watersports, etc.)"



Okay, I'm going to agree on this in a similar fashion, but could we not call it "Alt/Hard", please?  I think the easiest system to impliment in FA's rather lazy and stop-gap manner is to simply append the General-Mature-Adult system to tack on "Controversial"  or "Risque" at the very end.  Therefore, you'd have 4 instead of 3 levels of maturity on the system.  If you are a legal adult you are entitled to view all 4 levels.  If you are not mature enough (or your code of ethics prevents you), you can choose not to opt-in to view controversial imagery.  Artists will have an easy choice to make for their decision.  If they believe the image may be controversial, they can put it in the category.  If they object to people who filter that stuff out, they can also submit things as controversial, too, and keep those users from seeing their work.  Moderators' jobs won't be that much harder, either.  If an image could be deemed controversial and it receives complaints, rather than delete the submission or give a warning to the user, simply flip the rating to controversial and it disappears out of sight and mind of the offended party.  The artist loses little over this. The only issue there becomes users who want to pick and choose what imagery they believe is allright for them and people like them to see, and this issue should not be FA's concern.  They've already given them the means to block out stuff that offends them without taking away their other precious porn.  Simple as that.


----------



## Issarlk (Nov 4, 2006)

cybercat said:
			
		

> ...
> Big brother is all about targeting pedophiles right now, as soon as anyone with any power hears that this might be a site that  those type of people hang out, it's going to be game over.
> ...



In opposition to game over right now if we do ban (drama apocalypse. people fleeing to yet another furry art dA-like site... eventually people go to the site with less restrictions -> bye FA)

Anyway I think this is not the subject discussed in this thread.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 4, 2006)

cybercat said:
			
		

> ...
> Big brother is all about targeting pedophiles right now, as soon as anyone with any power hears that this might be a site that  those type of people hang out, it's going to be game over.
> ...



(OT) Pedophiles hang out where there is cub porn?
I'd always presumed they hang out where there are children (or, perhaps, LOTS of artwork that appeals to children).

Please feel free to explain the flaw in that logic...

(Besides which, I actually work in Criminal Justice, nowadays, for my sins...).


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 4, 2006)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Simple as that.



Well, sort of...

*nods*. It's a blunt instrument (and amusing, coming from someone whom I suspect dislikes categorisation of the /ah/ type), but far from the worst I've heard.

I'm sure there are artists who would object to having their perceived-"normal" artwork labelled as "controversial", but that's going to happen with any obligatory filter if implemented rigorously.
Thanks for the suggestion, nobu.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 4, 2006)

Snoot said:
			
		

> Currently we have a similar filter in place. When you upload you choose from general, mature or adult.Â Â I didn't realize until recently, but if you're not a member of FA and you look at the site you automatically can only see the stuff uploaded as general.Â



Right. I'm aware of that (which is one of the main reasons why I *love* FA so much, and had deleted all my nudes from archives such as VCL and FAN and moved them to FA!), but again, the filter is only as good as people's diligence to label their art correctly.



			
				Snoot said:
			
		

> If someone is purposely mislabeling things just to be a jerk, then that's another issue.Â Â But I don't want to be yelled at if I do it by accident.



I don't think anyone would yell at you for mislabeling by accidents. Accidents happen! But if someone is constantly 'accidentally' mis-labeling their art time and again, then something is fishy! 0_o


----------



## Snoot (Nov 4, 2006)

I agree.  I know I've seen loads of people in my many years online who seem to go out of their way to be total jerks and ruin it for everyone else.
However, my only concern is with the new filters being put into place, are there going to be a bunch of people who go around looking for mislabled art and give the artist a hard time?  I know I've seen it before.  I just hope with these new filters doesn't come a labelling police.  But this is of course just me jumping the gun.  I'm talking about a problem that hasn't even happened yet!!!  Just ignore me ;-)


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 4, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> cybercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What incarnation?  The actual wandering into a courtroom and pursuing/defending a case, or forensics? (Like I sorta am)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

How about a filter for phsyical abuse against cubs too. I recall that hurting as much as sexual assault. Oh yeah...sorry american thinking sex crimes > violent ones.

Amazing how no one spoke up for that.


