# Is this really approproate for the front page?



## Accountability (Sep 7, 2011)

http://a.facdn.net/priestrevan.gif

I mean, really?


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

Oh noes, a swear word.

:roll:

You sound like those parents who complain about movies where people smoke, because obviously seeing someone smoke is going to scar the kids.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 7, 2011)

I just thought of another forum poster I miss 

Even if he was a jerk


----------



## BRN (Sep 7, 2011)

More non-events, more drama


----------



## Cyril (Sep 7, 2011)

you have to be 13 to join the site, therefore the site is PG-13 at the very least.
most kids discover profanity before then.
there is no issue here.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

SIX said:


> More non-events, more drama



Think of it this way:

If all people have to complain about it non-events, that means FA is doing pretty well for itself, right?


----------



## nrr (Sep 7, 2011)

Cyril Daroun said:


> you have to be 13 to join the site, therefore the site is PG-13 at the very least.
> most kids discover profanity before then.
> there is no issue here.



Mind that PG-13 films are allowed one and precisely only one utterance of "FUCK" throughout the entire duration of the motion picture.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 7, 2011)

I don't a give a fuuuuuck. 

This isn't exactly a child-friendly site to begin with. There are a lot of submissions that aren't properly rated, a lot of interesting avatars, and take a look at the banners. That and no one checks the front page. Not a big deal.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 7, 2011)

Acc, usually, your threads are pretty good.

Usually... :/


----------



## Cyril (Sep 7, 2011)

nrr said:


> Mind that PG-13 films are allowed one and precisely only one utterance of "FUCK" throughout the entire duration of the motion picture.


And there is one occurrence of the word on the front page. Problem?

p.s. i didn't know that so thanks


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 7, 2011)

Cyril Daroun said:


> And there is one occurrence of the word on the front page. Problem?
> 
> p.s. i didn't know that so thanks



As long as he changes the animation so it doesn't loop he should be alright.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Sep 7, 2011)

Do you sit on fA for ages and find anything possible to get upset about?

I understand that you were worried about the legal issue of Viglink, which is understandable. But you can't critique every art work on the front page based on if you don't like it or not. If you think it's a problem file a TT, not make a thread about it. :/

[/ sorry for bitchyness]


----------



## nrr (Sep 7, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> This isn't exactly a child-friendly site to begin with. There are a lot of submissions that aren't properly rated, a lot of interesting avatars, and take a look at the banners. That and no one checks the front page. Not a big deal.



Consider that this entire concern does nothing to bolster or improve FA's image. FA is the lowest common denominator in the furry fandom with respect to the whole dissemination of furry artwork because, well, nothing better exists. The common attitude of seeing things as not needing to be child-friendly or even remotely professional or similar, in addition, does nothing to help relations with regular human beings.

(I'm not even going to mention how much less it makes those of us who want to care actually, well, care about anything.)

A number of my pals in real life, along with a number of my colleagues abroad, make a game out of laughing at the atrocities in the fandom, and it's really a damn shame. I'd like to see this place--and furries in general--climb up a bit on the social ladder and stop being such a spectacle for the mundanes to gawk at.


----------



## Accountability (Sep 7, 2011)

Is it okay then to make an avatar with the seven dirty words? 

I'd like to point out that the "Avatar Policy & Guidelines" states


> General rule of thumb: avatars must adhere to the  same guidelines as â€œgeneral submissionsâ€.


and the AUP says


> *General* - Submissions acceptable for all ages.


(Though the ToS says the site is not intended for users under the age of 13). 

It's another grey area in the FA rules, I suppose. It should probably be addressed in the "adult content" rules, whenever those are added.

It mostly stuck out to me because the Fender journals are usually fun and friendly, and now we have "Hey guys! It's September! Yay! New banner!... *FUCK*"

EDIT: and afaik "fuck" wouldn't be acceptable in a ad banner that displays to everyone, so...


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 7, 2011)

Yea, let's enforce the entire AUP/TOS/SA to the letter, literally.
It's not like we're overflowing with people criticising us for being to strict, already.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

nrr said:


> Consider that this entire concern does nothing to bolster or improve FA's image. FA is the lowest common denominator in the furry fandom with respect to the whole dissemination of furry artwork because, well, nothing better exists. The common attitude of seeing things as not needing to be child-friendly or even remotely professional or similar, in addition, does nothing to help relations with regular human beings.



The site is 13+.

Everyone 13 and up has heard and used the word "fuck", or at least _almost_ everyone.

The kind of people who would fault the site for a user having an avatar that says fuck are, frankly, way too uptight.

Besides, it'd be a different story if we were forcing people to remove profanity from their avatars. Do you remember how some people had aneurysms when we updated avatar rules to remove ass/boob icons?


----------



## nrr (Sep 7, 2011)

Xenke said:


> The site is 13+.



Let's be a little more specific. An individual must be 13 years of age or older in order to *have an account on the site* per the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. There is no such restriction on users who simply come to visit without registering an account as this law only covers privacy protection for personal data belonging children under the age of 13. A visitor's IP address and user agent do not fit this definition.

Nevertheless, my point of contention is that there is currently a lack of tact, a lack of social grace, and an absolute abundance of the unsavory behavior we've seen from furries in recent history, and if we don't at least make ourselves aware of the social ramifications of this class of actions now, this trend will continue to get worse and worse.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

nrr said:


> Nevertheless, my point of contention is that there is currently a lack of tact, a lack of social grace, and an absolute abundance of the unsavory behavior we've seen from furries in recent history, and if we don't at least make ourselves aware of the social ramifications of this class of actions now, this trend will continue to get worse and worse.



I fear you ask the impossible.

Just look at the average age group that furries fall into, that's part of the problem.


----------



## Larry (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm pretty sure most of the people on here, adult or underage, are tolerable of swearing, because we've been overly subjected to it. Honestly, if you can't handle "fuck", then you shouldn't be on this site. FurAffinity is full of it.


----------



## BRN (Sep 7, 2011)

Larry said:


> I'm pretty sure most of the people on here, adult or underage, are tolerable of swearing, because we've been overly subjected to it. Honestly, if you can't handle "fuck", then you shouldn't be on this site. FurAffinity is full of it.



