# [@@@ ON HOLD @@@]: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

A new policy has gone into effect called the "Imageshack Behavior" policy. This policy, in essence, affects only those users who use FA as an image dump for anything and everything NOT art related.

*Policy: Imageshack Behavior*

*Short End of the Story: *Changes are being made to the maximum number of "personal images" that can be uploaded to FA. Too many users are treating the site like Photobucket/Imageshack, and it's flooding the site with too many random pictures of pets, toys, bugs on the wall, etc.

*Long Version:* See our wiki entry for the full policy. 

If you have any questions or comments feel free to voice your opinion! We're trying to give everybody a heads up as to the change.


----------



## Hanazawa (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

will this "grandfather in" old submissions, or are you going to crack down on already-junk-filled galleries now?


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Hanazawa said:
			
		

> will this "grandfather in" old submissions, or are you going to crack down on already-junk-filled galleries now?


They're not going to be grandfathered in. We may make exceptions depending on the person.

It's retroactive. If people have a concern about it, or have a good reason for an exception, they can contact me about it and I'll work with them.


----------



## bengalic (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I do not make art. But I do have pics of my fursuit. So are they allowed?


----------



## Tekiewolf (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Makes sense to me ^^


----------



## Growly (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				bengalic said:
			
		

> I do not make art. But I do have pics of my fursuit. So are they allowed?




Reading is good for you.

_"Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, *fursuits*, people, household items, parties, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life._


Though if you are the creator of the fursuit, you are allowed to post it.


----------



## bengalic (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Growly said:
			
		

> bengalic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I read that and as I understand it, you won't be able to post pics of fursuits anymore.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Growly said:
			
		

> Though if you are the creator of the fursuit, you are allowed to post it.


Clarification: If you create or own the fursuit you are allowed to post as many pictures as you want (within reason). The flooding portion applies to all, so if you upload 10 images of your suit hugging random people, we may decide that's flooding and ask you to clean it up.


----------



## dave hyena (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

How is this going to be enforced? In the sense of actually going through and doing it all.

For example, Is it envisaged that people might report violations of this rule through trouble tickets or on the violations forum, or that the adminstrators will work through this at their own pace? Perhaps with people searching through and compiling lists to aid in this process etc?


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> How is this going to be enforced? In the sense of actually going through and doing it all.
> 
> For example, Is it envisaged that people might report violations of this rule through trouble tickets or on the violations forum, or that the adminstrators will work through this at their own pace? Perhaps with people searching through and compiling lists to aid in this process etc?


It will be enforced lightly at first, more strict over time. I'd rather users not mass report issues like this, because we don't need rules nazis over-reporting the rule. However, if somebody clearly has two dozen images that are painfully off topic, dropping us a note is fine in my book, but if we're getting lots of reports of people bitching about a user for having SIX off topic images, being one over the limit, we're probably going to roll our eyes.

Admins will send users a note and give them a week to cull down the excess images. As the policy says, if users do not comply, we will begin to remove images. We'll attempt to keep any image based on its apparent importance.


----------



## Zakassis (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Well, I myself only have one photo-related image in my gallery, which is of my kitten...

I should be fine, right?


----------



## whitewulfe (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



> *  "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, parties, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life.
> * "Not of artistic merit" includes but is not limited to: image macros, random junk you saw, photos and/or screenshots or a picture of the that thing growing in the back of the fridge that speaks to you when you open the door.



Is it safe to presume that in the near future clearer rules on "of artistic merit" photography will be posted, seeing that the current definitions of every day life and not of artistic merit are very broad?  I ask because naturally when one goes about and does things like take sixty pictures and posts only one (or at most two, although my current trend as of late is two), having somewhat clearcut rules makes things a lot easier for those who express their artwork through a lens (even if it's a cameraphone because they can't afford $2k in camera gear atm).

What about things like landscapes, automotive photoshoots, photoshoots of other natures, or of people when you're visiting another country (provided of course you're following traditional photography "rules" like acquiring permission to take pictures and such)?

What if with photoshoots people went about and posted a single pic from the photoshoot, picking their best picture and then posting a link to the rest, would such be considered acceptable, or would such still fall under the five personal pictures rule?

