# What the crap?



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

I log in, and suddenly there's 29 journals.  of then, 17 are about the FA mods and general extreme cries of 'attack/kill the mods' and other such extreme outcry.

FIVE seperate artists are complaining about mass deletions of their gallery due to FA suddenly changing rules, and not explaining what was changed or why suddenly dozens of pictures were deleted from each gallery.



Now, before I make any judgements, i'd sure like to know...
What's FA's official stance?  I've not seen this much drama spill out this fast into the actual FA site since the cubfur dramafest.  None of these posts are even two hours old!

What happened, and why do so many users suddenly want to revolt on FA?
The posts are all so vague.  Just mass deletions, mods responsible, and 'unwritten rules'.  But they ARE all consistant.

Dragoneer or someone?  What's going on?


----------



## Damaratus (Jan 10, 2008)

The rules were kept by, though it may be the rules themselves that still need work or adjusting.  The removals were consistent with the harassment that occurred.  The drama is bigger than it ought to be and not nearly as widespread as it seems.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

BTW, i'm not naming names.  But the artists involved are all VERY high profile.  Not just some corner-stuffer like Vegex.


These people have art on the main site banners and donation buttons.  They make an actual considerable % of the traffic on FA.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

I think we're discussing different situations.

These are FIVE seperate artists, each with one or more (over a dozen, in one case) pictures removed, and three accounts banned.

I see no connection to the content removed, the bans, or any unifying rule.  They seem totally unrelated.

You sure we're talking about the same thing?




edit:
Scratch that, i'll PM, since I actually got a response this time.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

Mystery solved:

Unrelated series of coincidences.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Jan 10, 2008)

Aw crap, does that mean it's my turn to make the popcorn this time? D:

Anywho, it's likely a case of butthurt because the mods enforced the rules. Probably not from the media watchdog Uncia's prowl, but you may never know.

Either that or it's a hole in the database that will expand and eat the internet. Kinda like the nothing from the Neverending Story.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

Basically, short story long..

Drama happened.  Drama spilled over.  Admin did job.  Admin got flak by those who caused drama.
Fanboys gave flak because dramallamas said to do so.

Someone's account glitched.

Three unrelated events occured.


I mis-associated all of these into one massive dramafest.


----------



## jamestigris (Jan 10, 2008)

Janglur said:
			
		

> I think we're discussing different situations.
> 
> These are FIVE seperate artists, each with one or more (over a dozen, in one case) pictures removed, and three accounts banned.
> 
> I see no connection to the content removed, the bans, or any unifying rule.  They seem totally unrelated.



Actually the three or four instances that I saw all were related to images depicting Dragon voring (dragons being eaten).

The three artists that I've seen affected so far are KamiCheetah, Sonderjen, and Strega.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

Strega?

That's new to me.  Link?



I'm just curious now about the actual drama, now that I know there isn't an insane admin on the loose as it appeared at first.  If the drama is just what i've seen from the major artists, then i'm happy with it for the most part.
It was when friends of mine had accounts/posts/pics dissapear that I wondered WTF was up.  They seemed 100% unrelated.

and they were.


----------



## jamestigris (Jan 10, 2008)

This is actually from a week ago but it's so spot on topic with the rest of them that I would have to assume it is somehow related.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/272605/

What I don't understand is what the hell is going on! All the journals are talking about an admin removing submissions and banning accounts for having posted inappropriate or harassing images.  Near as I can tell the images have to do with Dragon vore.  What I don't understand is how any of these images constitute harassment.  Especially if you look at the KamiCheetah one (the only one I found), it seems completely innocuous and just plain cute.

It seemed that people thought an admin had gone nuts. Reading between the lines what I assumed had happened was an admin account hack, in which the hacking party tried to sow as much havoc as possible in the least obvious way.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 10, 2008)

I assumed an admin had gone nuts too.  History shows that as a highly probable occurance with FA.


Luckily, this seems not the case.  The original issue /I/ saw was justified, and the drama a lot smaller and less widespread than it seemed.


A series of unfortunate events leading to an incorrect assumption.


----------



## Ailure (Jan 10, 2008)

Now "Dragon vore" turned into a fad.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 10, 2008)

Janglur said:
			
		

> I assumed an admin had gone nuts too.  History shows that as a highly probable occurance with FA.
> 
> 
> Luckily, this seems not the case.  The original issue /I/ saw was justified, and the drama a lot smaller and less widespread than it seemed.
> ...



I'm sorry but no.

Admins made a poor judgment call on this one. (aside from the ban on a user which was not related).

For the dragon thing:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/874629/

The submissions is *TWO MONTHS OLD*

The user decided to start up crap *A WEEK AGO*

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/874629/#cid:6448684

Calling someone else an idiot and starting up some discussion that didn't need to be done on another submission that had nothing to do with that user.

You decide to punish other artists that feel it's within their right to draw subject matter within the TOS  regardless of what spurned it, you FAILED TO DEAL WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

That user is caustic, he's going to continue antagonizing users for a subject matter he disagrees with that isn't even against the TOS, to use the TOS on one side of it and not effectively when that user is going to be a problem is the reason you got this meme and other stuff going when it should have been that the user who started should have been dealt with.