Your signature is available to any child who happens to wander onto the forum. Oh dear oh dear.


----------



## Ben (Sep 7, 2011)

After this and the VigLink thread, I'm honestly losing faith in my ability to take you seriously. I mean, the reasonable person in you knows that a child isn't going to suddenly start injecting themselves with needles or start boinking their cousin or something because they see the word "Fuck" on the front page of a website. You're grasping at straws here.


----------



## Corto (Sep 7, 2011)

Let's play the lawyer game:
Site is PG13
PG13 movies are allowed to use the word "fuck" once.
The word "fuck" is present exactly once in the frontpage.
Tada, problem solved.


----------



## Ben (Sep 7, 2011)

Corto said:


> Let's play the lawyer game:
> Site is PG13
> PG13 movies are allowed to use the word "fuck" once.
> The word "fuck" is present exactly once in the frontpage.
> Tada, problem solved.



And even then, there's no law that says you need to put up a content warning at the door if your front page is covered in fucks and shits. Of course he's raising the question of "Is this in good taste", in which case, unless you're a super-conservative middle age mother from Nebraska: 

_*No.*_


----------



## Accountability (Sep 7, 2011)

Ben said:


> After this and the VigLink thread, I'm honestly  losing faith in my ability to take you seriously. I mean, the reasonable  person in you knows that a child isn't going to suddenly start  injecting themselves with needles or start boinking their cousin or  something because they see the word "Fuck" on the front page of a  website. You're grasping at straws here.



Yes because nobody cared about that. 



Corto said:


> Let's play the lawyer game:
> Site is PG13
> PG13 movies are allowed to use the word "fuck" once.
> The word "fuck" is present exactly once in the frontpage.
> Tada, problem solved.



It's not a legal issue, it's an image issue.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 7, 2011)

Much better

Also Fuck! How terrible!


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 7, 2011)

Oh, you silly disembodied wolf head, if you look closely you will realize it actually spells "FUUCK", what is second person plural of  the Proto-Indo-European word "fuugick", meaning "to extract fetid dirt from under your toenails", and is therefore fully harmless.


----------



## Ben (Sep 7, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Yes because nobody cared about that.



My point is that you supplied false information that made people care about that far more than they should have. No law was broken, and no sensitive information was shared, and as such, it was pretty much the epitome of non-events, blown out of proportion. You're just damaging your credibility by raising false claims, and complaining about things you probably don't even believe in, like not letting the word fuck be on the front page.


----------



## Cyril (Sep 7, 2011)

Corto said:


> Let's play the lawyer game:
> Site is PG13
> PG13 movies are allowed to use the word "fuck" once.
> The word "fuck" is present exactly once in the frontpage.
> Tada, problem solved.


Corto stop stealing my posts :|


----------



## Atma505 (Sep 7, 2011)

why is anybody bringing up an argument of having seen the word before
a lot of people have seen penises, vaginas, and breasts by the age of 13, but they're still not explicitly allowed to be shown in site avatars
it's a matter of upholding decency (yes, this is still something that matters to a lot of people on FurAffinity), especially when it's in an avatar that the chief moderator himself displayed on the front page
it exudes a sloppy and poor sense of moderation to allow this avatar, while keeping any others on a tight leash


----------



## Corto (Sep 7, 2011)

> It's not a legal issue, it's an image issue.


Hahahahahahhahahhahahahahaha

I'm sure the furry fandom is horrified at the word "fuck". 




Cyril Daroun said:


> Corto stop stealing my posts :|


Never


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Sep 7, 2011)

Atma505 said:


> why is anybody bringing up an argument of having seen the word before
> a lot of people have seen penises, vaginas, and breasts by the age of 13, but they're still not explicitly allowed to be shown in site avatars
> it's a matter of upholding decency (yes, this is still something that matters to a lot of people on FurAffinity), especially when it's in an avatar that the chief moderator himself displayed on the front page
> it exudes a sloppy and poor sense of moderation to allow this avatar, while keeping any others on a tight leash




A swear word =/= a pornographic image.

Sexually explicit images belong under the "mature" filter. Swear words do not fall under any sort of filter. (correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 7, 2011)

account is becoming annoying lately hasnt they?
brb keeping my boob icon on FA due to its actually in the gray area :V


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 7, 2011)

Xenke said:


> The site is 13+.
> 
> Everyone 13 and up has heard and used the word "fuck", or at least _almost_ everyone.


This is bullshit because a lot of 13 y.o's have got into their dad's playboys.
we should hand out porn to kids

This is sarcasm.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 7, 2011)

Interesting fact: Legally speaking, the term "PG-13" means all of jack and shit. It's something the MPAA made up, and is a standard that nobody has live by unless they feel like it. 

Only actual pornography is restricted by the law. 

And "image?" Really? You think there is a single person in the world who, otherwise having a favorable opinion of FA, would think less of the site because the word "fuck" appeared on the front page? (Protip: I know you don't)


----------



## Fenrari (Sep 7, 2011)

That particular individual has a severe love-hate relationship with the website. His angst is very um... noted.


----------



## Kayze (Sep 7, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Yea, let's enforce the entire AUP/TOS/SA to the letter, literally.
> It's not like we're overflowing with people criticising us for being to strict, already.


Well, you're suppose to. Otherwise, the AUP/TOS/SA can be interpreted in any way a person wants, and thus becomes worthless to enforce.

A fix would be the actually fix the documents themselves to be 'right to the letter'. It's the reason legal documents are so lengthy and annoying with even the most common sense things being defined.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 7, 2011)

Kayze said:


> Well, you're suppose to. Otherwise, the AUP/TOS/SA can be interpreted in any way a person wants, and thus becomes worthless to enforce.
> 
> A fix would be the actually fix the documents themselves to be 'right to the letter'. It's the reason legal documents are so lengthy and annoying with even the most common sense things being defined.



And I'm sure everyone would appreciate it, even if it was 30 pages long.


