# Avatars and Thumbnails



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*Avatars and Thumbnails*
Avatars and thumbnails which use the artwork of another artist without their permission will be removed at the request of the original artist. In addition, avatars must be rated PG-13 (no gore or sexual situations) and must not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. â€œseizure inducingâ€).


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

Go figure, I honestly have a question about this one. In the other topic I believe you mentioned one flash per second.

Does that mean full-icon flash? Or any flash, such as those popular icons with rapidly switching text?

Can't you raise (lower?) the limit a little bit? I'm not an expert on seizures by any means, but I think four flashes per second might be okay, and I'm almost positive two would be just fine.


----------



## XerxesQados (Jan 22, 2009)

Your avatar is still rated G, Dragoneer. I'm not going to shut up about this until you stop being a hypocrite. =D


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 22, 2009)

Can we get thumbnails to be the original avatar size? All it does by reducing the image is make the avatar we worked so hard on look bad.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Go figure, I honestly have a question about this one. In the other topic I believe you mentioned one flash per second.
> 
> Does that mean full-icon flash? Or any flash, such as those popular icons with rapidly switching text?
> 
> Can't you raise (lower?) the limit a little bit? I'm not an expert on seizures by any means, but I think four flashes per second might be okay, and I'm almost positive two would be just fine.



I do know something about flashing induced seizures, and I am very dubious about 4 Hz and would even recommend against 2 Hz for large luminance variations.  The latter is important; if the total light output of the avatar varies very little (such as a small text area switching colors without changing brightness) there won't be a medical problem.  The area that is flashing is important, too. A few tiny background stars twinkling. even at 2 Hz, won't cause medical problems.

Unfortunately, this is a legal liability problem as well as a medical one.  People do have completely spontaneous seizures, but might sue even if the flashing avatar didn't cause their seizure.  FA's management never wants to have to prove their lack of culpability, particularly to a jury that knows nothing about medicine other than what they have seen on TV. Even if FA won, the legal cost would be devastating. Because of this, I think that Dragoneer is wise to play it safe at 1 Hz. max.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 22, 2009)

How about Jace's avatar with the buttocks? PG-13 or R material?


----------



## T3HPK (Jan 22, 2009)

Also, what about icons that have those bouncing breasts? Are those acceptable? I'm assuming they are, since I've never seen or heard of anyone complaining about them/having them removed. Just curious and would like clarification.


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

I've said this in another thread having to do with photography, but it also applies here: why are male breasts not considered PG-13, but female breasts are? (Or the reverse is true, also, in that why are female breasts more PG-13 than male breasts.)

It is totally sexist to allow one gender's chest to be exposed in thumbnails/avatars/photos, yet totally exclude the other gender, for the sole reason that women's breasts have been exceptionally sexualized by straight men.

This is a genuine concern; either cover both up, or neither.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Vandell said:


> I've said this in another thread having to do with photography, but it also applies here: why are male breasts not considered PG-13, but female breasts are? (Or the reverse is true, also, in that why are female breasts more PG-13 than male breasts.)
> 
> It is totally sexist to allow one gender's chest to be exposed in thumbnails/avatars/photos, yet totally exclude the other gender, for the sole reason that women's breasts have been exceptionally sexualized by straight men.
> 
> This is a genuine concern; either cover both up, or neither.




You'll probably have to take that one up with Society as a whole rather than Dragoneer.
;Good luck.

..

OH, JUST WONDERING: Does it matter if my image strobes and a very small amount of the image area flashes? Here it is here: http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Magicclaw/Stuff/flashyavatar2.gif
I didn't really think anything that small could set off a seizure. 
If that's a policy violation I apologize and will remove it from my profile. >:


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> You'll probably have to take that one up with Society as a whole rather than Dragoneer.
> ;Good luck.
> 
> ..
> ...


Well then I'll take it up with society one website at a time. I figure that FA is at least a little progressive..