----------



## XianJaguar (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> How about a filter for phsyical abuse against cubs too. I recall that hurting as much as sexual assault. Oh yeah...sorry american thinking sex crimes > violent ones.
> 
> Amazing how no one spoke up for that.




I'm guessing because no one dreamed that art that depicts the physical abuse (outside of sexual) of children even existed.

I've seen cub porn on this site just by randomly browsing, or because it was pointed out to me, but never ever have I seen any pics on FA that show children being physically abused. Yet. 0_o


----------



## Foxpaws-Zupe (Nov 5, 2006)

Does CubCentral have the law busting their ass for having cub porn? What about Yiffstar for having stories about cubs? I see they're both there, so why would FA suddenly have suits for have cub related works?

I am for the filter. It's a good compromise.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Nov 5, 2006)

Stop bringing the fsking cub discussion into this topic. Take it somewhere else, this is about the /AH/ filter, not your damn "OH MY GAAAWWWWWDDDDDDD PEEEDDDDOOOO" debates.

...The filter seems like a wonderful idea, do it so these people will shut up.


----------



## Argon (Nov 5, 2006)

Working filters are needed, and a monitor to make sure the art is properly labeled is needed. I think thats all that needs to be said here. If the admins can make it work, then hooray, we have working filters!


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Argon said:
			
		

> Working filters are needed, and a monitor to make sure the art is properly labeled is needed. I think thats all that needs to be said here. If the admins can make it work, then hooray, we have working filters!


We'll probably have a series of warnings for those who fail to properly categorize their art to meet filters, giving them warnings... limited warnings... in the same way that issue them for those who fail to categorize adult art correctly.


----------



## Argon (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Argon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to ask you, because I don't know, how many members are on the FA 'staff', as it were, and how many of them will be able to monitor this kind of thing? Law is nothing without enforcement, after all. I understand that people have alot to do in RL, but enough people in a join effort to make it work should suffice.

Also, how greatly would this depend on users reporting a mis-labeling?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 5, 2006)

XianJaguar said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



@Arshes: Always be careful 'bout saying "no one". 

@Xian: well, I posted the following on the long thread in an "OK, tell me what 'age' the characters depicted actually are" context;
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/276158/
What do you think, then? And why?

Hence, and for many similar ambiguous submissions, comments 'bout filters still being prone to complaints from users if items are forcibly re-labeled against their wishes/original intentions (and/or the user getting warned for such "mislabeling").
Just the usual advance "heads-up", of course.


----------



## Kitsuneko (Nov 5, 2006)

I have not posted about any of this bru-haha yet...

but here is my .02.

If people want to draw /ah stuff, fine, whatever-

but my concern is...
the TOS already had said Cub Porn was NOT ALLOWED... and yet these  people joined, obviously not having read the TOS- and then are pitching a bitch about being censored or whathaveyou. Had they READ the damn TOS, then they'd have nothing to whine about, because they AGREED to those terms, and should be kicked for violating them, simple as that.

So if FA is going to flip/flop about changing the TOS and whatnot because people are bellyaching about EXISTING RULES THEY AGREED TO... what else is subject to be turned over/changed/modified/ whatever?

If people draw Cub stuff, I can just choose to not look at it, simple as that... but it's the policy modification debate that concerns me.

BTW: If there is af ilter, then that means people would HAVE To detail-classify their art... and you know how lazy some artists are, who don't put their stuff in ANY category... and if you have us super-classify it, you'll end up like DeviantArt, who has a RIDICULOUS upload process. That's why I don't GO there, their process is like jumping through hoops just to post. 

I wonder. If a cubophile artist posts a racy pic that is INSINUATING pornographic situations, but it isn't considered mature or adult by the submitter... I wonder how nice it'd look to see THAT pop up on the front page for guest users, because they were too lazy to categorize it before submitting.


----------



## Strawkitty (Nov 5, 2006)

Kitsuneko said:
			
		

> the TOS already had said Cub Porn was NOT ALLOWED... and yet theseÂ Â people joined, obviously not having read the TOS- and then are pitching a bitch about being censored or whathaveyou. Had they READ the damn TOS, then they'd have nothing to whine about, because they AGREED to those terms, and should be kicked for violating them, simple as that.
> 
> So if FA is going to flip/flop about changing the TOS and whatnot because people are bellyaching about EXISTING RULES THEY AGREED TO... what else is subject to be turned over/changed/modified/ whatever?