He has his opinion on things fine, but to willingly start calling people idiots on something so trivial, was way out of line.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, to recap what I told someone else as a recap of what i've seen of the situation, and peiced together via testimonies on ALL sides involved:



Well, from what i've seen..

Sonderjen suggested a bunch of people go bash cubfurs. Then was banned for it.

A week later, someone is lost and stumbles on drama, and two others get involved.
It's handled by an admin, and people whine.


Then another subject, someone is super-crazy-obsessed with dragons to the point of going up in arms anytime one is shown dying, and they go out of their way to cause admin to step in and do something. They're both told to STFU and stop bickering, and someone just keeeeeps on pushing and puts up an inflammatory picture of someone eating the crazy person's char. That's harassment, and a nono. And admin remove and punish accordingly.
This is then misconstrued by the public at large to mean vore is banned on FA now. When in fact the original couple of images deleted were done to directly harass someone.


Thus, these are posted in protest of FA banning vore. Which they haven't done.

Hularious, no?




And for missing accounts entirely, apparently another, also unrelated, bug has caused that, which is being looked into.



No mass conspiracy
No horrible plot against the queen's life
Everyone can go the fuck home.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

Janglur said:
			
		

> They're both told to STFU and stop bickering, and someone just keeeeeps on pushing and puts up an inflammatory picture of someone eating the crazy person's char. That's harassment, and a nono. And admin remove and punish accordingly.


*nods*. The 6 day gap to taking action didn't help to make the root cause vs. resultant action very clear, nor explain to those following along as to why others were "caught up in that".

Leaving "B& for being a dick" on the primary community members profile doesn't exactly help to quell the drama, however. (Indeed, last time that was also counterproductive and became major drama in its own right; as should have been obvious).

02c/ymmv, anyhow,
d.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 11, 2008)

They were considered harassment because someone else linked the submissions to his shout page. That's harassment but the images are not. If someone feels like posting "I'm gonna draw what I want that doesn't directly violate the TOS" that's their right. Simply because the other user didn't like it because it involved an incident that they involved themselves in still doesn't equate harassment.

Problem 2. There are a lot of incidents that will cause people to draw artwork. The user who is upset by it when the other artists don't even know of the "fursona's appearance" or what they look like can't unfortunately say it was targeted. Related? Yes, specifically targeted, no. You have evidence that supports that it was indeed *that* person's character, or was it a random dragon?

http://kamicheetah.deviantart.com/art/Paper-Dragons-74295936

I don't see that user's name or resemblance?

So besides other people using it to harass him, how is it the artist's fault they're parodying the general mess of how dragon vore became some kind of serious business. I mean especially since this wasn't the first incident.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

* is referring to Sonderjen, personally. (Not typing my full thoughts on the big picture here, for obvious reasons).

Way to go with fighting apparent immaturity with immaturity in the community "response", btw...



















Having enquired, it seems as though the usual ban then emailing/leaving a reason for that might not have been followed-through this time and it was possibly Sonderjen themselves who left that message on the way out the door (rather neatly using a near-identical message to that which /did/ cause serious drama last time, if so).
Looks like that's been edited now on their profile.

02c/afaik, anyhow.
d.


----------



## TwitchSandwich (Jan 11, 2008)

You gotta admit though, the cop is absolutely freaking hilarious.


----------



## WesCollieyote (Jan 11, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> * is referring to Sonderjen, personally. (Not typing my full thoughts on the big picture here, for obvious reasons).
> 
> Way to go with fighting apparent immaturity with immaturity in the community "response", btw...
> 
> ...



Hey guess what? They're PG-13. Krystal Sandwich all over again.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 11, 2008)

Oh man, this guy is sooo cool. He spelled Banned like B&. I never would of thought of that.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

WesCollieyote said:
			
		

> Hey guess what? They're PG-13. Krystal Sandwich all over again.


Hey, guess what? (*2). Did I say anything about PG-13?

"Way to go with fighting apparent immaturity with immaturity in the community "response", btw..."
Nope, nothing in that.

Fortunately most admins here probably would probably go easy on considering those avatars to be "harassment" of administrative team members, although that could easily be read into those and I've seen such stances adopted elsewhere. No need for discussion, btw, since the interpretation is clearly wide enough open.

Regards,
David.


----------



## BijouxDeFoxxe (Jan 11, 2008)

Just to note, it wasn't a member of the staff or Admin team who but the "B&" messege on Sonderjen's page.  They did it themselves.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 11, 2008)

Do you really expect the Angry Sheep to care?


----------



## TwitchSandwich (Jan 11, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Do you really expect the Angry Sheep to care?



Umm, I knew this already? And he's already f'n said so himself:

http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/332309.html?thread=4149269#t4149269


----------



## WesCollieyote (Jan 11, 2008)

BijouxDeFoxxe said:
			
		

> Just to note, it wasn't a member of the staff or Admin team who but the "B&" messege on Sonderjen's page.  They did it themselves.