----------



## Valerion (Jan 23, 2009)

Yes, but FA is still bound by law, no matter how progressive.  According to US law female breasts = pornography, male breasts != pornography.  So you need to get that changed first, and for that you need to change society's opinion on the issue.  I get the idea from the AUP that Dragoneer wants to avoid human porn on this site completely.


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

valerion said:


> Yes, but FA is still bound by law, no matter how progressive.  According to US law female breasts = pornography, male breasts != pornography.  So you need to get that changed first, and for that you need to change society's opinion on the issue.  I get the idea from the AUP that Dragoneer wants to avoid human porn on this site completely.


Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I suggested the reverse first; cover up both. I:

This is mostly curiosity on my part to see the stance on it.


----------



## Valerion (Jan 23, 2009)

Heh, good luck enforcing more restrictive rules on males.  The reaction from me is: 

If I can go to the beach that way legally, why not post a picture of myself that way?

And enforcing such arbitrary restrictions is not progressive at all


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> and must not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. â€œseizure [/COLOR][/FONT]inducingâ€).



I have a question?
Is it possible to program the site in such a way that a user in their settings can disable animated avatars altogether?
Some browsers can do this easily and on a page-per-page basis, while others (firefox) has the setting hidden somewhere in an awkward config document.

if this is not a useful aspect of rule discussion, you may smite me.


----------



## T3HPK (Jan 23, 2009)

I want to punch the guys in the face who originally sexualized a female's breasts. How come no one ever sexualized a male's chest? :x


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

gore is not pg-13. 
it's allowed on deviantart's avatars, why not here? 
seizure-generating avys is bullshit.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 23, 2009)

darkdoomer said:


> gore is not pg-13.
> it's allowed on deviantart's avatars, why not here?
> seizure-generating avys is bullshit.



1) i hardly see why anyone would think blood and guts is an acceptable thing for children to be actively viewing. even most movies with high blood content get a parental guidance rating of some sort.

2) in case you missed the memo, we're not DA. Laws change from site to site. Don't like it, contact whoever owns the internet and have them put universal standards on all the sites. Otherwise, we just gotta live with it and go with the flow. 

3) anything with bright rapid flashing can cause seizures no matter how small the picture is. im not even epileptic and i get a migraine from those damned things. The word meme ones are fine but the acid rave neon colours flashing at like 5 colours each second is insane. thankfully those arent a huge issue on FA. most people jeep the irritation to a minimum, often preferring the wide array of meme animations instead.


----------



## NightWolf714 (Jan 23, 2009)

Hate to continue a dying argument, but I agree with Vandell. Guy's breats are very similar to girl's breasts. Especially if it's a very thin girl or an overweight guy. In that case, they look very alike. I also know people who take offense to the nude man's chest. I personally have no problem with it (that's why my mature filter is off) but there should be some equality. Both sexes should be clothed if the girls have to be.

* * * * * (Seperation of subtopics)

On another note, I had a question about the PG-13 rating. According to Motion Picture Association of America, (http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp) (which I am assuming is the rating system that FA is using), it states that nudity is not nessecarily considered Rated R, and that it is considered PG-13 unless it is of a sexual nature.

I am curious because artistic nudity is not considered sexual (or at least, not suppost to be). I wanted clarity about this, because in my opinion, the bouncy boobs avatars are much more sexual than a cutsey avartar with artistic nudity on it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

NightWolf714 said:


> I am curious because artistic nudity is not considered sexual (or at least, not suppost to be). I wanted clarity about this, because in my opinion, the bouncy boobs avatars are much more sexual than a cutsey avartar with artistic nudity on it.



That is correct, but we have two problems.

Safe for work. Girls boobs are gonna get the mark for a no no more than a guy's. 

The rating system on FA needs to be fixed quite honestly.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 23, 2009)

valerion said:


> According to US law female breasts = pornography


Which law would that be, exactly?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

Eevee said:


> Which law would that be, exactly?