----------



## Aden (Sep 7, 2011)

okay dude, I usually think you're right on most of the time but there comes a point at which you should just let it slide


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 7, 2011)

Accountability said:


> http://a.facdn.net/priestrevan.gif
> 
> I mean, really?



gb2aff


----------



## Corto (Sep 7, 2011)

I suggest we ban Priest Revan for making such a fool of the site. A fool I say!


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 7, 2011)

nrr said:


> Consider that this entire concern does nothing to bolster or improve FA's image. FA is the lowest common denominator in the furry fandom with respect to the whole dissemination of furry artwork because, well, nothing better exists. The common attitude of seeing things as not needing to be child-friendly or even remotely professional or similar, in addition, does nothing to help relations with regular human beings.
> 
> (I'm not even going to mention how much less it makes those of us who want to care actually, well, care about anything.)
> 
> A number of my pals in real life, along with a number of my colleagues abroad, make a game out of laughing at the atrocities in the fandom, and it's really a damn shame. I'd like to see this place--and furries in general--climb up a bit on the social ladder and stop being such a spectacle for the mundanes to gawk at.


Yeah, so I see your point that this is more of an image issue. That didn't come to mind in my response. Public criticism and misconceptions is a commonly accepted fact among the fandom, but ideally, we would like to do what we can to remedy that. I'm sure many of us share the same ideal, but it is too broad a perspective to draw from. Enforcing this relatively minor case would make very little difference in that respect. It's not an urgent matter to consider administrative action upon. Should we still do something about it? Perhaps. Rather than discuss it, we might as well request the user to change their avatar to something more appropriate.

*EDIT:* Request made, and awaiting a response.


----------



## Corto (Sep 8, 2011)

> Public criticism and misconceptions is a commonly accepted fact among the fandom, but ideally, we would like to do what we can to remedy that.



Not to sound like a douche but the reason most of the internet hates you is because you lot choke the chicken to pictures of the Swat Katz going at each other, not because you use profanity. Just a guess.

EDIT: Oh, and because you hillariously overreact to negative comments. That too.


----------



## Ben (Sep 8, 2011)

rodox_video said:


> gb2aff



You have no idea how long it took me to find out AFF stands for Aspies For Freedom. Somehow, Adult Friend Finder just didn't make sense there.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 8, 2011)

My opinion is torn.  On the one hand, cussing on the Internet is a lot more frequent than in other media, so much so that it's often ignored or casually dismissed when encountered.  On the other hand, its appearance on the front page does speak for the site as a whole and all its users, instead of just one of the site's users.  It's not in and of itself a bad or wrong thing, certainly not major, but it is a minor faux pas all the same.

Also, grep -Ri fuck /usr/src/linux* for those of you on Linux gives an idea how pervasive cussing is online.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 8, 2011)

Corto said:


> Not to sound like a douche but the reason most of the internet hates you is because you lot choke the chicken to pictures of the Swat Katz going at each other, not because you use profanity. Just a guess.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and because you hillariously overreact to negative comments. That too.



A misplaced gesture, seeing as my post was void of emotional appeal. Furthermore, the statement quoted is an interpretation of nrr's post. However, I am not denying the beginning statement as a fact XD 



Ben said:


> You have no idea how long it took me to find out AFF  stands for Aspies For Freedom. Somehow, Adult Friend Finder just didn't  make sense there.



No, Adult Friend Finder makes perfect sense.
*
Relatively Important EDIT:* A response was received from  priestrevan, and he has politely refused and has offered me his side of the story. 

Now that I have a clearer understanding of this matter, I must politely disagree with nrr's response that I quoted earlier. I believe, from my experience alone, the issue with the furries and their current "social standing" mainly has to do with bad press, and is not in anyway connected profanity. Sure, if a random news reporter came by and was trying to dig dirt on the fandom to make a story, they MIGHT (highly unlikely) reference the blatant profanity on FurAffinity. 

However, this matter seriously has no impact on the image of the fandom. I believe your response on this matter simply has to do with your particular personal and possibly negative opinion on profanity alone. This explains why you would resort to the social standings of furries to back your argument. Accountability may share this view as well. I myself am extremely laid back when it comes to profanity, especially when it comes to a PG 13+ website. These days, 11-13 year olds and sometimes younger will take up profanity, and certainly not because they picked it up from our site. If this were a huge concern to you, you might as well suggest a word filter for the website, which, I myself would never appeal to.

One can interpret and backwards interpret the ToS in an attempt to invoke administrative action, at the expense of the artist who managed to get his banner on the front page. That may, well in only a small way perhaps, discourage future artists from creating banners for FA. In any case, I wouldn't be too happy about it, especially if the artist in question spent time creating the avatar, and takes a sort of pride in it. I was informed that this particular avatar was implemented long before the banner hit the front page, and it never raised an issue until now.

Henceforth, my personal opinion (lol, not that it matters any) on this matter is solid. This is not an issue worth administrative action in any way shape or form. I say leave it as is.


----------



## Accountability (Sep 8, 2011)

Ben said:


> My point is that you supplied false information that made people care about that far more than they should have. No law was broken, and no sensitive information was shared, and as such, it was pretty much the epitome of non-events, blown out of proportion. You're just damaging your credibility by raising false claims, and complaining about things you probably don't even believe in, like not letting the word fuck be on the front page.



It was not my intent to supply false information. It was my hope that someone else would look further into it (which eventually happened, though by then it was too late) as I was on my way to bed when I noticed it posted on another site. Had I not posted it, it's my belief it would have inevitably ended up in the thread anyways.

This is the last time I will go over this. I brought it up for one reason, and that was that the FurAffinity Terms of Service stated the following:


> Fur Affinity values your privacy, and we are committed to  safeguarding your personal information to the best of our ability. We  will never use, share or distribute personally identifiable information  (birth date, e-mail address, *ISP/IP* or other aliases) except when such  actions are necessary to...



Both the users IP and related information were unwillingly being transmitted to/shared with a third party upon visiting FurAffinity. VigLink states in their Privacy Policy that


> When you interact with us     through the Site, we receive and store certain additional personally     non-identifiable information. Such information, which is collected passively     using various technologies, cannot presently be used to specifically identify     you. Examples include *IP addresses, browser types, domain names, and other     anonymous statistical data involving your use of the Site*, the Software and/or     the Services.



