# Hmm...Methinks I found a loophole.



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

So, I got "Suspended" for this reason: "You have been suspended for harassment. Calling out admins is not  tolerable. Take a month to take a break, cool down and think about if it  is worth losing your FA account or not. Failure to engage in proper  behavior upon return will result in a more permanent vacation from Fur  Affinity."

But where is that in the TOS?

"Fur Affinity strives to allow users freedom of expression where possible,  but asks users refrain from making comments, journals, statements or  posting material which is racist, bigoted, defamatory, otherwise  offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy, religion,  illegal gambling (raffles, games of chance) or content alluding to  illegal activity or child pornography. Disruptive behavior meant to  interfere with the normal flow of the community will not be tolerated,  and we frown upon mob tactics and organized harassment. Comments which  are overly aggressive, personally insulting or abusive are prohibited."

Mm-hmm...Is calling out admins on there? No. Also, my page is /user/furrydud/, in case you want unban me (Which I'm sure you don't want to, because you probably have something to clog my loophole).


----------



## Smelge (Apr 30, 2011)

Because it should be fucking obvious, you moron. Also, it falls in with the abuse/harassment parts.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Apr 30, 2011)

Usually when you think you have found something of value the only real thing you have uncovered is another way of making an ass out of ones self.

Op here's a question... If you harass an admin and get suspended who was the real asshat in the situation. It is implied in the tos. Harassment is harassment admin or user.

I wish self entitlement was a furever bannable offence. Also my phone is being a fool. Disregard grammar mistakes at this time.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Usually when you think you have found something of value the only real thing you have uncovered is another way of making an ass out of ones self.
> 
> Op here's a question... If you harass an admin and get suspended who was the real asshat in the situation. It is implied in the tos. Harassment is harassment admin or user.
> 
> I wish self entitlement was a furever bannable offence. Also my phone is being a fool. Disregard grammar mistakes at this time.



But that makes no sense. Even ED has proof that a certain moderator is corrupt.

"It is a known fact that -- relaxes the rules to his favorite artists. For example, in April 2010 Adam Wan DELETED FUCKING EVERYTHING from his gallery and replaced each submission with a black square. Even though that's in direct violation of multiple portions of the AUP, -- said nothing and refused to do anything about it. "

Proof:

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/images/4/45/Zaushblacksquares.png "If anyone else did this, they'd be fucking banned!" Or something like that was the caption for that picture.

EDIT: And by moderator, I mean the site owner. Ah, corruption...

Second edit: Also, how is it harassment if I have _proof_ the person/moderator is corrupt?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Apr 30, 2011)

Using Ed to back up your moot argument just digs you into an inescapable hole. You harassed an admin... Which is in the tos under harassing users. Admins are users so you violated tos. Coming on here to baww will get you laughed at and might make your situation worse. Cut your losses and chill out for a month. Go outside. Do stuff with friends provided you have any.


----------



## Accountability (Apr 30, 2011)

The "harassment" rules are broad and lack definition, yes. But they won't be changed because this allows FA admins to remove people that threaten their hugbox/echo chamber and/or people who call out popular artists and people administrators like. The rule would be better if it was written "Fur Affinity strives to allow users freedom of expression where possible, except when the administration doesn't like it."

And of course enforcement is inconsistent bans ranging between a few days to forever. 

...What did you say, anyways?


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Using Ed to back up your moot argument just digs you into an inescapable hole. You harassed an admin... Which is in the tos under harassing users. Admins are users so you violated tos. Coming on here to baww will get you laughed at and might make your situation worse. Cut your losses and chill out for a month. Go outside. Do stuff with friends provided you have any.


 
Actually, ED can have some very good evidence on some things, even with all the people that hate it. I also read that article BEFORE posting this thread, to make sure I have good proof.

Just because it's on ED does not make it automatically false. Again, how is having PROOF on how a person/mod is corrupt harassment?

EDIT: 





Accountability said:


> The "harassment" rules are broad and lack  definition, yes. But they won't be changed because this allows FA admins  to remove people that threaten their hugbox/echo chamber and/or people  who call out popular artists and people administrators like. The rule  would be better if it was written "Fur Affinity strives to allow users  freedom of expression where possible, except when the administration  doesn't like it."
> 
> And of course enforcement is inconsistent bans ranging between a few days to forever.
> 
> ...What did you say, anyways?



Yeahp, that's just...I don't even, what is this


----------



## Accountability (Apr 30, 2011)

Additionally, a big stink was raised a few weeks ago when a popular artist-who-will-not-be-named posted a TL;DR rant about how annoying a particular user was to them. This journal was up for more than 24 hours and was later removed, and the user who posted it was not banned. Again, inconsistent rule enforcement.  And before someone bitches: I am merely again focusing on how FA has a bad habit of inconsistent rule enforcement. I am not claiming that whatever the OP did was right.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Additionally, a big stink was raised a few weeks ago when a popular artist-who-will-not-be-named posted a TL;DR rant about how annoying a particular user was to them. This journal was up for more than 24 hours and was later removed, and the user who posted it was not banned. Again, inconsistent rule enforcement.  And before someone bitches: I am merely again focusing on how FA has a bad habit of inconsistent rule enforcement. I am not claiming that whatever the OP did was right.