The Law of Public Opinion! Also from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure#Legal_status_in_the_United_States

It seems to vary by state.


----------



## NightWolf714 (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> The Law of Public Opinion! Also from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure#Legal_status_in_the_United_States
> 
> It seems to vary by state.



No offense, but fail with "The Law of Public Opinion" because that ignores the public who disagrees with you. And another fail for quote wiki as though it's always fact. 

Nevertheless, that is the law. The question is the idea of artistic nudity. This site is an art site, and is known as an artsite. So shouldn't artistic nudity be a loop hole?

Then again, it may be best for it to be against the rules so that FA doesn't become like DA's (supposed) artistic nude gallery.

One thing I wish to be clarified with concerns anthro female breasts. Since anthros are (generally) covered with fur, scales, or fur, doesn't that get around nudity if nipples are unseen?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

First off I was being Sarcastic. I REALLY hate censorship of any kind.
Two I was not quoting wiki as though it was fact. I was linking to Wiki that then linked to the laws for the specific state you are in. In the instance of FurAffinity they would have to look up the laws in their state and see how they must govern their site.
Third in regards to Anthros... I really don't understand your point. You can not take a picture of a real life anthro, because they do not exist, so anything you could create in regards to anthro breasts would be uploadable to FA... Do you mean to say you don't want to put it under the "Mature" header? If so that's kind of retarded.
Fourth FurAffinity wants as little legal trouble as possible, because of this "artistic nudity" is not a loophole I would suggest they allow. We do not want FA taken down because some idiot under 18 decided to post "Artist Nudes" on site and their Mother Found out, got pissed, and sued the site.

Why the fuck do we even need it on FA? It's been made clear several times that nudity is one thing they will NEVER change their minds on. There is simply too much risk for VERY little reward.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 23, 2009)

I despise censorship, even going so far as to say that censorship offends me. We need to just outright do away with it.

That said, FA is *not* the place to begin.

You want bare boobies? You have my support. But that won't do you any good here. As has been said, take it up with law makers and the general majority.

You want males to cover up? Bite me


----------



## Eevee (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> You want bare boobies? You have my support. But that won't do you any good here. As has been said, take it up with law makers and the general majority.


_What law?_  I'm not aware of anything defining exposed breasts as pornographic.  Especially since they appear in non-NC-17 movies.



DigitalMan said:


> You want males to cover up? Bite me


Uh-huh.  How do you think women feel, exactly?


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 > I think you forgot which topic you're in. This is for Avatars and Thumbnails. He meant in reference to stuff like an avatar being w/o a shirt.

And to answer that question, consider this - If you were working at a REALLY anal company who thinks that -this- shirt isn't work appropriate (despite it being casual dress)  http://www.blotchinc.com/graphic/VforVermin.jpg then ask if those nipple-less bouncing breasts should be marked as mature or not.

People's opinions differ. But the mature markings are there for those who aren't as open about sexuality as some of us. And unfortunately, out in the real world at jobsites and such (and some jobs totally let you browse the internet in your own time and breaks, even the anal companies) they have a strict view on things. Approach it from their direction, and adjust it based on that.

On another note, guys chests are sexualized too. However due to a male dominated world, they try and make sure that they can still show them off. Atleast, that's my guess.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

I clicked through several of the links. They all pretty much say Private Parts (non specific) though several also specifically call out that breastfeeding is OK which leads me to believe in any other circumstance exposed breasts is not ok.

This is state law.


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> That is correct, but we have two problems.
> 
> Safe for work. Girls boobs are gonna get the mark for a no no more than a guy's.
> 
> The rating system on FA needs to be fixed quite honestly.



gotta agree. getting another classification for nude artworks that should be available for the public. something you spend time on it getting considered porn, just like the nearby mspaint furry stuff is devalorizing for an artist. also for the audience factor. Actually furaff is the worst mean to showcase your work. that's why i see it more like a porn site than a real art site (with the appropriate maturity from its targeted audience. there's a big step to be done here too.)


btw for the legal aspect on the nudity, i don't see any law in the 
US legal code that forbids it if the user has been warned he's entering into a NC/PG website.