Uh, that's the meme?


----------



## WesCollieyote (Jan 11, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> WesCollieyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey guess what? I'm replying to the fact that you're always snitching on someone or other for the smallest infringements. That's why I said "PG-13," because you're whining about it.


----------



## Haystack (Jan 11, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Do you really expect the Angry Sheep to care?



Angry Mutton Vore is the obvious (and scrumptious) solution to the problem of Angry Sheep.  Pity I'm too sleepy to get crackin' on that just now...


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 11, 2008)

TwitchSandwich said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I repeat:


			
				Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Do you really expect the Angry Sheep to care?


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

TwitchSandwich said:
			
		

> Umm, I knew this already? And he's already f'n said so himself:
> http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/332309.html?thread=4149269#t4149269


aside: for Sonderjen's information and to clear the matter;
>> "Hey sonderjen, didnt your profile always say "b& for being a dick" as like, a joke?"
> "Yeah, that's been up a few months, as theDave has been copy/pasting everywhere."
That was not "theDave" either, but another member of the admin team for whom Dave took the flak.

d.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> I repeat:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not particularly. It does make focusing on any genuine issues a lot more difficult, though.


----------



## WesCollieyote (Jan 11, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah like all the Simpsons makers and screenshots of video games. Also, why is satire again one politician acceptable but satire against a character isn't?

Man, the world would go into chaos if it weren't for you.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 11, 2008)

Because the politician isn't here to bitch and whine about it.


----------



## Taigitsune (Jan 11, 2008)

STOP BANNING PEOPLE. There. Problem solved.

History has also shown that the cover-up of a high profile issue only serves to confuse the public and muddle the facts. Stop deleting the evidence and people will know what happened.

I may or may not support the ban, but I'd be a helluva lot less po'ed if I knew what caused all this. If it was justified based on the evidence, I'd support it. If not, I'd politely petition for the reversal of the ban and the discipline of the mod who was responsible.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 11, 2008)

Taigitsune said:
			
		

> STOP BANNING PEOPLE. There. Problem solved.


Have fun with the Trolls then.


----------



## imnohbody (Jan 11, 2008)

Taigitsune, seeing as how you're commenting on the issue even though you admitted you _don't_ know what the story is, I'm suspicious (at best) you wouldn't find something else to complain about.

As for users being "po'ed" about it, so? The internet isn't a democracy (representative republic, whatever  ), but a collection of absolute dictatorships. FA is one of them. Don't like their policies and/or how they're implemented? Don't use them.



> There. Problem solved.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> Taigitsune, seeing as how you're commenting on the issue even though you admitted you _don't_ know what the story is, I'm suspicious (at best) you wouldn't find something else to complain about.


Given that Janglur's post on the previous page ain't reading too badly by way of summarised explanation, it wouldn't have taken too large a trawl-through to find at least that much.



			
				imnohbody said:
			
		

> As for users being "po'ed" about it, so? The internet isn't a democracy (representative republic, whatever  ), but a collection of absolute dictatorships. FA is one of them. Don't like their policies and/or how they're implemented? Don't use them.
> 
> 
> > There. Problem solved.


*smiles* Personally, I still don't like that "if you don't like it, get lost" approach, albeit it's an easy one to slide towards, since trying to be more inclusive takes much more effort than being heavy-handed with and not caring about community members. 
always ymmv, but it's a balancing act regardless.

d.


----------



## Sonderjen (Jan 11, 2008)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Taigitsune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd personally rather deal with the trolls.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

Sonderjen said:
			
		

> I'd personally rather deal with the trolls.


Heh... you were dealing with the trolls in this case. 
(Not for the first time, either).

d.


----------



## Gullible (Jan 11, 2008)

This whole debacle should have been avoided in the first place.  As we know from previous drama, draguns R 100% pred!!!!11

But seriously, I dunno what's going on, and I don't really care that much.  My greatest affront was having my attempt on the meme deleted for being an image altered with a cropped photo.  I take offense since it was my photo, which is my art, but bleh.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 11, 2008)

Umm if you start using that argument about visible profile you just gave users a way to be abusive just because of some stupid status due to popularity. This is just aside from Sonderjen's ban. I just find the argument ridiculous that because someone is hight profile or popular they shouldn't be banned.

Gullible, lol sorry it is funny. If it is your photo it shouldn't have been taken down. I do understand though they don't find it content if people are just googling photos and adding image macros that they didn't create.

Synx apparently had the art of dragon vore for a while (people can verify the prelim sketches iirc), and it happened to be coincidence from what I understand that he saw the other user's diatribe and posted the art.

Like I said, I don't see how the two drawings were taken as harassment, it was the fact other people went and posted the links and shouted on the user's page that *could* be.

Also, yes, the problem with that episode is that the gap didn't say problem was resolved earlier. 