Wow... I'm not right in the head, and even I know that's just insane! Why make a rule if you're just going to break it the second a "Popufur" or whatever the hell they call it goes against that rule?


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 30, 2011)

It's not a loophole, just one of those unwritten rules.

Like, "Don't be a disgrace to the fandom on TV or something because that's ttly not cool".


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> It's not a loophole, just one of those unwritten rules.
> 
> Like, "Don't be a disgrace to the fandom on TV or something because that's ttly not cool".


 
I guess you're right on that, but the corruption of people like Dragoneer really...It just makes me enraged, and/or insane.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Calling out admins is not  tolerable.
> 
> Comments which  are overly aggressive, personally insulting or abusive are prohibited.


 
I'm sure it's been said.

But tada!


----------



## STB (Apr 30, 2011)

Blah, blah, who fucking cares. Don't be a legit dickhead and you wont have any problems.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'm sure it's been said.
> 
> But tada!


 
Uh...How is that insulting, abusive, or overly agressive? Saying the corruptness of a person isn't any of those.



STB said:


> Blah, blah, who fucking cares. Don't be a legit dickhead and you wont have any problems.


 
What is this? I don't even- Oh wait...Hi, peaches!


----------



## Accountability (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Uh...How is that insulting, abusive, or overly agressive? Saying the corruptness of a person isn't any of those.



Again, if it threatens the hugbox, then you get banned. If it calls out the technical problems of the site then Yak will leave you a nasty comment about how you don't know anything.

That's how things work around here.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Uh...How is that insulting, abusive, or overly agressive? Saying the corruptness of a person isn't any of those.


 
Well, for starters, I doubt the way you presented yourself was anything close to objective. Secondly, just because it's true doesn't mean it's not insulting.

Doi.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Again, if it threatens the hugbox, then you get banned. If it calls out the technical problems of the site then Yak will leave you a nasty comment about how you don't know anything.
> 
> That's how things work around here.


 
Ah. Well, it's not like mods actually HELP people, am I right? (I'm serious. All mods I've come across EXCLUDING ONE has been of no help at ALL.)



Xenke said:


> Well, for starters, I doubt the way you presented  yourself was anything close to objective. Secondly, just because it's  true doesn't mean it's not insulting.
> 
> Doi.


 
...SO?! Even if you're insulting someone with proof of how they should be banned/demodded, _your thought should at least be *taken into consideration!*_

Edit: My journal was a practical rage at Dragoneer for being a shitty site owner, AND ALMOST EVERYONE AGREED WITH ME (Hence why I hid their comments to ensure they didn't as well get banned).


----------



## Zydala (Apr 30, 2011)

> My journal was a practical rage at Dragoneer for being a shitty site owner, AND ALMOST EVERYONE AGREED WITH ME





> Disruptive behavior meant to interfere with the normal flow of the community will not be tolerated





> Comments which are overly aggressive... are prohibited



?


----------



## Aden (Apr 30, 2011)

Moved to Site Discussion since the AUP forum is for staff updates.

Anyway I don't really think the administration should give a shit about someone bitching about them, with an exception for particularly hurtful or untrue things. What'd you do?


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Aden said:


> Moved to Site Discussion since the AUP forum is for staff updates.
> 
> Anyway I don't really think the administration should give a shit about someone bitching about them, with an exception for particularly hurtful or untrue things. What'd you do?


 
I made a journal about how Dragoneer's a shitty mod...Then I saw ED's page on him, and they weren't being the usual lulzy joking self, they were dead serious. Dragoneer is just...How is he a site owner? He's corrupt, has too much self-esteem, and honestly...He is just an ass hole in general, and he breaks the rules that FA uses. Look at http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...-a-loophole.?p=2516258&viewfull=1#post2516258 Please.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> I made a journal about how Dragoneer's a shitty mod...Then I saw ED's page on him, and they weren't being the usual lulzy joking self, they were dead serious. Dragoneer is just...How is he a site owner? He's corrupt, has too much self-esteem, and honestly...He is just an ass hole in general, and he breaks the rules that FA uses. Look at http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...-a-loophole.?p=2516258&viewfull=1#post2516258 Please.


 
From what I understand, he was an improvement on his predecessors, and that's why.

But I haven't taken the time out myself to actually look up these things.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> From what I understand, he was an improvement on his predecessors, and that's why.
> 
> But I haven't taken the time out myself to actually look up these things.