----------



## NightWolf714 (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Third in regards to Anthros... I really don't understand your point. You can not take a picture of a real life anthro, because they do not exist, so anything you could create in regards to anthro breasts would be uploadable to FA... Do you mean to say you don't want to put it under the "Mature" header? If so that's kind of retarded.



Sorry my point wasn't clear. With the anthro, I meant as a drawing for an avatar. Sorry about that. And no, it's not retarded. Thank you for questioning my mental capacity (sarcasm) 

What I meant was if an avatar was bust up of a female anthro, showing her boobs but it was in the style of this picture my siatea.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/398336/

There is nothing sexual meant in this picture. There is no nipples showing in the picture and there is even fluff marks to show that they are clearly covered in fur. 

I was thinking of making an avatar of my fursona, Med-Night, in this style. Something cute. I wanted to make sure that "fluff boobs" is okay or not first, or if I would have to either have paws up in the way or a shirt or something of the sort.



> btw for the legal aspect on the nudity, i don't see any law in the
> US legal code that forbids it if the user has been warned he's entering into a NC/PG website.



This was in regards to using human nudity. The law mentioned is the basic public indecency law. Not sure how the law translates to websites and artwork, though.


----------



## TehBrownPup (Jan 24, 2009)

Eevee said:


> Uh-huh.  How do you think women feel, exactly?



I think they feel pretty good considering they can beat the fuck out of guys without worrying about him retaliating (Or if he does, he gets his ass raped by everyone else)

Or the fact that they can freely dress as men / wear mens' clothes, but men cannot (via society's dictations) wear womens' clothes.

I'd say women have it better off than men.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 26, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> OH, JUST WONDERING: Does it matter if my image strobes and a very small amount of the image area flashes? Here it is here: http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Magicclaw/Stuff/flashyavatar2.gif
> I didn't really think anything that small could set off a seizure.
> If that's a policy violation I apologize and will remove it from my profile. >:



The part that is rapidly flashing is so small and has so little luminance variation that it isn't a medical hazard. (It isn't even horribly annoying) I'm a scientist, not an admin, and can't speak for FA, however.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 26, 2009)

LolitaPK said:


> I want to punch the guys in the face who originally sexualized a female's breasts. How come no one ever sexualized a male's chest? :x



Oh, but they have! Look at any gay bodybuilding magazine - big pecs are hot! Then there the enhancements such as nipple rings linked by gold chains...


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 26, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> ... Third in regards to Anthros... I really don't understand your point. You can not take a picture of a real life anthro, because they do not exist, so anything you could create in regards to anthro breasts would be uploadable to FA...



How I wish that such images were safe! Two of FA's admins removed one of my photomorphs which showed a female anthro with pumpkin orange entirely created in Photoshop out of pixel dust nipples. Not IRL painted human nipples. Not Photoshop overpainted human nipples in a photograph.  Purely and 100% imaginary furry nipples.  Both admins refused to look at my Photoshop PSD file; their minds were made up, they had already hastily irreversibly deleted all the viewer's comments, and apparently didn't want to be confused by any facts that could contradict their erroneous beliefs. I had rated the image Adult. Unfortunately, some of FA's admins lack the judicial temperament essential for the fair non-abusive exercise of deletion powers.

This is why I have asked Dragoneer to clarify his intended meaning of five points in the new photographic AUP. So far, no such clarifications have been forthcoming.


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 3, 2009)

NightWolf714 said:


> Sorry my point wasn't clear. With the anthro, I meant as a drawing for an avatar. Sorry about that. And no, it's not retarded. Thank you for questioning my mental capacity (sarcasm)


 I was not questioning your mental capacity  Sorry if you misread it...



