# Is this allowed on FA?



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 6, 2012)

Cub porn is banned but is it allowed for an artist to post a cropped picture of a cub porn pic with included links to where you can find the original? I don't think this should be allowed personally, I see it alot nowadays in my inbox and I don't appreciate it given that I loathe cub porn.

For example:
Artist crops out only the parts that isn't allowed on FA and posts it then places the links to where you can find it in their artists comments. I can give an example image if you wish.

I would just like to know because if its not allowed then I will be reporting them left and right.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 6, 2012)

The answer to this is no. Cropping out parts of the picture doesn't change the fact that it's still cub porn and not allowed. Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 6, 2012)

Thank you I'll start making some TT's then


----------



## Xenke (Apr 7, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The answer to this is no. Cropping out parts of the picture doesn't change the fact that it's still cub porn and not allowed. Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.



Well this is new.

Does the same logic apply in other areas?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The answer to this is no. Cropping out parts of the picture doesn't change the fact that it's still cub porn and not allowed. Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.


Maybe the rules should be clarified for future references?


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

Ok I just realized how bad this problem is. I think the admins should make a *site wide announcement on this issue.* If its not allowed then I think that it should be brought to everyones attention.


----------



## Dasaki (Apr 7, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The answer to this is no. Cropping out parts of the picture doesn't change the fact that it's still cub porn and not allowed. Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.



Source? There's nothing about this anywhere that I can find, and I've been seeing people doing this from the start without any action against them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> Ok I just realized how bad this problem is. I think the admins should make a *site wide announcement on this issue.* If its not allowed then I think that it should be brought to everyones attention.


Yeah the problem is pretty far spread.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 7, 2012)

JSYK, I've talked to some other admins, and they didn't agree.

*shrug*

If I recall the precedent set during the whole cubporn debate, this was an acceptable compromise because it avoid the issue of actually hosting cub porn (if you take cropped cub porn at face value, it isn't porn). This was an important compromise, because as many people that ragequit FA as it is, it would have been a lot more if this deal hadn't been reached.

In any case, moderating in this style leads to its own issues. It strays into the territory of "well, it isn't ____, but it sort of looks like it, so it's not allowed". I understand from a moral standpoint, several of you have no issue with this, but with the amount of complaining people already do about the consistency of the site moderation, adding a policy which breeds such inconsistency is such a bad move.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 7, 2012)

wait wait wait
So you cant make a submission that then links to cub porn say like this
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6387868/


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 7, 2012)

Dasaki said:


> ...and I've been seeing people doing this from the start without any action against them.


You know the stock answer to that:  report, _report_, *report*.  This isn't a discussion about "other people are doing X", it's a discussion about "we need to make it official whether X is allowed."



Xenke said:


> (if you take cropped cub porn at face value, it isn't porn)
> ...
> It strays into the territory of "well, it isn't ____, but it sort of looks like it, so it's not allowed".


This.  On the one hand, it is possible to create a perfectly SFW crop from an explicitly NSFW image.  *At the same time*, if it's clear that _only_ the most explicit bits have been cropped out and the remaining are still leaves a very clear impression of what's going on, is that acceptable?  I would think not, it's rulebending.  And rulebending itself is generally not promising behavior.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> wait wait wait
> So you cant make a submission that then links to cub porn say like this
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6387868/




Apprently not


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

Dasaki said:


> Source? There's nothing about this anywhere that I can find, and I've been seeing people doing this from the start without any action against them.



I would assume that it has to do with alert pay, if they caught wind of users doing this then FA would lose their funding. That is just my assumption though


----------



## Xenke (Apr 7, 2012)

Stratadrake said:


> This.  On the one hand, it is possible to create a perfectly SFW crop from an explicitly NSFW image.  *At the same time*, if it's clear that _only_ the most explicit bits have been cropped out and the remaining are still leaves a very clear impression of what's going on, is that acceptable?  I would think not, it's rulebending.  And rulebending itself is generally not promising behavior.



I'm using the assumption that cropping would have to eliminate the porn aspect of it all the way down past "sexually suggestive situation".

Which it would have to or else it would still be violating the AUP.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 7, 2012)

Wasn't this similar to the problem where the guy was posting to pornotube or something?


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Wasn't this similar to the problem where the guy was posting to pornotube or something?



I was just wondering since the reason cub art was banned was due to the alert pay issue. If they knew the site was allowing this then wouldn't that be catering to the reason it was banned? Meaning they can't post it directly but they are posting a pic heavily hinting at it.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 7, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Wasn't this similar to the problem where the guy was posting to pornotube or something?