Since the images were about "controversial" subject matter and not using the user (who protested it) itself in anyway I still fail to see how it's harassment. The images shouldn't have been taken down.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 11, 2008)

Taigitsune said:
			
		

> STOP BANNING PEOPLE. There. Problem solved.
> 
> History has also shown that the cover-up of a high profile issue only serves to confuse the public and muddle the facts. Stop deleting the evidence and people will know what happened.
> 
> I may or may not support the ban, but I'd be a helluva lot less po'ed if I knew what caused all this. If it was justified based on the evidence, I'd support it. If not, I'd politely petition for the reversal of the ban and the discipline of the mod who was responsible.






Not only is staff NOT covering anything up, the issue is practically open-door.  Not only did they tell me everything, >I< told >them< things >they< didn't know, simply by visiting a half-dozen people's recent journals.


What happened was harassment.  Sonderjen was banned for it.

Bashing folks on the site for their kinks, and ecouraging non-online, in-person harassment of said people, and then drawing inflammatory pictures of said person's char without permission, IS NOT COOL.


And anyone (Uncia, Arses, etc.) can tell you how much I oppose FA staff every step of the way on my crusade of an FA 'for the people, by the people'.  So if I'M saying folks need to STFU and GTFO their case, then it's fairly obvious you're being retarded.

There is no evil plot to assassinate the president (unfortunately)
There is no sinister biological dumping
There is no terrible plot
GO THE FUCK HOME.


----------



## yak (Jan 11, 2008)

Gullible said:
			
		

> This whole debacle should have been avoided in the first place.  As we know from previous drama, draguns R 100% pred!!!!11
> 
> But seriously, I dunno what's going on, and I don't really care that much.  My greatest affront was having my attempt on the meme deleted for being an image altered with a cropped photo.  I take offense since it was my photo, which is my art, but bleh.


It's hard to measure artistic merit of a submission, and the amount of effort put in it's creation. IT's something that AUP uses a measure to determine what is allowed and what is not, but the "amount enough" isn't really defined anywhere, even vaguely, and for a reason. 

That reason is multilayered really, part personal preferences, part preferential treatment, part misinterpretation or not enough information - all of which leads to misunderstanding and accusations from the userbase commenting on the actions taken according to the rules. Besides, it is not something we want to do - tell people what is art and what is not.

So as a half-suitable solution i will use the "time taken" measure to estimate the amount of effort put in a submission, and why one will qualify and why one will not.
In the above poster's case, Gullible, photoshopping a crop of an animal photo over a pre-existing image  takes about 5 minutes, even when the user is not skilled or familiar with how Photoshop works. And it's not an artistic action, it's a procedure where the creativity can only be shown in picking the photo, and the position of the placement of the crop.


The cardinality of such a picture will be low, because a great many people will adopt and use the same idea. Content of low cardinality is usually an avatar meme, or spam. I honestly do not believe the "art" aspect of this website should be watered down with content of low cardinality.

Clearly only the time factor is not enough, but it plays a significant if not the determining role in why photoshopped memes are, and will not be allowed on FA. 

I will state this again, probably said already somewhere by someone.
If you add your own content that is not part of any previous or on-going memes like the lazer dude or leonidas, e.g somewhat original rather then completely not - then the submission will not be removed.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

yak said:
			
		

> I will state this again, probably said already somewhere by someone.
> If you add your own content that is not part of any previous or on-going memes like the lazer dude or leonidas, e.g somewhat original rather then completely not - then the submission will not be removed.


Heh... *waves over* per http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=16204&pid=277457#pid277457

In general...
Does that mean "harassment via meme" is no longer an issue?
And that "spamming" is only applied on a per-user basis?

d.


----------



## noitaroproc (Jan 11, 2008)

every single admin on furaffinity is utterly incompetent.


watch me get banned.


----------



## Gullible (Jan 11, 2008)

yak said:
			
		

> In the above poster's case, Gullible, photoshopping a crop of an animal photo over a pre-existing image  takes about 5 minutes, even when the user is not skilled or familiar with how Photoshop works. And it's not an artistic action, it's a procedure where the creativity can only be shown in picking the photo, and the position of the placement of the crop.



I take your points into consideration, however if you count the time it took to travel down to the coast and take the photos from which this one came, the "production time" would become several hours.  Photography takes time too. D:


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 11, 2008)

yak,

A bit of disagreement here, just because he took his own photo and did a very quick job with it, doesn't discount it as art. A lot of people just use the magic wand and floodfill a picture yet they get to stay.

What about commissions done by other people, that are reposted, for you by you would apply but if time was a factor, the commissioner put no time in it at all.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jan 11, 2008)

Trying to argue "Art" and "not Art" is pointless in general. A crappy cell phone photo that most people would call "not art" could still be seen as Art by somebody. Trying to define what is and isn't art based on time put into something is also silly. Someone can do a 5 minute sketch that many would call art, while another person can put hours into something that is largely regarded as "not as good" as the simpler sketch. Or an experienced and seasoned Artist can do an impressive work, where a beginner may need twice the time to do something half as good. Time put into something does not a work of Art make.