That is the one and only reason I brought up VigLink, because FA was failing to uphold their end of the ToS. It was "blown out of proportion" by other people, who did not have all the facts, and were misinformed (and I will admit that my posting of the FTC thing contributed to this), not because I posted it, but because FurAffinity failed to adequately disclose it themselves. Personally, I think the aftermath was well deserved.

I still don't think "fuck" should be on the front page, though.


----------



## CAThulu (Sep 8, 2011)

So....right now....checking the front page, on the right side is the scrolling word of Fuuck, and in the thumbnails there's a picture of two anthro wolfs going doggy style.

The word fuck is the least of your concern when it comes to image.  Kids are savvy and can get around simple age restrictions.  And I guarantee that the kids that are visiting this site at 13 have already started fucking, if not at least having heard the word by now.  

If your panties are really in a twist about this, you shouldn't be here.   There is profanity that is much, MUCH worse then that word, especially on FA.  Either rate this site 18+, or we all stop swearing and take everything but the tame fur images off our walls.


----------



## BRN (Sep 8, 2011)

cunt

But, no, seriously, there are _so many things_ you could have legitimately complained about in defense of FA's image, and out of them all, you pick shit like this. Come on, man.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 8, 2011)

nrr said:


> Let's be a little more specific. An individual must be 13 years of age or older in order to *have an account on the site* per the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. There is no such restriction on users who simply come to visit without registering an account as this law only covers privacy protection for personal data belonging children under the age of 13. A visitor's IP address and user agent do not fit this definition.
> 
> Nevertheless, my point of contention is that there is currently a lack of tact, a lack of social grace, and an absolute abundance of the unsavory behavior we've seen from furries in recent history, and if we don't at least make ourselves aware of the social ramifications of this class of actions now, this trend will continue to get worse and worse.



I actually agree with you here. Anyone can see that icon, and anyone can see that banner D:

I just don't think however, it's really that much of a fuss. I don't like the banner, and most banners on FA for the most part. The icon doesn't really represent the WTF that is FA. Nor do I necessarily think of furry when I see it. The banner does. 

However, the issue I have with the banners is more of a design aspect. I think it's cool to see different kinds of art...but some of the quality of art is really...meh. The other part that irks me more is the horrible font treatment. It's like someone thinking Coca Cola should be using Comic Sans. The banner is supposed to be about the name of the site. The other issue is the mascots really represent this fandom more than anything else. While Fender is not such a problem, we got this stupid boobdragon that is on the site  As a character I don't have a problem with that to be honest (that's not where the "Stupid boobdragon" is about), and yes there are far worse images out there. It is marketed as a mascot for the site that has a pretty much "we're about T&A" vibe.

Course when I see the banner for the summer month, I can't get the image out that the mascots are playing in tampon/diaper juice they use in those commercials. I don't know how water stays that "blue" on the tail. 

Now am I gonna bring it up as the issue of concern for FA? Not really. I think there are more pressing matters.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 8, 2011)

I fail to see why there's an issue hear.

The first time I heard of the word "fuck" was before I even knew what it meant.


----------



## Aden (Sep 8, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> And I guarantee that the kids that are visiting this site at 13 have already started fucking



wha


----------



## Corto (Sep 8, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> I believe, from my experience alone, the issue with the furries and their current "social standing" mainly has to do with bad press, and is not in anyway connected profanity. (...)
> However, this matter seriously has no impact on the image of the fandom.


In other news, the sky is blue.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 8, 2011)

Arshes Nei said:


> I actually agree with you here. Anyone can see that icon, and anyone can see that banner D:
> 
> I just don't think however, it's really that much of a fuss. I don't like the banner, and most banners on FA for the most part. The icon doesn't really represent the WTF that is FA. Nor do I necessarily think of furry when I see it. The banner does.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with you.

The conundrum though is thus:

Though banners with more artistic merit would fit better, would they properly represent the site's actual content?


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 8, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> And I guarantee that the kids that are visiting this site at 13 have already started fucking


Thats retarded

They were probably fucking long before they saw it on a furry porn site



This is also sarcasm/joking.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 8, 2011)

There are TONS of stuff to be nickpicking for being inappropriate on FA, and that's a problem?

Oy....


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 8, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Though banners with more artistic merit would fit better, would they properly represent the site's actual content?


It's like looking for diamonds in a pile of shit.

I personally don't mind much about the banners. It's just a banner. It's not always pretty per say, but it's nice to see different styles and themes from various artists.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 8, 2011)

plus
Nobody on fa really sees the "front-page notifications" anyways


----------



## Ben (Sep 8, 2011)

Asking people where they saw something first doesn't mean they don't check the front page, it means they just happened to visit those other places and heard about it before looking at the main page. If you wanted to ask a meaningful question, you'd ask people how often they visit the front page. Otherwise, your questioning is meaningless.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 8, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> I have to agree with you.
> 
> The conundrum though is thus:
> 
> Though banners with more artistic merit would fit better, would they properly represent the site's actual content?



Like I said my issue is more design oriented, and I'm not going to sit there fussing over it greatly considering the other issues with FA. 

It would be nice to see a "Generic" banner that actually represents FA's identity. Sort of how the forums banner is static. (That logo still needs a bit of tweaking ...ie the break between letters). DA has its identity, even with their mascot "Fella". Rednef was acknowledged to be a boobdragon by Neer, so it just sounds like fanboy wank than identity. 

For example, even with the banner changing on Google, we still pretty much know their logo identity. FA lacks this severely. 

I will live with the mediocre art that often hits our banners, I know others who just adblock it because they're that passionate over it, but the above are just my thoughts.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 8, 2011)

i like the new fa banner


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 8, 2011)

Clayton said:


> i like the new fa banner


Same here, I don't think it's all that bad. It presents a silly theme.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 9, 2011)

Steve Martin said:


> Really appropriate is a very absolute term for this and you know that its not quite obvious to post on front page but any how you may do this.


but any how you may do this


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 9, 2011)

I'd be more concerned about what lies a bit to the left of that "FUUCK" avatar, in that "Recent Artwork" grid.
Actually, the avatar is probably a safer distraction. There is no such thing as a clean front page on FA.