Yes and no.

While both involve links offsite, (if I'm thinking of the same incident as you) the person in question had these links in their profile content (contact info, journal, etc) which the mature filter cannot be applied to. Generally, people who post cropped submissions file it under mature or adult and post the link in the description. IIRC, that's the line of reasoning why the former wasn't allowed: because any user including guests had access to those links.



Mali-Kyte said:


> I was just wondering since the reason cub art was banned was due to the alert pay issue. If they knew the site was allowing this then wouldn't that be catering to the reason it was banned? Meaning they can't post it directly but they are posting a pic heavily hinting at it.



This thread might be an interesting read for you.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 7, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> I was just wondering since the reason cub art was banned was due to the alert pay issue. If they knew the site was allowing this then wouldn't that be catering to the reason it was banned? Meaning they can't post it directly but they are posting a pic heavily hinting at it.



Go to Xenke's posted link about Aging up and read my reply. I'm actually referring to something else and Xenke responded



Xenke said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> While both involve links offsite, (if I'm thinking of the same incident as you) the person in question had these links in their profile content (contact info, journal, etc) which the mature filter cannot be applied to. Generally, people who post cropped submissions file it under mature or adult and post the link in the description. IIRC, that's the line of reasoning why the former wasn't allowed: because any user including guests had access to those links.



Yeah, I think we're thinking of the same incident. I thought however, the site had a filter and the argument was about "real porn" which I believe wasn't a valid argument since I don't think it matters if drawn or real is shown without warning or filter that the content you're linking to was not safe for work.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

Well Trpdwarf said no it's not allowed but I would like for Neer to say yes or no just to be 100% sure


----------



## Xenke (Apr 7, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah, I think we're thinking of the same incident. I thought however, the site had a filter and the argument was about "real porn" which I believe wasn't a valid argument since I don't think it matters if drawn or real is shown without warning or filter that the content you're linking to was not safe for work.



*finds thread*

Only Browder and Cerb seemed to weigh in on the subject (in that thread, another linked thread citing that 'Neer supported a rule barring adult RP in journals), Browder stating that



			
				Browder said:
			
		

> However since journals are currently not mature filter-able we've been operating on the police that it should be common sense not to post links to adult websites. Anyone can see your profile people, and we do not want to be contributing to the delinquency of a minor.



This is dated though, and the staff's position is likely to have changed (ToS still doesn't reflect this policy, however).


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 7, 2012)

Yeah...that's the thread but I remember having a discussion about it, maybe somewhere else. I just don't see how "drawn porn" without at least a warning wouldn't contribute to the delinquency of a minor over "omg real porn". I don't think a parent is going "oh thank God it's drawn, would have messed up Jimmy for life".


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> I would assume that it has to do with alert pay, if they caught wind of users doing this then FA would lose their funding. That is just my assumption though



FA hasn't had a reliable funding source from outside parties for the last year and a half. There's the occasional donation by money order, but those are incredibly few and far in between.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 7, 2012)

**UPDATE**
2 of my trouble tickets have been answered and they confirmed that it is indeed against the rules of FA. I would hope that the admins of FA warns people. As much as I don't like it personally I'd hate to see people get suspended for something that isn't actually stated int he AUP


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 8, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The answer to this is no. Cropping out parts of the picture doesn't change the fact that it's still cub porn and not allowed. Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.


Correct. If people are trying to loophole the site rules and policies by linking to violations offsite... then it would be an issue.


----------



## Erethzium (Apr 8, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Linking to where you can find the original is also not allowed.



Really? I've seen tons and tons of people doing this; posting cropped images and then linking to Inkbunny in the description.


----------



## Ainoko (Apr 8, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Correct. If people are trying to loophole the site rules and policies by linking to violations offsite... then it would be an issue.



Then, please dragoneer, make it known, update the TOS/AUP regarding this issue. Also make sure that you draft a sound set of guidelines that clearly define what is and isn't allowed to be uploaded to the main site. And I am talking about guidelines that every admin must abide by. You want a respectable site, then start making the admins toe the line. It doesn't help when one admin says that art "A" is ok to be posted and another admin states that the same art is unacceptable but will allow art "B" to be posted that is violating the TOS/AUP. I would suggest that you put something in place for artists who have accounts on FA, SF and IB that will allow them to alert their watchers on FA who don't have an IB account or has one that is rarely used that they have posted art on that particular account. I know that the trolls here on the forums are going to have a field day with this and honestly I don't give a damn. I have seen a few artists who do link their IB art over on the main site and nothing is done, as well as some artists who have had linked art get the submission removed. 