NightWolf714 said:


> What I meant was if an avatar was bust up of a female anthro, showing her boobs but it was in the style of this picture my siatea.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/398336/
> 
> ...


 Ahh, that's a tough one. I mean if you think back to cartoons involving that female cat Penelope... She was nude the whole time, but did not really have defined breasts... and like all cartoons do not have any bits showing... 

I'm pretty sure without the bits showing it is ok but I really don't know...

Every character I can remember where they had defined breasts they were also clothed, but so was everyone else... so it was more of the style for the characters.

Personally I would think it is OK, as most "Clean" sites I visit will allow pics as long as the nipple isn't exposed


----------



## Firehazard (Feb 3, 2009)

I hadn't noticed that this thread had been created, but I would again wish to reiterate my stance that country-specific ratings certificates should not be referenced anywhere in the TOS -- especially one that's only used in one country and was created by a ratings organization that's known to be fickle in how it's applied.

(I refer of course to "PG-13," a term exclusive not only to the United States, but to U.S. theatrical films in particular.)


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 3, 2009)

The Servers are housed in the US the site must comply with US Laws... therefore the terms are going to be country specific... based on the US...


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 9, 2009)

What constitutes a "sexual situation?" Non-humans commonly participate in activities that seem intimate, but are merely indicative of communication. For example, dogs sniffing and licking each other under their tails is a social bonding exercise that has nothing to do with sex. I have been accused that my FA avatar currently in use is against this provision, but I have a hard time believing this. Please clarify.


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 9, 2009)

It's giving the other one a rimjob...

it's nice... but I'd say that's not allowed


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 9, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> It's giving the other one a rimjob...
> 
> it's nice... but I'd say that's not allowed


That's because you are anthropomorphizing the activity and putting it into your own human terms. But if we're ALL supposed to be humans here, I can change it easily enough... if an admin tells me to.


----------



## Xaerun (Feb 9, 2009)

Yeah, sorry. If it can be considered a sexual act in hyoooman terms, it's not allowed.


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 9, 2009)

Xaerun said:


> Yeah, sorry. If it can be considered a sexual act in hyoooman terms, it's not allowed.


Tonguing a straw could be construed as a sexual act in human terms. *rolls eyes... and waits for an admin to reply*


----------



## Xaerun (Feb 9, 2009)

Ebon Lupus said:


> Tonguing a straw could be construed as a sexual act in human terms. *rolls eyes... and waits for an admin to reply*


Quite different contexts there, I think. In the same way, inserting a penis into your ass could be an act of... I dunno... friendly goodwill?


----------



## Aurali (Feb 9, 2009)

and now to throw a HUGE wrench into the rating system here..

Bare breasts are considered PG-13, not R or X :3


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 9, 2009)

Eli said:


> and now to throw a HUGE wrench into the rating system here..
> 
> Bare breasts are considered PG-13, not R or X :3



You're late, it was already addressed what the "PG-13" meant: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=826015&postcount=19


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Feb 9, 2009)

Understood, OP.  :3


----------



## Aurali (Feb 9, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> You're late, it was already addressed what the "PG-13" meant: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=826015&postcount=19



:3 The wording still needs to be changed.


----------



## Lanx (Feb 9, 2009)

Now this strikes me as positively ludicrous, this site, which is for a mature/adult audience, and has erotic images right at the main page, all the way to the ever-constant flashing links direction you to other erotic sites has a problem with a mature/adult image in an avatar, has a problem even with the insinuation of something that might be seen naughty going on.  What the hell is this, what, is FA trying to be a modest website now.  you can't have a picture of a dog licking a dog, but you can have a giant penis jizzing oceans right on the front page.....I am bewildered....absolutely bewildered.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 9, 2009)

If you turn off adult images. FA is no longer an adult site >.>


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 9, 2009)

Eli said:


> If you turn off adult images. FA is no longer an adult site >.>


This is true... I just checked this out. I suppose it's too bad 3/4ths (a conservative guess) of the folks on this site are lying about their ages... because in all honesty their parents don't give a... But I guess, for the holier-than-thou xtians that seem to rule the earth with their cockamamie mythology and are afraid of Nature's beautiful anatomical creations, the rest of us should simply crawl down a MAN-hole and stifle it... along with any other sense of self-expression and free-dumb.