And as well (since it comes to mind), for photography will pictures using only higher end gear (aka at minimum a proper point and shoot camera) be accepted, or will cameraphone pics be accepted as well?

Asking all these questions because I'm wanting to clear things up as to what I need to be keeping in my own personal galleries over at my own website, and what I can post over here on FA.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zakassis said:
			
		

> Well, I myself only have one photo-related image in my gallery, which is of my kitten...
> 
> I should be fine, right?


Yep!


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				whitewulfe said:
			
		

> Is it safe to presume that in the near future clearer rules on "of artistic merit" photography will be posted, seeing that the current definitions of every day life and not of artistic merit are very broad?  I ask because naturally when one goes about and does things like take sixty pictures and posts only one (or at most two, although my current trend as of late is two), having somewhat clearcut rules makes things a lot easier for those who express their artwork through a lens (even if it's a cameraphone because they can't afford $2k in camera gear atm).


It's hard to define more clear limits without putting ourselves into a rut where we over-define things. I'll attempt to add a bit more clarity to the rules later.

If you ever have questions as to what's legitimate or not you can always post links to me in a note and I'll let you know. It's a bit vague on purpose. Sometimes it's only until you see an image that you know what category it fits into.



			
				whitewulfe said:
			
		

> What about things like landscapes, automotive photoshoots, photoshoots of other natures, or of people when you're visiting another country (provided of course you're following traditional photography "rules" like acquiring permission to take pictures and such)?


Professional photography will not be touched. If somebody is taking professional, quality pictures we understand and respect that, and won't won't remove 'em.



			
				whitewulfe said:
			
		

> What if with photoshoots people went about and posted a single pic from the photoshoot, picking their best picture and then posting a link to the rest, would such be considered acceptable, or would such still fall under the five personal pictures rule?


You can provide all the links you want to so long as the content on the pages are legal (no warez!). So, you can post a picture and then a link to more images.

Camera phone images probably won't apply unless they maintain a certain level of quality.


----------



## Vitae (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Question:
Seeing as "pets" are lumped into the "no" category, how about fish? I'm not talking about posting pictures of "bob the goldfish" I mean like, my guppies for example.
I selectively breed guppies for their tail length/shape/quality and color. 

I consider this art, and I plan on posting pictures of my new batch of offspring which are getting their colors in. It's something that I didn't quite "create" I didn't "fertilize the eggs" but I selected a breed of guppy to mate with selected females for specific traits. That takes a lot of work.


----------



## whitewulfe (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> It's hard to define more clear limits without putting ourselves into a rut where we over-define things. I'll attempt to add a bit more clarity to the rules later.
> 
> If you ever have questions as to what's legitimate or not you can always post links to me in a note and I'll let you know. It's a bit vague on purpose. Sometimes it's only until you see an image that you know what category it fits into.



Good to know.



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Professional photography will not be touched. If somebody is taking professional, quality pictures we understand and respect that, and won't won't remove 'em.



Makes sense, just wanted to make sure.



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> You can provide all the links you want to so long as the content on the pages are legal (no warez!). So, you can post a picture and then a link to more images.
> 
> Camera phone images probably won't apply unless they maintain a certain level of quality.



Highly doubtful I'd be putting warez on my website, I'd have Rabbit or one of my other host's admins on my ass pretty quick, and not in the good way...

And with cameraphones, guess I'm best get that second job so I can afford that Digital Rebel XTi ^_^

Thanks a bunch for all the clarifications, and even more so for the quick reply.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				whitewulfe said:
			
		

> Thanks a bunch for all the clarifications, and even more so for the quick reply.


We appreciate it, and I apologize for the inconvenience... I really do. Unfortunately, things just got out of hand with certain users and we had to define a set standard, while still leaving people a bit of wiggle-room.


----------



## sneakcoyote (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Darn. Now I'm gonna have to do a few things to bring my gallery into compliance. Well pictures from the zoo are definately out. And then I'll have to remove some of my plushie photos. And my pets. And the spider in the garage will have to go. There might be other stuff in my galley I will have questions about.


----------



## *morningstar (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I'm glad you guys are cracking down on this. FA isn't a photoblog or a Livejournal or a MySpace or any of those other services. There's more appropriate places for those kinds of journalish random pictures than an art site.