I think the reason why many people are ''whining' is that others are bashing them when they gave their opinion on this matter which was ASKED by the admins BECAUSE they are REWORKING the TOS.



			
				Kitsuneko said:
			
		

> I wonder. If a cubophile artist posts a racy pic that is INSINUATING pornographic situations, but it isn't considered mature or adult by the submitter... I wonder how nice it'd look to see THAT pop up on the front page for guest users, because they were too lazy to categorize it before submitting.


Not a problem relating only to this fetish.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> XianJaguar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The comment was to heavily convey sarcasm that many people decided to put their .02 in about which morally bankrupt fetish was worse than the other.

"Never dreamed of it" is not an excuse. Someone may have that's what this whole situation was about was it not? People drawing this are "Dreaming of doing that".

It's rather appalling IMO. 

There is a lot of stuff that can happen when it comes to art that will cross someone's line, someone's tolerance. But the day they decided to say which victim is "less worse" than another victim was essentially they signed up for purgatory on their way to hell so to speak.

A child is presumed to be more  innocent than an adult that was sexually raped or abused. When I see the correlation arguments about what should and should not be on the site. I do not understand this. Because someone reached puberty or went through it, they sinned? It's ok to have them depicted in rape?

That's why I can't make the correlation that art = the person is committing the act. I can be disgusted by the act depicted I can question that person's morals for drawing it. I'm not going to say someone is A for drawing B.

So here we are with filters. Now let's start thinking of as many disgusting and terrible thought crimes we can think of so we don't have to worry about encountering it in the future because "we didn't dream of this", because someone IS going to. 

So got the physical child abuse. What else do we need to add?


----------



## Edge (Nov 5, 2006)

Sounds like a good idea. It helps the whole "if you don't like it, don't look attitude" that seems popular here. But of course, sometimes there's unfiltered freaky stuff right on the front page. Hopefully this means that FA will appear as tame or as freaky as folks want it.


----------



## Catamount (Nov 5, 2006)

Argon said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This might have already been mentioned but honestly I can't read all those pages of stuff, makes me sick.  But if you put on new filters there should be a report post button..like on fchan.  If users click it the image will be tagged for review by an admin, the more clicks the higher the image goes in the queue of reported items the admin sees.  Thusly if somebody mis-labels a image as not belonging in a AH/ filter then it can be corrected, and the person warned if deemed necessary.  Sure this requires extra coding, but I don't think you guys can put in anything easy without some extra coding.  Please give lots of consideration to the user interface for labeling as well, because this will need to be as clear as possible!


----------



## Lloxie (Nov 5, 2006)

I fully support the proposal. It's far better than just banning certain kinds of art because various people don't like it. =3 And those that DO want to see it can just disable it in their control panel. And as far as what stuff is covered under it, we could have a few polls to help decide, maybe.


----------



## 2ndVenus (Nov 5, 2006)

100% Yes. A strict filtration system possibly attached to the adult Browse types changeable at the users will of seeing what he or she wishes to see. Problems will -100% estimately.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Yeah put in a better filter system.
You don't wanna see it then V-Chip the stuff you don't want to see.
Freedom of CHOICE remember!  THat's the freedom to come and play or to get the fuck out.

If you want a solution to the problem, this seems the most objective and can satisfy everyone.  
Leave the moral arguements to the wannabe preachers and soccer moms who think that FIXING a problem is to wipe it out of existence because it's "Evil".

This ain't about argueing between right vs wrong, this is turning into someones pull for the lesser of two evils themselves.


----------



## Paul_Lucas (Nov 5, 2006)

This is ultimately a bad idea.

So basically this makes FA an official porn site instead of an art community?  You'd best put up warning on the home page then.

FA makes no restrictions on posting non-furry work, so its only a matter of time before we start seeing shota and loli and every other kind of artwork like that here.  You've just become a safe haven for child porn, no matter what you want to call it, no matter if the kids in the pics have tails or not.