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 9, 2009)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1590988/

The whole image that avatar is based upon is sexual. Dogs sniff each other, they do not tongue fuck.


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 9, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1590988/
> 
> The whole image that avatar is based upon is sexual. Dogs sniff each other, they do not tongue fuck.


You consider that image sexual? *rolls eyes* Any canine behaviorist would tell you mounting up is a dominance posture... licking of the anus is a bonding posture. Rolling over is passive submission... sniffing genitalia is getting to know you... getting to know about you. You see sex because you want to see sex. I took that excerpt from the picture because I wanted to say KISS MY ASS.

Well, anyway, you guys were right, of course... this place is all about what is human. My avatar was removed in the name of "Work Safe." Seems to me people at work should be WORKING.

Boss passes cubicle and looks in: "Oh, John... I see you are into fur-suits and pretending to be a fox with nine tails online too... now get BACK TO WORK before I CAN YOUR ASS... and I don't mean YIFF YOU!"


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 10, 2009)

Ebon Lupus said:


> You consider that image sexual? *rolls eyes* Any canine behaviorist would tell you mounting up is a dominance posture... licking of the anus is a bonding posture. Rolling over is passive submission... sniffing genitalia is getting to know you... getting to know about you. You see sex because you want to see sex. I took that excerpt from the picture because I wanted to say KISS MY ASS.
> 
> Well, anyway, you guys were right, of course... this place is all about what is human. My avatar was removed in the name of "Work Safe." Seems to me people at work should be WORKING.
> 
> Boss passes cubicle and looks in: "Oh, John... I see you are into fur-suits and pretending to be a fox with nine tails online too... now get BACK TO WORK before I CAN YOUR ASS... and I don't mean YIFF YOU!"


If it was simply exerting dominance then the one being mounted would not be aroused, same goes with the submissive one. The Licking maybe, but I've never heard of that before... and even so you yourself labeled the image as Adult, which says it was meant to be sexual.


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Feb 10, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> If it was simply exerting dominance then the one being mounted would not be aroused, same goes with the submissive one. The Licking maybe, but I've never heard of that before... and even so you yourself labeled the image as Adult, which says it was meant to be sexual.


You should observe more Wolf behavior if you are intrigued by it. There are books, one available at Wolf Park, that defines hundreds of observed behaviors.

Showing pink is something woofs do quite often...sometimes they are just excited about catching a stick. Maybe they are aroused, maybe not... only they could tell you. I think quite often they are, myself, like having a nice thought and getting a lump in the pants.

I declared the image mature because of how I think people expect it to be rated. I try to exist in this foolish human realm, even though I find it absurd. I'm usually the one that has to give up my values to others because the majority are idiots... they elected Bush TWICE for Dogs sake! *rolls eyes* I myself would never censor anything if given "free choice." I don't think hiding things from children is a proper approach to their mental development. It's underhanded and disrespectful of their intellect. I think humans need to get their head out of their holies and grow up.


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 10, 2009)

Ok, your political views aside, you rated the image Adult because you knew that it was an Adult Image in the eyes of the rest of us. They looked aroused, every single one of them... You knew it was going to be taken down, and really just wasted admin time to have to address it.

Whether or not the world should change (and I agree it should) has no bearing on whether or not something is currently given a specific Label.

If I know in 2 months pot will be legal it doesn't mean I can start smoking it in front of cops and not expect to be arrested tomorrow.


----------