----------



## Rouge2 (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I hope there won't be a size limit to how much you can upload.


----------



## Kata'lina (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Thank you! Oh Gods Thank you! I mean I do have 2 or 3 regular pictures, artistcaly done yes, but picuturs none the less, but nothing irks me more, than watching a good artist, and when there is a submission of thiers, my box is filled with like 15 or more Photos of this that or the other thing...that had nothing to do with art.

Thank you for this rule.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Rouge2 said:
			
		

> I hope there won't be a size limit to how much you can upload.


There is. I suggest you read the rule so you understand the limits in place.


----------



## Rouge2 (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Rouge2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I meant about how much you can upload on an account.


----------



## whitewulfe (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> We appreciate it, and I apologize for the inconvenience... I really do. Unfortunately, things just got out of hand with certain users and we had to define a set standard, while still leaving people a bit of wiggle-room.



Not a problem, it just gives me the motivation to save up for my camera instaed of buying more vinyl, and of course to keep improving on taking even better pictures... ^_^


----------



## AishaDracoGryph (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I have seen people using the site for what they could be using photobucket or imageshack for, but I also see people posting up stuff they just want to share with their friends on FA.

I for one have a bunch of pic of my dog because I like the ability to have people comment of them and such. I also have a bunch of pics of some snowmen I made.

The dog pics might be seen as personal pics but what about my snowmen? I made them myself and many would argue that that is art. They sure are original to me. Do my snowmen also count as personal pics?


----------



## awash2002 (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

well I guess I will keep my gallery for my music if I am still able to play again due to my recent injury and I totaly agree with KurtBatz we needed this rule for a long time


----------



## cesarin (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

maybe they can later add something similar to Y!G..
feacturing "EXTRAS" and you can upload to photobucket there and just link the image ? 

Edited by Dragoneer


----------



## Krystallwolvelt (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

What if there was a photo of someone's tattoo, showing off clothes based on a game or film, or a figure from a anime or game or fursuits not a big fan of most fursuits really but it seems fair to mention them. 

is this getting kicked off or are you gonna reconsider some of the catagorys in photography also what about photomanipulation if its greatly done though.


----------



## timoran (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

In a few months, expect to see "premium accounts" where all these numbers are increased slightly if you pay up.

Wouldn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Charrio (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Wait, are you saying just off pics, or like artworks, i post multiple times daily but it is all art, so i am wondering?


----------



## k454i (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Not liking it too much so far. First of all, it's way too broad. Second, alot of people consider different things to be art. What looks like a snapshot of a rusty gate to one person, is art to another.

As for photos of pets... so long as its not a snapshot, I consider it to be art. I take macro pictures of my insects, I love to get so much detail from such little creatures. My scorpion may not be as cute and fluffy as someone elses puppy, but how is it off topic?

Plus, what about people who are taking photos seriously, and just aren't that good at it yet? It gets discarded as trash, and they feel like shit. Do we get to remove any horribly drawn stuff too? 

I really, really don't like it. :/


----------



## k454i (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> In a few months, expect to see "premium accounts" where all these numbers are increased slightly if you pay up.
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all.



THIS JUST IN.

THE CORPORATE NINJAPIG JOINS FORCES WITH THE FURFAGS.

FEVIANT ARFINITY IS BORN.

PAY NOW FOR DAILY ACCESS.

HOT FURRY XXX.

(oh god i am so sorry)


----------



## AishaDracoGryph (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I think perhaps a decision was made to fast without enough input from users. It seems way to broad and sounds to me like it will take away allot of what makes FA so great.

Also you have to think, they just begged for money for a new server upgrade and now they are enacting new rules without any say from the very people they wanted money from (allot of whom did actually donate)


----------



## Victoria Viper (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Sounds pretty good to me. Now, if you could just install some rules to prevent people from posting drawings in their galleries that aren't their's (I'm tired of seeing "I didn't draw any of the stuff in my gallery. Don't compliment me on it." If it's not yours, it shouldn't be in your gallery, I say), and either have more mods/admins to actually enforce said rules, or make a "flag pictures for moderation" function that all users can use to note pictures that are violating the rules, we'd be all set.