I really hope we're not going to try and define what is and isn't art with any sorts of rules. The rules should define what we do and do not allow. If it comes to saying "we allow it if it's Art," and leave it at that, then we might as well just ASK people to start fighting. 9_9


----------



## Loiosh (Jan 11, 2008)

> Bashing folks on the site for their kinks, and ecouraging non-online, in-person harassment of said people, and then drawing inflammatory pictures of said person's char without permission, IS NOT COOL.



Just a note here for those keeping score. Both character's pictured were not 'the person's' character. The person in this case being Dragon103. Dragon103 was complaining about someone _else's_ character being pictured. 

I found his posts rather... interesting.


----------



## Sonderjen (Jan 11, 2008)

Loiosh said:
			
		

> > Bashing folks on the site for their kinks, and ecouraging non-online, in-person harassment of said people, and then drawing inflammatory pictures of said person's char without permission, IS NOT COOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure most people did. I do find it odd that, on the whole, how he acted  was much more harassing and vitriolic than the artwork his tantrum inspired.


----------



## Loiosh (Jan 11, 2008)

Sonderjen said:
			
		

> Loiosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say more frightening. Hopefully he's just young and a little crazy infatuated with a character. I know I used to love on Ruth (from Dragonriders of Pern).


----------



## jamestigris (Jan 11, 2008)

Amen brother, Amen.  This is why we aren't a selective art community, they suck.



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Trying to argue "Art" and "not Art" is pointless in general. A crappy cell phone photo that most people would call "not art" could still be seen as Art by somebody. Trying to define what is and isn't art based on time put into something is also silly. Someone can do a 5 minute sketch that many would call art, while another person can put hours into something that is largely regarded as "not as good" as the simpler sketch. Or an experienced and seasoned Artist can do an impressive work, where a beginner may need twice the time to do something half as good. Time put into something does not a work of Art make.
> 
> I really hope we're not going to try and define what is and isn't art with any sorts of rules. The rules should define what we do and do not allow. If it comes to saying "we allow it if it's Art," and leave it at that, then we might as well just ASK people to start fighting. 9_9


----------



## yak (Jan 11, 2008)

noitaroproc said:
			
		

> every single admin on furaffinity is utterly incompetent.
> 
> 
> watch me get banned.


You caught a giant catfish! (That's because you used a giant mousefish as bait!)



			
				Gullible said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a fellow photographer, trust me, i know it does.
But the end result is still the same, very similar or even an exact match of what others may and will probably do, be the photo something of their own creation or came from a google search. There is no way, even remotely reliable, to tell that the original photo belongs to you or not, and frankly speaking, i think there could be other things the administration could do rather then spending their time verifying sources. 

FA, as an art site, is already watered down to the point where it hardly resembles an art site any more. It becomes more of an image dump of some sort, and i'm honestly not saying that to reprimand someone; more of a very broad look at things. I fully realize it comes with the territory of focusing not on physical media, but more on the providing a platform for the community's development. That, however, does not exclude the possibility that this path strays somewhat from the collective vision the people behind the website have of it, and would like to be followed. 
Pretty words aside, taking in consideration and accepting the ramifications the community needs impose on that vision we would still like to see FA focus more on the original, user created content rather then a semi-periodic flood of media that has a limited timespan of interest in it, and being a rather annoying spam to those not sharing the idea of said flood.  Memes are short-lived by definition, and should have a short-lived platform to develop on. 




			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> yak,
> 
> A bit of disagreement here, just because he took his own photo and did a very quick job with it, doesn't discount it as art. A lot of people just use the magic wand and floodfill a picture yet they get to stay.
> 
> What about commissions done by other people, that are reposted, for you by you would apply but if time was a factor, the commissioner put no time in it at all.


I know very well i would fail the english exam if i ever tried to join any high-level educational facility. So perhaps i misused the term "factor" in what i said earlier. I meant to say something along the lines that time was something to consider when making up a decision, a "factor", and i've said that it definitely isn't the only one, though in that case probably the major.
There are numerous others that apply, of course. But trust me when i tell you, i will be the first one to fight the tendency of the behavior otherwise described as trying to be the judge of what is art and what is not, if such will ever be clearly expressed by the administration. I, for one, would be greatly saddened of ever being in the not good enough group, regardless of whether that estimate would be legitimate or not.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. The "cons" overweigh the "pros". It's a meme and on top of that it's photoshopped - these factors alone raise the red flag. User created submissions on that meme will qualify still, unless they will be going against other rules of the site.

The cardinality of "ideas" in a meme is already seriously capped by the meme's theme - not that much creativity options left there - and when it starts to resolve to the submissions made of bits and pieces of things photoshopped together it is a time when we seriously have to put our foot down, regardless of great many things. 

So without sugar coating my entire reply in Shakespearian prose and poetry, i'll just say that every place occupied by the crappy mspaint doodle, renamed to a jpeg file and submitted to FA rivalling certain musical submissions in bytecount, that place could have been occupied by your masterpiece instead. And so could it be so in your message center and the browse section. From a hardware side of the site, FA it's far from being limitless.


----------



## Sonderjen (Jan 11, 2008)

You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".