----------



## Aden (Sep 9, 2011)

Grimfang said:


> I'd be more concerned about what lies a bit to the left of that "FUUCK" avatar, in that "Recent Artwork" grid.
> Actually, the avatar is probably a safer distraction. There is no such thing as a clean front page on FA.



Having been going to FA for a couple of years, I believe I've gotten a front page with completely clean art - visual art only - three or four times.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 9, 2011)

Aden said:


> Having been going to FA for a couple of years, I believe I've gotten a front page with completely clean art - visual art only - three or four times.



It's like a game.


----------



## nrr (Sep 9, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> Now that I have a clearer understanding of this matter, I must politely disagree with nrr's response that I quoted earlier. I believe, from my experience alone, the issue with the furries and their current "social standing" mainly has to do with bad press, and is not in anyway connected profanity. Sure, if a random news reporter came by and was trying to dig dirt on the fandom to make a story, they MIGHT (highly unlikely) reference the blatant profanity on FurAffinity.



A lot of the press is atrocious, abysmal, and devoid of rational thought. It's sensationalist, and the only point is to illicit some sort of emotional reaction. I recognize this, and it sucks. Being part of a subculture that is generally thought of as being a collection socially maladjusted preteens, adolescents, and adults who have an overly sophomoric obsession over sex was not one of those things that I envisioned when I stumbled into this whole mess nearly a decade and a half ago, but I can't justify placing the fault solely on the media.

Unfortunately, some of the social maladjustment is indeed part of furry. Case in point, finding someone in furry who can talk in-depth about something other than video games, cars or computers is like squeezing blood from a turnip. Excepting artists for whom the relationship to furry is quasi-professional, who also don't typically make themselves accessible for social relationships online except under some rather extenuating circumstances, these individuals are rare enough to be considered critically endangered, and worse, the ones whom I have found typically tend to be folks who don't go out often. This leads to social anxiety problems and a whole host of related issues.

That said, the furries who profess to live the furry lifestyle comprise a rather sizable chunk of the fandom from my perspective, and these are the ones who provide the worst vices for the media to hone in on. As a consequence, most of the media's coverage of the furry fandom is coverage of lifestylers. I won't bother covering it here because it's chronicled for you already.

What I'm alluding to is something outside FA and something more fundamental to furry as a whole. Sure, fursuits and furry artwork can be fun and creative and enjoyable, not to mention something that even children can appreciate to the fullest extent, but the moment that you cross the line into making the suit or the artwork into a sexual object, you've crossed the line into something socially taboo, and you'll find that a lot of mainstream society will gawk at it as if it were a freakshow established specifically for that purpose.

For what it's worth, the same thing goes on currently with the BDSM community, and while more and more laypeople are beginning to understand that subculture as it is meant to be understood, it is not something you bring up on a first date, for example, in the vast majority of cases.

I'm saddened by the fact that I cannot say without immediate judgment to a stranger in passing, "Oh, I quite like those bipedal animal creatures you may have seen in cartoons. You know, the ones who walk and talk as we do?" If I were to do this, I'd instantly be labeled as a sexual deviant in the minds of those who've seen CSI, and that will be that.



Kyrodo said:


> However, this matter seriously has no impact on the image of the fandom. I believe your response on this matter simply has to do with your particular personal and possibly negative opinion on profanity alone.



As much as I hate to say it, every little bit of attrition and every exception, no matter how minor, makes the amount of cure required in the long run grow by the ton.



Kyrodo said:


> One can interpret and backwards interpret the ToS in an attempt to invoke administrative action...



Here's where I get profane, just to illustrate a point. In this context, I don't fucking care what the terms of service says at all! The document is a pile of shit, and my argument has nothing at all to do with it or this site. I'm arguing about something more fundamental to furry itself than to FA.

Then again, like I said before, FA's only popular because it caters to the lowest common denominator, and there is nothing better that fills that niche. Now that FA's had a foothold for over half a decade, inertia is also beginning to play a role, but I can ramble on and on about that in a drunken fashion, and I'll get nowhere in the process. I'll stop right here.

If we don't make a genuine point to bolster the image of furry and, through that, bolster the image of FA, we'll eventually be taken to be a bunch of shit-for-brains sex-crazed dogfuckers by ordinary people. People who vote. People who sign your paychecks. FA's already been mentioned on daytime talk television with a rather negative popular opinion to follow it, and any more occurrences of that will likely lead to an unsavory allegory in, e.g., L&O SVU.

*The teal deer: Stop fucking up, do more and get better. Be well-adjusted members of society, keep your fucking bedroom antics under control and fucking take better care of yourselves. Fucking, fuck, fuck.*


----------



## BRN (Sep 9, 2011)

nrr said:


> A lot of the press is atrocious, abysmal, and devoid of rational thought. It's sensationalist, and the only point is to illicit some sort of emotional reaction. I recognize this, and it sucks. Being part of a subculture that is generally thought of as being a collection socially maladjusted preteens, adolescents, and adults who have an overly sophomoric obsession over sex was not one of those things that I envisioned when I stumbled into this whole mess nearly a decade and a half ago, but I can't justify placing the fault solely on the media.
> 
> Unfortunately, some of the social maladjustment is indeed part of furry. Case in point, finding someone in furry who can talk in-depth about something other than video games, cars or computers is like squeezing blood from a turnip. Excepting artists for whom the relationship to furry is quasi-professional, who also don't typically make themselves accessible for social relationships online except under some rather extenuating circumstances, these individuals are rare enough to be considered critically endangered, and worse, the ones whom I have found typically tend to be folks who don't go out often. This leads to social anxiety problems and a whole host of related issues.
> 
> ...



"Fuck" is not serious business.

ED: Being less dismissively frank, I'm fairly sure that each and every active member of this community understands completely what you've just eloquated - that the majority of "lifestyling" externalised furries are socially inept and that as a result "furry" has received a bad name. 