----------



## Mapper (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I was actually wondering when some sort of space restriction would be set in place. With all the galleries growing faster, when were the sides of the server going to blow out.
As with bandwidth does FA block linking to galleries so as to prevent other sites from displaying images posted here?


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Krystallwolvelt said:
			
		

> What if there was a photo of someone's tattoo, showing off clothes based on a game or film, or a figure from a anime or game or fursuits not a big fan of most fursuits really but it seems fair to mention them.



Fursuits are mentioned in the rule. It states that photos of something created by the user are still allowed, so that would presumably include clothes and tattoos. If a tattoo wasn't created by the user, then it really isn't their own artistic talent, it is just something about them, and so it would fall under something that myspace or photobucket is for, but not FA.



			
				Charrio said:
			
		

> Wait, are you saying just off pics, or like artworks, i post multiple times daily but it is all art, so i am wondering?



They're just talking about photographs of anything that was not created by the user uploading them.



> k454i said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				k454i said:
			
		

> Second, alot of people consider different things to be art. What looks like a snapshot of a rusty gate to one person, is art to another.



There is no universally accepted definition of "Art." So they either allow anything and everything, or they define it how they want to. The definition they are using (quoted from the wiki) is: "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image.



			
				k454i said:
			
		

> As for photos of pets... so long as its not a snapshot, I consider it to be art. I take macro pictures of my insects, I love to get so much detail from such little creatures. My scorpion may not be as cute and fluffy as someone elses puppy, but how is it off topic?



Because this site is meant to share users' personal creative abilities. You didn't create your pets. Vitae's situation is different because there's a specific change in the animals as a direct result of her personal decisions on which fish to mate, so she may warrant an exception to the rule.



> k454i said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				timoran said:
			
		

> In a few months, expect to see "premium accounts" where all these numbers are increased slightly if you pay up.
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all.



And where has there been anything at all to suggest this happening? :

The staff can, and should, be free to make rules as they wish, and make exceptions as they see fit. This is their site. They're not going to be randomly deleting stuff from people they don't like. If something has artistic merit, I'm sure they'll listen to reasonable exceptions. But they've stated clearly that they will be shifting the site away from the imageshack/myspace direction it has drifted, and so of course some people are just going to have to accept that some of their snapshots are more suited for one of those other services.



			
				AishaDracoGryph said:
			
		

> I think perhaps a decision was made to fast without enough input from users. It seems way to broad and sounds to me like it will take away allot of what makes FA so great.



Well, the last time a decision was being made, they asked for input, the user opinion was deadlocked, and all that ended up happening was a huge unnecessary explosion of drama. It would have been much better if they had made their decision and simply enacted it. Just as they've done now. FA is great because the people who keep it going genuinely have the best interests of everyone behind what they do. Have some faith, and at least wait to see things go up in flames before being too sure that things are doomed.



			
				AishaDracoGryph said:
			
		

> Also you have to think, they just begged for money for a new server upgrade and now they are enacting new rules without any say from the very people they wanted money from (allot of whom did actually donate)



Maybe the rules should have been announced before the donation request just for appearance's sake. But as has been stated, the timing of the server upgrade is kinda required because Dragoneer will be moving and that upgrade needs to be handled before he does.

They're not taking money from people and then kicking them out. If anyone who donated feels slighted by this rule change, let them speak up themselves.

A lot of the questions/concerns being brought up have already been answered, either in the thread or in the rule there on the wiki. Maybe something could be added to the first post asking people to please please actually READ the new rules before asking questions or complaining about them?


----------



## Growly (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Que es 'warez'?


----------



## Krystallwolvelt (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Krystallwolvelt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But what if the tattoo was done on the FA members would that be acceptable to?

I must have forgot about the fursuit bit,sorry.


----------



## Salt (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Ah, finally! A change that was a long time coming.
It'll be so great to browse the new submissions unfiltered and not run into photos of millions of pets, LEGO sculptures, or the same Second Life avatar from every conceivable angle with every concievable attachment in every mode it supports!