Per FA's AUP:

Harassment
Images clearly intended to harass or slander other members of the community will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, images that directly convey racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association directed at another individual or group.

Per dictionary definition:

haÂ·rass      /hÉ™ËˆrÃ¦s, ËˆhÃ¦rÉ™s/
â€“verb (used with object)
1.	to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2.	to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

Where on FA did I or anyone else do this? The key to harassment is continual pestering, which is easily circumvented with FA's built-in blocking system that any user is free to utilize. By definition, Dragon103's comments were much more harassing than what we did, even if the artist whose page the arguments occurred wasn't offended. Once a user starts using sockpuppet accounts to get to someone, I could see it as being a harassment case.

Of the following comments, which is more confrontational:

A: "Haha wow, grow up and get a life, kid!" (well, that's the jist of a couple shouts... you get the idea)

B: (a link to parody art) and a couple of these:    

Come on. Really now. You make us sound like thugs.


----------



## XeNoX (Jan 11, 2008)

"You are a loose canon Admin X., you are suspended, gimme you gun and badge!" -if this were a movie


----------



## yak (Jan 11, 2008)

Sonderjen said:
			
		

> You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".


It's your right to do so. Pick up the phone and dial 28557448


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

Sonderjen said:
			
		

> You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".



Quick question, aside;
Why the selective quotes and clauses which you read only in your favor, Sonderjen, given that it is almost certain you were called out on the ToS as well as the AUP?

viz.


			
				ToS said:
			
		

> Code of Conduct
> You agree to respect the rights of others and their rights to join and engage in the Fur Affinity community. The basic guidelines listed below will be enforced by Fur Affinity Administrators and Staff. By using the Service, you also agree to Fur Affinityâ€™s "Three Primary Laws of Common Courtesy"
> 
> The Three Laws of Courtesy:
> ...



Or was that not (also) used?
But, presuming it was, in what way do you believe you were excused from this when you deliberately did not report any issues with a given user but continued to escalate the matter having taken it into your own hands to "deal with".

Regards,
David.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 11, 2008)

yak said:
			
		

> Let's look at this from a different perspective. The "cons" overweigh the "pros". It's a meme and on top of that it's photoshopped - these factors alone raise the red flag. User created submissions on that meme will qualify still, unless they will be going against other rules of the site.



Understandable, I think that's a self moderation thing, I'd love to see some quality control, but I'd rather that fall on the user's discretion and well .... (other than the TOS trying to eliminate the myspace aspect)

The problem is though sure there isn't quality control over art and different skill levels and while I wouldn't say "that's not art" I certainly feel it's within rights to say "that's bad art"

Bad Art doesn't mean a Bad Person but that's whole nother topic.


Like I said my problem with the whole thing were two users submissions removed when it was more of an indirect "attack" when the person wasn't named or used. In fact, Hilda is the one being used.

People need to watch Pan's Labyrinth.


----------



## Sonderjen (Jan 11, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> Sonderjen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Someone had already brought the issue up in the harassment forum - there was absolutely no reason to be redundant. What on earth did I take into my own hands? It's satire of a silly incident, and there are far more extreme things that could have been done.

I would like to know if anyone directly involved in the original incident actually contacted you, or if this is something the mods took upon themselves to enforce some nebulous view of proper conduct. 

Also:


> Disruptive behavior shall be deemed to include, but will not be limited to, conduct which purposefully interferes with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries, or dialogue in the chat or forums.



Last I checked, the dust had already settled and no one gave a damn about any of those pictures anymore. I forgot I'd even drawn it while I was guessing the reasons behind my ban - I had to learn *that* through the forums and off-site resources. Through its actions, THE MODERATION kicked up one hell of a bigger storm than we ever could have. However entertaining this debacle has been, their decisions have been far more disruptive in the cause-and-effect.

You still haven't presented any evidence proving the contrary and I believe a reversal is in order.


----------



## uncia (Jan 11, 2008)

All comments/observations 02c only, of course...



			
				Sonderjen said:
			
		

> Last I checked, the dust had already settled and no one gave a damn about any of those pictures anymore.


There is no statute of limitation on FA. If it takes six days to discuss and pass a vote for whatever reason, is that not still a bit better than an immediate knee-jerk reaction?



			
				Sonderjen said:
			
		

> I forgot I'd even drawn it while I was guessing the reasons behind my ban


Given that you'd received a comment on that submission only the day before it was deleted and that there were well over 50 comments and several dozen +favs on that, I find it had to believe you'd totally "forgotten" you'd ever drawn it. (And that aside from the related "drama" off-site which is not relevant here: you know which sites, though).



			
				Sonderjen said:
			
		

> - I had to learn *that* through the forums and off-site resources. Through its actions, THE MODERATION kicked up one hell of a bigger storm than we ever could have. However entertaining this debacle has been, their decisions have been far more disruptive in the cause-and-effect.


That there were any such issues does not excuse your behavior in the first instance.



			
				Sonderjen said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.

At least there should be no repeat on any such incident to the same degree as it is not possible to fail to realise by now that if there is such an issue with a community member, the best approach is to raise that with the administration.