However, what you're failing to realise is that there is no such thing as "furries". These are people, who identify with the fandom. There's no method of cure, beyond ostracision, which doesn't work with a fandom one self-identifies with.


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 9, 2011)

One thing I have to add: There are/have been completely clean furry art sites, right? Isn't ArtSpots one of such?
I'm not sure why these other sites have remained so small, or just closed down after some time, but why not give support to those? It seems unrealistic for one to hope for FA to become a totally different kind of site.
I don't personally feel that way, but if it comes down to such a menial way of nit-picking like this, I don't think FA will _ever_ be pleasing for you.



Aden said:


> Having been going to FA for a couple of years, I believe I've gotten a front page with completely clean art - visual art only - three or four times.



Even without being signed in, or having mature content filtered out, I'm pretty sure the results would be similar. Safer, but still not really SFW, haha.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 9, 2011)

I must say that I appreciate your passionate view on this. Part of what makes a good argument, is to make points that can be argued. So let us pointlessly debate.



nrr said:


> That said, the furries who profess to live the furry lifestyle comprise a  rather sizable chunk of the fandom from my perspective, and these are  the ones who provide the worst vices for the media to hone in on. As a  consequence, most of the media's coverage of the furry fandom is  coverage of lifestylers. I won't bother covering it here because it's  chronicled for you already.



Let's start adding numbers into this. All right, here is a reference you may find helpful. It is based off a furry survey taken in 2008 by the Furry Research Center:
http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf

It is perhaps, outdated by three years, but I feel it was remarkably executed, and a reliable source. And if you must know, yes, I got this from wiki sources.
Now, take a look at the figure on page 29: Response to the statement, â€œI consider myself
predominantly humanâ€. So, 81.5% of us agree that they are predominantly human. 5.6% do not agree completely. 

Those numbers obviously do not comply with your above statement, but if you wish to argue otherwise, by all means. Yes, I know I'm Therian, but I'm not pretensive enough to see myself as completely non-human. Character aside, let us move on.



nrr said:


> ...I can't justify placing the fault solely on the media.
> 
> Unfortunately, some of the social maladjustment is indeed part of furry.  Case in point, finding someone in furry who can talk in-depth about  something other than video games, cars or computers is like squeezing  blood from a turnip. Excepting artists for whom the relationship to  furry is quasi-professional, who also don't typically make themselves  accessible for social relationships online except under some rather  extenuating circumstances, these individuals are rare enough to be  considered critically endangered, and worse, the ones whom I have found  typically tend to be folks who don't go out often. This leads to social  anxiety problems and a whole host of related issues.


Now before you ask why I'm making this... overly long winded argument below, consider you're beginning statement of the quote above. I will try to be thorough, but it will never be "completely" thorough.

More numbers. I'm a programmer, so I love numbers. Please refer to page 14: Occupation of the furry survey. It seems you are correct, in that 42.5% are furries, 13.9% are other, and 4.7% have no occupation. All together, that makes up a good 60% of us, mostly students. Now refer to page 9: Age. I believe the reason for this mainly has to do with our age range. A good majority of us are between the ages of 15 and 24, 28.3% of which are 15-19 and 37.2% are 20-24. It's a mysterious wonder why most of us are students, instead of brilliant scientists or those of high political stature. Those age ranges possibly include some of your artists and gamers that litter our vast majority. 

Back to page 14. The rest of the pie is taken by those with occupations in administrative, professional, service, sales, and most importantly, IT. About a good 16% is taking by those in technical fields, as you mentioned. I'm not sure what you find wrong with the technically savvy, especially seeing as today's society is practically built from them. I wish there was a similar chart for the US as a whole for me to compare this to, but it is difficult to find one. So perhaps it is rare to find furries other than ITs, artists, and students roaming around the fandom. This is because we are mostly made up of students, the world today is arguably IT-oriented, and our fandom in itself is based around creativity and the imagination based around animals. 

Allow me to briefly add here that I believe those with interests in  creative thought, such as artists and writers, rest at the heart of the  fandom, and with good reason. Try to imagine the furry fandom without  anthropomorphic art, in any of its various forms, and without  imagination. I ask, where is the majority of the fandom based around  then? Fucking animals? Discovering the cure for cancer? Because we are,  arguably, creatively based to begin with, standards that high or that  low are impractical.

If people found it less discouraging to join us because of bad public opinion, I'm sure we would see some more variety. However, it would do little to change those numbers, since it seems the fandom appeals more often to  certain to demographics. It is no mystery as to why.


Now, let's get to the heart of the matter, public misconceptions. Refer to page 19, describing what furries think about the accuracy of public perception. Forget the first figure, as we already agree that the majority of people hate us. The second figure is the focus. Adding and rounding up, about a good 67% of us believe the public's misconceptions are inaccurate. 15% think the opposite. The rest of the 8% don't know what to think. With these numbers, I hardly believe we are to blame for most of the "problem".I still consider the media at the heart of our problem. 

I'm sure we are both well aware of the terrible stories proposed by those who band against the furries. The CSI episode. The people who fuck dogs or children. The people who have mass orgies or have sex in fursuits. All furries are homosexual. We all view ourselves as animals. This is not entirely untrue. Cases have happened here and there of any of the dirt that stains our reputation. That does not waive these stories from being misconceptions. An argument that has been made before, is that some of these misconceptions have nothing to do with being furry or not. Humans are humans. Criminals and wierdos exist in every fandom, and in those without.

I've already discussed the "we all view ourselves as animals" aspect. Moving on.

Now it's true that most of the fandom is not made up of straight people. I myself am considered bi. There are the homosexual. Sure there are a bunch of other made up orientations, but those are minor numbers. Refer to page 12. A good third is devoted to each of the three orientations mentioned, with the majority considering themselves bisexual. Not a huge matter, seeing as this stereotype is mainly bashed upon by the homophobic and religious extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church, who say "God hates everything" anyway. There is a reason for this though, and I believe it has to do with our rate of acceptance. There are those who turn to the fandom not only to share common interests, but to be welcome among those would not judge them like common people tend to, or the way the Westboro Church does. There also those originally heterosexual, like me, who have been influenced by the fandom's low standards, and tried something they would never have done otherwise. This leads me to a point I will discuss at the end of this mindless rant.