What I am saying is that when it does come to what is considered cub art is ambiguous at best unknown at worst. Until you make what is considered acceptable and unacceptable cub art loud and clear, definitions that EVERY admin can base their decisions on, definitions that EVERY member on the main site can understand, then you are going to have dissent and drama, both here and on the main site. I get the feeling that some admins would rather not have any cub art on the main site at all clean, or otherwise, and those admins are the ones who are causing dissent with the members.


----------



## Devious Bane (Apr 8, 2012)

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Cub Porn, "cropped" or not, is still Cub Porn. Likewise, linking to Cub Porn in the description is just as bad as posting Cub Porn into the gallery. This being said, it's not permitted.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Apr 8, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Correct. If people are trying to loophole the site rules and policies by linking to violations offsite... then it would be an issue.



Well then Neer I *HIGHLY *suggest you make an announcement stating so because its a growing problem. I have reported 10+ pics so far and I have noticed that its everywhere and I think its because its not listed in the AUP.


----------



## Devious Bane (Apr 8, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> I think its because its not listed in the AUP.


That certainly has something to do with it.


----------



## RedReynart (Apr 12, 2012)

From Neers Response any link that offs to another site a picture that is otherwise against the AUP in the case cub porn is not allowed. So does this mean every link? Example. I post a picture and all its says is "My new house" or something then I have in the discription a link and it is showing off a bunch of DVD players and CD players and so forth. Which is against the AUP as its Manufactured items. Would this not be acceptable? Even thought the AUP states that you should use photobucket for things like that. But it doesn't say we can link to it. Because I can see someone definatly bringing that up.


----------



## Devious Bane (Apr 13, 2012)

That's something the AUP doesn't directly cover.
If you want to show that kind of stuff off, it* may* be permitted through the journal system. If it links to certain kinds of material however, it'd be in your best interest to tag what it is you're linking to in the journal. As far as submissions are concerned, it is assumed that it is not permitted.


----------



## RedReynart (Apr 13, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> That's something the AUP doesn't directly cover.
> If you want to show that kind of stuff off, it* may* be permitted through the journal system. If it links to certain kinds of material however, it'd be in your best interest to tag what it is you're linking to in the journal. As far as submissions are concerned, it is assumed that it is not permitted.



yeah I would assume the same but definatly want word on that. Seen it happen a few times. 

On a Post in the forum which Fay V mentioned that all photographs of Manufactured items were not allowed. And defined it as being something created in a factory and then sold in a store. What if the item was created as such but contained the users work. Example an artist that sumits a work for heat and has it published within. Can we advertise a link in which one can by the magazine? Since it is manufactured?

XD someone is going to get a ton of trouble tickets in the morning.


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Apr 17, 2012)

Haven't read the entire thread, but my opinion is that journal links to outside sites should still be allowed. Nothing is shown on FA this way.


----------



## Erethzium (Apr 17, 2012)

If such content is banned from being posted, posting links directly to it should be banned as well. Essentially the same thing.


----------



## Devious Bane (Apr 17, 2012)

Erethzium said:


> Essentially the same thing.



(See Also: Loophole)


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Apr 19, 2012)

Erethzium said:


> If such content is banned from being posted, posting links directly to it should be banned as well. Essentially the same thing.



What about a link to the site (in general) where such content is hosted? E.g. linking to your gallery on the site, instead of the actual image? If this isn't allowed either, how else are your watchers supposed to know where they can go to see what they presumably originally watched you for?

EDIT: Uploading an image to a site and linking to it on the same site are not the same. One requires the image in question be hosted on the site. The other does not violate any terms that prohibit posting said images.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 19, 2012)

Silverwolfoneofmany said:


> What about a link to the site (in general) where such content is hosted? E.g. linking to your gallery on the site, instead of the actual image? If this isn't allowed either, how else are your watchers supposed to know where they can go to see what they presumably originally watched you for?
> 
> EDIT: Uploading an image to a site and linking to it on the same site are not the same. One requires the image in question be hosted on the site. The other does not violate any terms that prohibit posting said images.


A link to the site is allowed, making a submission cropping out a cub porn picture for said submission then posting a link to the submission on another site that allows cub porn is against the rules


----------