Regards,
David.


----------



## Sonderjen (Jan 11, 2008)

> There is no statute of limitation on FA. If it takes six days to discuss and pass a vote for whatever reason, is that not still a bit better than an immediate knee-jerk reaction?



An a faulty decision is still incorrect no matter when it arrives. I would judge the massive wave of disagreements and open derision of the administrative staff from the general user base as an indicator that the decision was indeed faulty.



> Given that you'd received a comment on that submission only the day before it was deleted and that there were well over 50 comments and several dozen +favs on that, I find it had to believe you'd totally "forgotten" you'd ever drawn it. (And that aside from the related "drama" off-site which is not relevant here: you know which sites, though).



At the moment of thinking back to anything I'd done that could even remotely be worth a ban, yes. Yes I had forgotten about it. My exact response upon finding out was, "Huh? THAT?"



> It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).



You make it sound like the conversations went something along the lines of:

"hurr hurr, that'll show 'im"

"yeh, hurr hurr"

And yet, I don't recall this being the case.



> At least there should be no repeat on any such incident to the same degree as it is not possible to fail to realise by now that if there is such an issue with a community member, the best approach is to raise that with the administration.



Wait... no? Had this been something I had a real issue with and was deeply offended by, I would have approached administration proper. This wasn't. The whole situation was silly and insignificant, but everyone's approaching this like someone had acid poured over them.

And I can see how this could devolve into a nuh-uh/yeah-huh argument with you, and would love input from the primary administrators who made the decision. I STILL have not received a direct statement from anyone, and perhaps I'm missing something?

I doubt it though.


----------



## soundhound (Jan 11, 2008)

Janglur said:
			
		

> BTW, i'm not naming names.  But the artists involved are all VERY high profile.  Not just some corner-stuffer like Vegex.


Ooh, name-dropping. Classy!


			
				uncia said:
			
		

> It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
> Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.


Wait, are you kidding me? There was nothing malicious about Sonderjen's submission. He was poking fun at something silly that happened on FA, there were no direct attacks against anyone involved :?


----------



## agouti-rex (Jan 12, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
> Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.



Ya know, Dragon103 was whinging because someone drew a gory pic of paleman eating a little blue dragon when he only wanted to see happy pictures of dragons being eaten. Sonderjen obliges him and gets banned? Has it come to the point that objectively innocent pictures done with slightly tongue-in-cheek intent are off limits? 

I think it's obvious that the only solution here is to limit Furaffinity so that it's nothing but Second Live dog dick avatars.


----------



## Firehazard (Jan 12, 2008)

Wait, hold on a minute.  Let me make sure I understand what's going on here.





*TEAL DEER CROSSING AHEAD: USE CAUTION*

1. Sonderjen was "banned" from the main site.  (I'll explain the quoteyhickeys in a moment.)

2. The staff member responsible for enacting said "ban" has not, as of yet, contacted Sonderjen with an explanation as to why.  However, a brief but vague explanation _was_ sent by _somebody_.

3. Said "ban" is actually a three-day suspension.

4. The reason for the "ban" was, apparently, (A) being involved in a meme that apparently was originally meant to be hurtful towards somebody, and (B) not playing vigilante and reporting other users for posting negative comments about that somebody.

Am I right so far?  _Assuming I am_ (and disregard if I happen to be off on some crucial point), I pre-emptively make the following commentary:

1. Okay, whatever.  No surprise here.  He's never posted anything directly confrontational in the past, but he's among those users I wouldn't necessarily put it past (though he is at the bottom of that list, easily).

2. Not cool.  Users should have the right to know exactly why they were banned, and the opportunity to discuss said ban directly with the staff member responsible so as to clear up any questions they might have.  And it looks like Sonderjen has several.

3. This is an issue I have with pretty much every website you could name, because they all seem to do this: temporary suspensions and permanent expulsions are both referred to as "bans" without any sort of language clarifying which.  This always causes no end of confusion and drama among other users, who have no way of knowing and assume it's permanent because in the real world, that's what "ban" _means_.  If they _knew_ the person was just "in the time-out chair," they'd probably keep quiet(er) about the whole mess.  Especially if they knew it was only three f'ing days!

4. In my own opinion, this might have been grounds for a warning and deletion at _most_.  First of all, I've already seen that meme pop up two other places, by users who are _not_ known for directly attacking specific people.  Secondly, I don't know anyone who'd argue that failing to report policy violation is a serious offense, much less one that merits the same punishment as those violators themselves (I'm guessing the users who left those comments are the other ones who got banned, here).

*comes up for air* There you go.  Your daily dose of uninformed ranting.  Now back to life as usual.


----------



## uncia (Jan 12, 2008)

Sonderjen said:
			
		

> You make it sound like the conversations went something along the lines of:
> 
> "hurr hurr, that'll show 'im"
> 
> ...


>> HAHAHAHA Y E S. Oh god, yes.
>> HOW DID I KNOW YOU'D BE ON THIS RIGHT AWAY

>> dagagjakljdflkafjwlk46tju0rdfiojkmbv i lol'd so hard i coughed up a lung.