There is no data on bestiality from the survey, so I can only tell you what I think based on what I've heard from views from fellow furry friends and the like. It is uncommon, even among the furry fandom.
The most similar thing I can show, based on this source I am overabusing, is the response to zoophilia on page 26. A good 50% responded negatively. 36% were either neutral or didn't care. About 17% were all for it. This of course "suggests" that bestiality is in fact an uncommon practice amongst the fandom. Of course, who's to say? The fandom has its thorns.

There is data on plushophilia on page 27. I would fall under ambivalent, however not practicing it myself. To each their own is the term we often familiarize ourselves with. The vast majority were surprisingly ambivalent, but as expected, more of the other numbers were "slightly" towards the negative side.

I'm honestly not sure why some have considered us pedophiles. Obviously, at least a small percentage of us must have engaged in such practices, and a considerably greater but still minor percentage that have fetishes related to pedophilia. Some misinformed extremists might have associated us with pedobear, and others may have simply developed a deranged vision of us after experiencing negative media and peer perspectives from fellow anti-furries, or certain furries that make terrible examples of us. On that note, I found it amusing when some parents of friends of mine considered their offspring mentally deranged after finding hints of their child's "satanic" furry convention practices.

 Degree of sexual importance. The greatest conspiracy of the furry fandom. Refer to the first figure on page 28. The survey claims that a good 83 percent do not place great importance on sex, with a 32 percent within claiming a medium degree. Now refer to the second figure. They believe the exact opposite for everyone else. A strange dilemma indeed. Sex in fursuits and mass orgies, in direct reference to the CSI episode and some terrible news analysis (I found it very hilarious to watch by the way). Never mind the fact that sex in fursuits is just plain impractical to begin with. Sure I have no numbers to go off of, but as far as I'm concerned, this percentage of the fandom is extremely small. And the assumption that we engage in mass orgies at these furry conventions is extremely far from common. I say far from common, because obviously there have to be instances somewhere. The only conventions I can say I've been to is Califur. Been going there since 2009, after my mate introduced to me to my past and still current pack mates. No such practices anywhere, and if there were any such instances, it was behind closed doors. The closest to that was the Cabaret, which I can proudly say I've volunteered as a stage ninja/zombie for this year, working with Raven who's an awesome guy. Clean strip teases and theatrical acts with sexual themes. There is no actual sex going on, and you never see anything other than tits and props. They are never completely nude, although they try to get fairly close. That's about it. You will not find any mass orgies going on at any of the con events, ever.



nrr said:


> Here's where I get profane, just to illustrate a point. In this context,  I don't fucking care what the terms of service says at all! The  document is a pile of shit, and my argument has nothing at all to do  with it or this site. I'm arguing about something more fundamental to  furry itself than to FA.
> 
> Then again, like I said before, FA's only popular because it caters to  the lowest common denominator, and there is nothing better that fills  that niche. Now that FA's had a foothold for over half a decade, inertia  is also beginning to play a role, but I can ramble on and on about that  in a drunken fashion, and I'll get nowhere in the process. I'll stop  right here.
> 
> ...


Here you express your  divine, and if I may mention, hilarious passion on this matter. There is  no clear argument here, just an angry emotional outburst. 

You  say we cater to the lowest denominator. I suggest you open your eyes and  take a good look at the fandom. We dress up with accessories and badges  and swagger out into the sidewalks, waving as cars yell and honk at us  as they pass us by. We help out people in parking lots and such when  they need it, ignoring their awkward reactions (for example, I had an  instance of this at one of my furmeets, where me and several others were  helping a family unload stuff out of a large moving-truck). We point  and laugh out the shy and get them to crawl out of their isolated  shells. 

We openly and proudly accept those from all orientations, races, and  religions, from nearly all walks of life, BECAUSE of our low standards. This makes the fandom feel like a  second home to many of us, including me. We cater to a long list of fetishes such as vore and paws, but  even then, there are specific fetishes that we commonly look down upon and  shun. Criminal acts and certain questionable practices are commonly looked down upon and shunned.

In the end, we are just like any other human, where the most important principles to live by are just as valid and the most terrible atrocities are inhesitantly condemmed. We are just like any other art-obsessed fandom (particularly the anime fandom) in that we possess a wide variety of art and porn of any nature. 

What's different, is that the furry fandom happens to be the best place to find an open mind. You call them low standards, but in my opinion, that is the second heart that defines the furry fandom.

What were to happen were we openly accepted as equals to non-furries? Would we have any reason to live our second lives in secrecy? 

Consider, have you ever realized someone you knew for a long time happened to be a furry? If they were keeping secret about it, what gave it away? How did you feel about it? 

I had an interest in furry art for the longest time, ever since I knew about Redwall. I met a furry long before I became one, but I never truly knew what it was about or considered myself one, until my mate, once a class mate of the same major, programmer mentor, and one of my friends, gathered the courage to come up to me and ask if I was a furry. It was around that point I was developing recent Therian thoughts. I gradually found out all about the fandom from that point on. I consider this, my official invitation into the fandom. I myself have proliferated the same way, and in the cases they happen to already consider themselves one, it is almost exhilerating to realize your friend was also a furry all along. 

Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is our incognito sense of operations, our second life when it comes to the fandom with which we hide from all non-furries as often as possible. I am not trying to make an excuse for bad publicity (though you can pretty much argue otherwise), but is this not part of the fun of being a furry? I mean, try to imagine visiting a furmeet where most of the population was non-furry. Would it not ruin the experience? I have had this view since shortly after joining the fandom, and I still feel it holds water.



nrr said:


> As much as I hate to say it, every little bit of  attrition and every exception, no matter how minor, makes the amount of  cure required in the long run grow by the ton.



All right, so here lies your most plausible point and primary motive in this specific  matter. As with any sizable issue, every small step counts. If we were  truly serious about the delirious notion of making a good name for  ourselves amongst the non-furries, we must do so slice by slice, piece  by piece, whenever the opportunity for action rears itself open. 