To me, Fur Affinity IS an image dump site. But it's an image dump for furry art. Of course everyone has a different definition of the term "art", but if you ask me, the administrators here shouldn't over-analyze or over-define what people can't post, just state what people can post. It should be something like, "You may post scanned or digital pictures drawn or painted by yourself(excluding 3D images), within posted resolution guidelines and categorized properly." And of course there should be an emphasis on "furry". This IS the majority of the works on here, and if I'm not mistaken, what FA was originally created to host.

Now there are a lot of photographs, 3-D works, music, stories, etc on the site, and there's no reason why they should be excluded. But I believe they should be segregated. It frustrates me to no end to see a thumbnail of a promising looking picture, only to find that upon clicking it, it's still a thumbnail with an audio recording. The default browse option should show the above defined artwork only. If people want to browse music, then there can be a "browse music" option on the nav links. Same thing for photos and stories. There can even be an "off-topic" option if people want to see those five allowed postings of your pets or your chisled abs while in your newly-tiled bathroom.

It should be a SIMPLE system to use. Seperate areas for broad yet specific topics. If all else fails, just ask yourself before you post to "Fur"Affinity, "Is this furry?" If it's a scantily-clad harem-dancing anthro-dingo, then yes, it is. If it's Superman, Naruto, or a photo of a pile of leaves, then no, it is not.

Salt


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				AishaDracoGryph said:
			
		

> I think perhaps a decision was made to fast without enough input from users. It seems way to broad and sounds to me like it will take away allot of what makes FA so great.
> 
> Also you have to think, they just begged for money for a new server upgrade and now they are enacting new rules without any say from the very people they wanted money from (allot of whom did actually donate)


We got input from a few people, yes. However, the main issue is that some people are abusing the site's original intention by uploading lots of random content that does not contribute to the site.

We allowed up to five off topic pics per user, which is pretty generous. We allow people to continue to post items THEY created, without limits. The new policy is fair towards people who have created their work.

People can still post their random second life images, but not without limits.


----------



## Almafeta (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

An un-needed rule...  I thought that outright abuses of FA like this happened rarely enough that they could still be administrated on a case-by-case basis.  But...  just five pictures, and that's the rule we all have to abide by?  Ah well.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> In a few months, expect to see "premium accounts" where all these numbers are increased slightly if you pay up.


Negative. So long as people continue to donate, Fur Affinity will completely free to all users in the fandom. We've thought about "premium accounts", but decided it is not the way to go for FA.

The fandom's generosity has, in my eyes, proven that we can (and will) be able to do this.


----------



## STRAKER (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

ok, I have a problem with this Dragoneer...

see, I only post photography. i AM a professional, but, most of the stuff on my user page is "plushie porn" photography. i do have some pics of me at halloween and a few of my collection of Batman figures. but the main bulk of my pics are of my plushies in various suggestive poses. now, i realize that i'm not a huge contributing member of FA and that i'm not a major artist since i don't really draw anymore, but, who is to say that my plush toy photography isn't contributing to the furry community here on FA? i spent a lot of time setting up the pics, adjusting lighting and pinning the plushies into position, then loading them in photoshop and fixing dighting and removing defects, then choosing just the right pics. how would my photographs be concidered any less artistic given the fact that i spent hours working on them? is it JUST because it's a pic of a plush toy to you?

 my biggest concern is that you say there will be exceptions for some people... so basically what you're saying that you're leaving the door open to not get rid of people that you like and maybe, that you concider to be an "artist" of merit or an "equil", but joe schmoes like me that can't draw, will have to withdraw our abilities to interact with artists and just be a "watcher" and therefore ignorable and not a real part to this community that we are here for in the first place. 

 i know and understand the theory behind the staffs decision, because there ARE people who seriously abuse the place.  but there's a lot of folks who don't.  if someone has 20 not-really-art pieces in their gallery and are a big part of the community, and they upload like 1 a month, and they're reasonable sized, why should they get lumped in with the folks who really couldn't give a shit and are using it as an fchan?

as the rule is written right now, there really IS no rule.  just a guideline that is so open to interpretation, and it will either do nothing or it will burn good people here who are just looking for a community they can call home. we've had SO may sites just trash the average fur, and we've had to move from site to site So many times to look for a place to just be with friends and be able to contribute in our small way....but then someone in charge screws it up (i think we ALL remember what happened to Y! Gallery) mostly from not listening to their community or caring how many they blew off.

  the community has grown beyond Fur-Artistry, And really IS Fur-AFFINITY.  this leaves those of us who respected the site, and belonged and "had an affinity" with everyone else here, in the dust.  What next?  This is basically a "no junk photography" filter, is it a "no junk art" filter too? If you want to do this right, why don't you actually listen to the people this will affect and get some imput from the community before you decide just what YOU think is right and say "oh well"?


since typing this post, i noticed that there's already people asking for music and stories to be segregated as well now...