 
Here it is...And trust me, nobody is worse than he is.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Here it is...And trust me, nobody is worse than he is.


 
You know, using ED as a source of information is generally a horrible idea and a good way to discredit yourself.

Just FYI.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> You know, using ED as a source of information is generally a horrible idea and a good way to discredit yourself.
> 
> Just FYI.


 
ED Is serious on parts they want to be. Like on how Dragoneer is corrupt; and I will copy/paste what they said again.

"It is a known fact that Dragoneer relaxes the rules to his favorite artists. For example, in April 2010 Adam Wan DELETED FUCKING EVERYTHING from his gallery and replaced each submission with a black square. Even though that's in direct violation of multiple portions of the AUP, Dragoneer said nothing and refused to do anything about it."

Said violation can be found here; http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/images/4/45/Zaushblacksquares.png

Oh joy, I also found another violation. "
* Minors in Sexual Situations*

 FA does not permit content containing minors involved in sexual  situations. This applies to humans (Loli, Shota) or otherwise human-like  characters (i.e. Cub) who are, without question, under the general  legal age (18). Images or stories where the character is of questionable  or indeterminable age will be up to the discretion of the  administration."


(WARNING: INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT) Uhhh....What the hell?!


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Oh joy, I also found another violation. "
> * Minors in Sexual Situations*
> 
> FA does not permit content containing minors involved in sexual  situations. This applies to humans (Loli, Shota) or otherwise human-like  characters (i.e. Cub) who are, without question, under the general  legal age (18). Images or stories where the character is of questionable  or indeterminable age will be up to the discretion of the  administration."
> ...


 
See, this is what I'm talking about.

That submission is not in his gallery, and AFAIK it's not listed as a submission on FA. Furthermore, I don't think 'Neer ever specifically stated that he hates cub porn. It was banned off the site because of policy issues with sites like AlertPay.

So I don't particularly understand your point.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> See, this is what I'm talking about.
> 
> That submission is not in his gallery, and AFAIK it's not listed as a submission on FA. Furthermore, I don't think 'Neer ever specifically stated that he hates cub porn. It was banned off the site because of policy issues with sites like AlertPay.
> 
> So I don't particularly understand your point.


 
Yeah, but with him, nobody knows what he hates, due to his hypocrisy.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> Yeah, but with him, nobody knows what he hates, due to his hypocrisy.


 
And this is probably why you got banned, because you decided to spew ED's speculation, exaggeration, and 'lulz' instead of going to other sites with a more vested interest in keeping track of everything that happens on FA and it's Staff.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> And this is probably why you got banned, because you decided to spew ED's speculation, exaggeration, and 'lulz' *instead of going to other sites with a more vested interest in keeping track of everything that happens on FA and it's Staff.*


 
ED is serious when it wants to be, it's not all "For teh lulz", they DO need facts about what they're talking about/defiling. Also, people care that much about FA to do that?

EDIT: I'm just going to put my points into this post.

"It is a known fact that -- relaxes the rules to his favorite artists. For example, in April 2010 Adam Wan DELETED FUCKING EVERYTHING from his gallery and replaced each submission with a black square. Even though that's in direct violation of multiple portions of the AUP, -- said nothing and refused to do anything about it. "

Proof:http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/imag...acksquares.png

Just because it's on ED does not make it automatically false.

Why make a rule if you're just going to break it the second a "Popufur"  or whatever the hell they call it goes against that rule? *Dragoneer is corrupt, a hypocrite, and an all-around egotistic idiot.*


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Look, I didn't click your links the first time, I'm not going to click them if you keep pasting them anywhere. Quit it. (Frankly, it's _*old*_ news)

And while ED might have some factual basis for the things they say, a lot of stuff that's posted on there is speculation and deduction from people who only have half of the facts and none of the background, in other words "unreliable", which is why I'm say you need a better source.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Look, I didn't click your links the first time, I'm not going to click them if you keep pasting them anywhere. Quit it. (Frankly, it's _*old*_ news)
> 
> And while ED might have some factual basis for the things they say, a lot of stuff that's posted on there is speculation and deduction from people who only have half of the facts and none of the background, in other words "unreliable", which is why I'm say you need a better source.



And anyone else would be a better source?


----------



## Xenke (Apr 30, 2011)

Ballsofsteel said:


> And anyone else would be a better source?


 
There's one I can't remember the name of. The usual dissenters around here link to it quite a bit when they're starting shit.


----------



## Ballsofsteel (Apr 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> There's one I can't remember the name of. The usual dissenters around here link to it quite a bit when they're starting shit.


 
Mm-hmm.


----------



## Summercat (Apr 30, 2011)

If you want to appeal your suspension, write to admin at furaffinity.net . I myself am not privy to the situation, so cannot give you an answer on it now.

Closing this thread.


----------