If people could not follow the TOS before about NOT putting up cub art, what makes you think they're going to do the same about conscientious filtering?  And if the mods and admins couldn't be bothered to enforce the old rules, why should we have confidence they'll do anything different this time around?

Some of us have to deal with the real world outside of "furry" fandom.  And in that world we can't have our work associated with child pornography.  And this has just become an official child porn site.

I'm not going to leave just yet, but I am going to reduce my gallery to a dozen or so representative piece and use FA solely in a token or promotional capacity, if that.  I'll wait and see if things get better or worse here.  I could be wrong about FA becoming flooded with cub art in the near future.  But I don't think I will be.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> Some of us have to deal with the real world outside of "furry" fandom.  And in that world we can't have our work associated with child pornography.  And this has just become an official child porn site.
> 
> I'm not going to leave just yet, but I am going to reduce my gallery to a dozen or so representative piece and use FA solely in a token or promotional capacity, if that.  I'll wait and see if things get better or worse here.  I could be wrong about FA becoming flooded with cub art in the near future.  But I don't think I will be.



Then just don't post artwork. If you have to deal with the moral conscious of what you need to post because you have to deal with a life outside FA then you really shouldn't have posted here to begin with.

Porn is still seen with a bad stigma, rape is, violent acts as well. This site started off because Sheezy banned porn.

Waiting and seeing is fine, but please stop with the rhetoric. It becomes a debate everytime.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 5, 2006)

A point I think some people are missing;

The tos doesn't allow artwork of "clearly sexually underdeveloped" characters. As far as I saw, any pictures falling under that fairly specific description were removed. The only people complaining about the tos as it was that I ever saw were people pointing out images where the characters may have looked young, but were not "clearly sexually underdeveloped" and so, were not against the tos, and were not removed.

People are not suddenly springing up to demand that cub art be allowed. 

A small vocal faction refused to accept the clearly worded tos ruling as it was, and demanded a hard line drawn more to their own personal liking, when the rule as it is is really the closest thing you could possibly get to a hard line on this subject without censoring art that would NOT be considered "kid porn" by most people (chibi, mother washing baby, young-looking-but-old-enough, etc).

So it was decided, for better or for worse, that something needed to be done.

Once it was public knowledge that a change was to be made, the people from both sides of the issue saw a chance to gain ground in a conflict that really had been resting as peacefully and NON-problematic as could ever be hoped for. 

People against cub art demanded a stricter hard line be drawn despite not a ONE of them understanding that there is no way to draw a hard age line when talking about the subjective apparent age of a fictional DRAWN character. Despite popular opinion, the reaction opposing this was far less "people supporting cubs" and was mostly people who simply did not want to see more restriction placed on artwork than was already there.

It was NOT a matter of the rule being improperly enforced as people so love to call it.

It was simply people not understanding the very precise wording of the rule, and getting angry and upset when the rule was enforced as it is worded, and not as they misinterpreted it.

But hey, now we'll either have admins stressing out over trying to decide which fictional character is 16, which is 18, which is 12, etc, etc, or we will have a complete allow for all cub art, including underdeveloped babies and infants and other such content that, again, was NOT a problematic presence on this site before because those were the images that WERE against the tos, and they WERE removed accordingly.

The situaton was a non-situation but for a VERY few vocal and irrational people complaining based on their own personal preferences. They demanded something be done, and something will now be done. I hope the people who complained about cub art _before_ this exploded realise that they are expressly at fault if cub art now gets a full allow.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Wolfblade

That's the explanation I was loking for, thank you much.


----------



## Issarlk (Nov 5, 2006)

Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> So basically this makes FA an official porn site instead of an art community?  You'd best put up warning on the home page then.



Furaffinity should have been named something else ; a name that gives a better clue of what's inside and it's purpose (rescue site for Sheezyart porn artists). A name that tells the visitor "there's perverted art in there! Be careful!"

I think  " DeviantArt " would be good ; but it's already taken


----------



## DracoFur (Nov 5, 2006)

Sounds like a good solution.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

That was something I was also confused about was the fact the line was being carried around "They're not enforcing their TOS" without any links to support the argument. I really disliked that. It became a rallying cry much like when someone makes a statement, and the media only takes a soundbyte to display it as truth. It's kinda like taking the word "illegal" out when you talk about immigration.