Sure,  that makes sense. I still don't believe a single word of profanity is  an issue that affects our standards, but obviously you do, therefore  there are others that feel the same. This is inclusive of Accountability and several others who've posted similar topics.

I would've liked a little more time to iron this post out, and perhaps add some more sources, but I still don't agree with you, and you leave one thing unclear...

What exactly are you suggesting we do about this? Ban the user with the avatar? Force him to remove it at his expense? Switch to a different banner from a different artist and forget this ever existed? Delete the announcement crediting the artist? Or perhaps, modifying the post in which he is credited to hide his avatar? It is one thing to propose action, and another to implement it properly. Implementation is just as important as deciding to act, both to be fair and to avoid drama, so think about it carefully.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 9, 2011)

Your...essay I suppose is well written and was a nice (and well sourced!) read, but I could not shake the following thought from my head:

At the point to which you've analyzed a fandom (some may try to call it subculture, but Furry is not that big. You aren't Punks or Goths or such.) to this degree I think you've delved into a realm where you've missed the joke that makes the fandom what it is.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's like a game.



It's Russian Roulette for the eyes.


----------



## Aden (Sep 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> At the point to which you've analyzed a fandom (some may try to call it subculture, but Furry is not that big. You aren't Punks or Goths or such.) to this degree I think you've delved into a realm where you've missed the joke that makes the fandom what it is.



I have the exact same views on people arguing about weird fetish upload rules


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Your...essay I suppose is well written and was a nice (and well sourced!) read, but I could not shake the following thought from my head:
> 
> At the point to which you've analyzed a fandom (some may try to call it subculture, but Furry is not that big. You aren't Punks or Goths or such.) to this degree I think you've delved into a realm where you've missed the joke that makes the fandom what it is.


Perhaps... again, I didn't have enough time to make a thorough analysis in that post. Is it possible I simply miss the point completely myself? Yes, that is a possibility. Either way, I can proudly consider the fandom my home.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 9, 2011)

Grimfang said:


> I'd be more concerned about what lies a bit to the left of that "FUUCK" avatar, in that "Recent Artwork" grid.
> Actually, the avatar is probably a safer distraction. There is no such thing as a clean front page on FA.



For those who are logged in and whose "View Mature Artwork" setting is on "Yes," you're virtually right.  But the difference is that avatar images are visible to every visitor, regardless of the "View Mature Artwork" setting or whether he's even a member of the site or not.

There's also this counterpoint, I admit: 





SIX said:


> "Fuck" is not serious business.



---==[/]==---



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It's Russian Roulette for the eyes.



I lost a long time ago.  Not even emetophilia phases me anymore.

I searched to make sure I spelled emetophilia right (because it's not in Firefox's dictionary), and the very first sponsored result tried to sell me a Roman shower as a home improvement project.  It would only have been better if it tried to sell me clam chowder.  The Internet itself lost that game.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 10, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> I lost a long time ago.  Not even emetophilia phases me anymore.
> 
> I searched to make sure I spelled emetophilia right (because it's not in Firefox's dictionary), and the very first sponsored result tried to sell me a Roman shower as a home improvement project.  It would only have been better if it tried to sell me clam chowder.  The Internet itself lost that game.



After being on Gaia for "surprise buttsex" Friday...I have become a bit desensitized....but still...there are images out there that you will be desensitized to that will warrant eye bleach. Lots of it.
And a hot Iron poker for good measure.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 10, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> After being on Gaia for "surprise buttsex" Friday...I have become a bit desensitized....but still...there are images out there that you will be desensitized to that will warrant eye bleach. Lots of it.
> And a hot Iron poker for good measure.


Heh, I have... "friends"... that do that for me XD I've seen a myriad of things I've wished I've never seen. After all, what are friends for?


----------



## nrr (Sep 10, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> Let's start adding numbers into this.



I stopped reading here. Why are you using a quantitative analysis with shaky academic footing? To the best of my knowledge, that document hasn't undergone sufficient peer review, and the six years of university-level education I have in mathematics is telling me that most of the implications you're drawing from this data don't make sense.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?


----------



## Aden (Sep 10, 2011)

nrr said:


> I stopped reading here. Why are you using a quantitative analysis with shaky academic footing? To the best of my knowledge, that document hasn't undergone sufficient peer review, and the six years of university-level education I have in mathematics is telling me that most of the implications you're drawing from this data don't make sense.
> 
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?



hey, nrr's back


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 10, 2011)

nrr said:


> I stopped reading here. Why are you using a quantitative analysis with shaky academic footing? To the best of my knowledge, that document hasn't undergone sufficient peer review, and the six years of university-level education I have in mathematics is telling me that most of the implications you're drawing from this data don't make sense.
> 
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?


Good to see you recognize fallacies. Since you obviously have me beat by popularity and years of experience, both locally and academically, to which I could never possibly hope to compare, I see no point in me continuing this conversation any further. Here is where I throw in the towel on this topic all together. 'Twas entertaining, at best. After this, therefore because you win. Good day, sir.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 11, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> Heh, I have... "friends"... that do that for me XD I've seen a myriad of things I've wished I've never seen. After all, what are friends for?



I don't want to know.


----------



## Ouros (Sep 20, 2011)

You guys are stupid.
Not child friendly? Then why remove all the boobs icons and having an option:''View Mature artwork''


----------



## Smelge (Sep 20, 2011)

Ouros said:


> You guys are stupid.
> Not child friendly? Then why remove all the boobs icons



Don't want to offend the homogaysexuals.


----------



## Dan. (Sep 21, 2011)

So wait, somebody has an avatar with the word 'fuck' in and we now have a 4 page discussion about it?
Typical furry drama.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 21, 2011)

Dan. said:


> So wait, somebody has an avatar with the word 'fuck' in and we now have a 4 page discussion about it?
> Typical furry drama.


What's funny is that this thread has been dead for more than a week until now. It should stay that way.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 21, 2011)

No reason to necro a topic about a banner already gone.

Closing thread.


----------