>>  I laughed whole-heartedly, sir!
> Thank you for being the catalyst.

And the number of times you stood back to consider that the overall impact of your submission and comment back-slapping might be being (deliberately) hurtful for the sake of the lulz?

So if there's now a hypothetical submission created that is so very clearly a "lulz Sonderjen got pwned" in-joke with stacking of back-slapping comments (heck, let's spread it around a few other drama sites, even though those don't count for FA purposes), you'd be more than happy with that?
OK, maybe you would... I'd be fully expecting the administration to be doing something about that, though. Especially if that person had a history of deliberately laughing at other's expense without realising that FA is a safe-haven for RL people to enjoy, not a political pressure cooker where everyone is "fair game" for whatever cutting satire one cares to throw around. Is that not a clear enough distinction?


----------



## Paul Revere (Jan 12, 2008)

sigh... I can only hope one day I achieve memedom

edit: well, maybe not.  it would probably end up being super-ridiculous and not be anything like me.  and i just realized this is the site section.  i'm outside my natural habitat, the rants and raves section    : x


----------



## Firehazard (Jan 12, 2008)

(in response to a reply that was accidentally sent thru PM instead of posted)

What I want is to see the picture in question and how it is so different from all the others.  Also to know why, if there's a consensus that he's hanging by a thread as it is, they chose to delete, and ban him for, this but not the picture of Fisk that he did a while back.  Because at least this one could be explained away as hopping on a bandwagon.


----------



## soundhound (Jan 12, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> Sonderjen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Once again, are you KIDDING ME? 
The whole dragon103 or w/e shitstorm that happened was seen by alot of people on FA. Hida is a guy well-known for commissioning 'cute' vore and such. Someone uploads some Hida vore that isn't particularly 'cute'. Hida shrugs it off, Dragonguy goes in and throws a fit because it is just NOT CUTE ENOUGH.
Sonderjen JOKINGLY re-interprets the image, this time making it 'cute' by having Hida smiling, tounge firmly in cheek.
Hida laughs it off, people are amused by Sonderjen's quick timing, LIFE. GOES. ON. Unless Hida himself contacted admins and was upset about this, there really is no way I can see this as 'harassment' in any shape or form.


----------



## uncia (Jan 12, 2008)

"Jokingly" from one point of view can easily be taken as "mockingly" from another.
Something can look "ridiculous" in a funny way, yet who wishes to be a subject of "ridicule"?

The submission in question and various posts thereon clearly made dragon103 (a community member) a deliberate subject of ridicule, encouraging others to similarly ridicule and deride them; as can still be seen on their user page.

Can you honestly tell me hand-on-heart that that is the best way to deal with someone who's throwing a bit of a tiff rather than pointing out as quickly as possibly to the administration (repeatedly if needs be) that that requires tidying up/defusing asap?


----------



## Bokracroc (Jan 12, 2008)

Well considering it can take anywhere from an hour to 3 weeks to answer a Trouble Ticket...


----------



## soundhound (Jan 12, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> "Jokingly" from one point of view can easily be taken as "mockingly" from another.
> Something can look "ridiculous" in a funny way, yet who wishes to be a subject of "ridicule"?
> 
> The submission in question and various posts thereon clearly made dragon103 (a community member) a deliberate subject of ridicule, encouraging others to similarly ridicule and deride them; as can still be seen on their user page.
> ...


Honestly, there was no encouragement to go and ridicule dragon103. There were no direct links/mentions of him in sonderjen's submission, only the people who knew of the incident before hand went after him. And sonderjen's picture isn't to blame for that, individual members of FA are. 
And I'm sorry, but the idea of constantly casting paranoid glances over my shoulder in fear that someone might take a joke/satire the wrong way and have me silenced goes against everything an art site should represent.


----------



## Damaratus (Jan 12, 2008)

soundhound said:
			
		

> Honestly, there was no encouragement to go and ridicule dragon103. There were no direct links/mentions of him in sonderjen's submission, only the people who knew of the incident before hand went after him. And sonderjen's picture isn't to blame for that, individual members of FA are.



Sonderjen has been suspended multiple times for doing this kind of thing, has even been told to not do so again.  He is quite aware of the effect that his particular work has, as well why he was suspended.  There were many better ways to respond to the situation that occurred, and he did not take those options, rather opting for a method that has gotten him in trouble in the past, and that's exactly what happened again.  He's going to have to live with the repercussions of the decision that he made.  He'll be back soon enough and hopefully more the wiser.



			
				soundhound said:
			
		

> And I'm sorry, but the idea of constantly casting paranoid glances over my shoulder in fear that someone might take a joke/satire the wrong way and have me silenced goes against everything an art site should represent.


 

Everything you feel an art site should represent.  I'm fairly certain that the people who are on the bitter end of someone just looking for the lulz would not agree with you at all.

That being said, this is over.  Sonderjen received his suspension and it will be up soon enough.  Next time something like this comes up, find a more positive way to resolve it.


----------