As stated many times, it seems the biggest stink was when people did art of commercial characters because of the point of reference aspect. I know this is a copyright issue and separate but this is where I saw the most anger and frustration from. This was at least points I knew from watching the harassment forums before this buildup.

Through this time not anyone was able to give me a good definition for the TOS as to what was cub porn. They just yelled "This is gross" and ran away or held rallies or other crap that was just as morally reprehensible as the issue they were comparing it to.

What I see as "Cub porn" grosses me out, and again it's fantasy versus reality. What was cub porn to one person wasn't so to another.


----------



## GranDragon (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> I'm proposing a new form of filtering and want your information and feedback as to what your opinions are. *This is not set in stone*, and is just a proposal, so feel free to tear it down, propose something better, etc.
> 
> */AH/ Filtration*
> By default, FA will automatically filter out what we rank as "highly objectional" material and make it blocked by standard, that way we automatically spare the vast majority from what may rank as hardcore freaky-freaky.
> ...



I not agree... In my opinion is better ban these kind of "art".


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Issarlk said:
			
		

> Furaffinity should have been named something else ; a name that gives a better clue of what's inside and it's purpose (rescue site for Sheezyart porn artists). A name that tells the visitor "there's perverted art in there! Be careful!"


I think the "Fur" in "Fur Affinity" is a clear and present disclaimer to the rest of the internet as to what lurks on the site.


----------



## Mendes (Nov 5, 2006)

Wait, has there been a decision made on this yet?  Everyone's talking like there has, but I haven't seen it anywhere.

When there is a decision about this issue, will it be posted in an admin notice on the site?


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Issarlk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ummm, no... not really.  Not for anyone (like me when I joined) who really doesn't know about Fur or Furry or Anthro art as a genre as opposed to a classification of character.


----------



## timbatig (Nov 5, 2006)

All art should be filtered at first. Fetish, adult, non-mature fetish... Basically everything over G that isn't plain-as-day vanilla.

Then when someone creates their account, they can go through and select which ones they want to see. Bondage, inflation, nc-17, herms, rape, vore, scat, watersports... What have you.

That way, no one has to see anything they don't want to see, ever. There are people here who may not like something that isn't considered /ah/, like someone who was tied up and abused, and bondage is considered /a/.

Just my 2 cents per word.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 5, 2006)

timbatig said:
			
		

> All art should be filtered at first. Fetish, adult, non-mature fetish... Basically everything over G that isn't plain-as-day vanilla.
> 
> Then when someone creates their account, they can go through and select which ones they want to see. Bondage, inflation, nc-17, herms, rape, vore, scat, watersports... What have you.
> 
> ...


Now as I recall when I signed up...that's exactly what happened.  There was a screen with filter options on it and while i did not yet completely UNDERSTAND what the options were, it was still there and available and the categories to filter of coarse matched up withe the categories to serach with.


----------



## timbatig (Nov 5, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Y-Gallery had that too, really nice implementation.


----------



## Phoenix-D (Nov 5, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, except the filters don't actually work, and some of the catagories are rather vague.

I think all the porn is still filtered by default, though.


----------



## kieranwolf (Nov 5, 2006)

I definitely agree with the idea of filtering certain types of content, especially the ones that upset people the most.

As far as the legality of cub art, I've read that yes, it is pretty much legal, right?

Even if not, I propose that FA force artists who produce work with cubs to read and agree to a disclaimer stating that all characters they draw must be above the age of consent. This disclaimer should also be placed squarely in the way of folks who want to turn off the proposed cub filter, making sure that they understand that no character drawn is underaged, even if they appear to be.

Why do this, you ask? The fact that this is fantasy material makes it fairly flexible in that regard. We can state that all characters are above the age of consent, regardless of their appearance.

This would create what could be an additional protective layer against suits from any source, or perhaps even regular old legal action targeting the site if it ends up under the public or government eye.

Disclaimers are key!

Filters are a good thing!

Also, the FCHAN style of report -> admin action should work here. If anyone spots artwork that isn't properly labeled, it should get reported and action should be taken. Otherwise, the filters should act as a SHADDAP YOU MOUTH button.

Massive <3 to the admins for putting up with all this, by the way.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 5, 2006)

I think the primary reason they disabled the filters was the massive performance slowdown caused by using them. It SHOULD do most of the processing on the database, and not in PHP, though.  *Looks at coders and database designers specifically*


----------



## yak (Nov 6, 2006)

N3X15 said:
			
		

> I think the primary reason they disabled the filters was the massive performance slowdown caused by using them. It SHOULD do most of the processing on the database, and not in PHP, though.  *Looks at coders and database designers specifically*


actually, all the slowdowns are database, and not PHP  related. without getting into details, let's just say the former implementation of filters was not good enough.


----------



## IzzyFerret (Nov 9, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> What is with the "I'm leaving posts" and not actually leaving?



Personally I've been checking back to see if they actually make this permanant, or if they change their minds, I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I've also been waiting to see the finalized TOS. Since I can't completely remove my account, I want to make sure there's nothing sketchy like the old DeviantArt TOS.

Anyway I posted in another topic before I noticed this one.

Sounds a lot like the Fchan setup, which I personally can agree with. On Fchan, the fetishes that are...how to put this to not get anyone screaming at me...fetishes that have smaller fan bases due to the degree of deviation from social norms regarding fetishes, they're sectioned away into /a and /ah. So the people who like cub art, scat/watersports, what have you, they can check /ah as well as whatever else they like, and those of us who do not like the fetishes contained in /a and /ah, well we don't ever see them, not even the thumbnails...because let's face it, unless you censor your thumbnails like some do but most don't, you can still see what's going on. That's the point of thumbnails.

Since I'm far too lazy to read however many pages it is to see if this was proposed, I think a system as follows might work well: you'd have the General/Mature/Adult, and then if it was marked Mature or Adult, you could be further required to mark it into, you know, something like Straight, Lesbian, Gay, Group, Herm, Fetish, and Hard Fetish. I think that this would not put the same strain on the system as the old filtering system, because the old filtering system had like...30+ different categories you could filter out. I mean you'd have to definate fetish and hard fetish, or you could just steal Fchan's definitions, since I think they're pretty fair.

Part of the reason I left was I didn't like how it seemed as though the administration was allowing cub porn into the open, just out there, on the front pages, for everyone to see. That *TO ME* seems to be supporting it, regardless of what they say. A system where you have to opt in to that would be a little more agreeable. It just seems as if that's more like, "We allow it.....but we're gonna hide it waaay over in the darkest corner, so no one else has to see it." Although I don't see this resulting in artists returning. I think for a lot, it was a principle sort of thing, whether it was that they were parents themselves, or they didn't like the change from the TOS, or they just don't agree with supporting/allowing that sort of thing.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2006)

I have no problem with people posting "they're leaving" and leaving but I'm referring to people being INCREDIBLY INDECISIVE but at the same time constantly announcing an "I'm leaving" decision. You don't need to post it until you pondered the decision. You *may* be leaving, that's fine.

Some artists are just lurking now, so dunno about returning. Who knows. 

Some are just going to have a wait and see approach which is also good. I can understand people leaving for whatever reason, lurking and responding appropriately before making journal posts about leaving is good too.

Filters are the middleman compromise in this issue, but some feel and all or nothing approach too.

My only request to the admins in this thing, is that can you at least enforce the old TOS to the best of your ability, as it is still up and wait until proper filers are in place before allowing the art up? I noticed the guy grandstanding in the Harassment forums about it, but I think at least if you have the enforcement before the changes, it will lend more credibility as admins in the minds of those that are still deciding.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 9, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I have no problem with people posting "they're leaving" and leaving but I'm referring to people being INCREDIBLY INDESICIVE but at the same time constantly announcing an "I'm leaving" decision. You don't need to post it until you pondered the decision. You *may* be leaving, that's fine.
> 
> Some artists are just lurking now, so dunno about returning. Who knows.
> 
> ...


That's not unreasonable at all is it?
Why does it take gotta take hindsight to make the most rational decisions?
I mean I understand WHY that is, but I really wish we could reach such simple and easy suggestions sooner...


----------