----------



## ferinoch (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Growly said:
			
		

> Que es 'warez'?



ummm, it's a catch all term for illegal copies of software or movies or other things.


----------



## Kels (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Okay, I do need some clarification.  The new rule states that photos of your pets are out.  I have photos of my cats on my account, however they were chosen for artistic merit, not because they were my pets.  Elsewhere, I do art photography, so before I started drawing my photos _were_ my art.

So the question is, are photos of that nature acceptable?


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Krystallwolvelt said:
			
		

> But what if the tattoo was done on the FA members would that be acceptable to?
> 
> I must have forgot about the fursuit bit,sorry.



There's a good bit of new info to take in there on the wiki, but it really is worth looking through all the different pages they've added. There's a good bit of effort there put into clarifying things for people, so give that a good read and I think most questions are addressed there.

Basically though, the intent here seems to be to get FA back into focusing on the users' personal creative talents. A tattoo that you just happen to have on you, but isn't one you created yourself, is not really any sort of personal creativity or talent. It is just sharing something about yourself, and that sense of general community is what places like MySpace is for.

FA is a community too, but it is first and foremost a themed art community. Its for sharing your talent. They are allowing SOME off-topic images though, so a pic of a tattoo that isn't created by you would likely be allowed so long as you are still under your limit of off-topic pics.

Again, all this information IS there in the wiki for anyone who cares to give it a good look-through. ^_^


----------



## Sukebepanda (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Maybe it's just me, but "Furaffinity' means -Furry- art, not pictures of your pet/car/non-animal photography/anything that doesn't deal with animals/furs. I think I might have _one_ non-FA related image in my gallery (a snapshot of my work area where i draw my art), the rest deals with furres/mythicals/creatures.

This is just a touchy subject x_x


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Kels said:
			
		

> Okay, I do need some clarification.  The new rule states that photos of your pets are out.  I have photos of my cats on my account, however they were chosen for artistic merit, not because they were my pets.  Elsewhere, I do art photography, so before I started drawing my photos _were_ my art.
> 
> So the question is, are photos of that nature acceptable?


You can still post pictures of pets, but no more than five "off topic" images can be posted at maximum.


----------



## Kels (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Kels said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So animal-related art photography is not considered "art"?


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				STRAKER said:
			
		

> ok, I have a problem with this Dragoneer...
> 
> see, I only post photography. i AM a professional, but, most of the stuff on my user page is "plushie porn" photography. i do have some pics of me at halloween and a few of my collection of Batman figures. but the main bulk of my pics are of my plushies in various suggestive poses. now, i realize that i'm not a huge contributing member of FA and that i'm not a major artist since i don't really draw anymore, but, who is to say that my plush toy photography isn't contributing to the furry community here on FA? i spent a lot of time setting up the pics, adjusting lighting and pinning the plushies into position, then loading them in photoshop and fixing dighting and removing defects, then choosing just the right pics. how would my photographs be concidered any less artistic given the fact that i spent hours working on them? is it JUST because it's a pic of a plush toy to you?
> 
> ...





			
				Kels said:
			
		

> Okay, I do need some clarification.  The new rule states that photos of your pets are out.  I have photos of my cats on my account, however they were chosen for artistic merit, not because they were my pets.  Elsewhere, I do art photography, so before I started drawing my photos _were_ my art.
> 
> So the question is, are photos of that nature acceptable?





Taken from the wiki: "Fur Affinity allows users to post photographic images without limits so long as the images constitute as "art". "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image."

Also to take into consideration is, again, the intent of this site to be focused on personal creative talents. A photo of a pet, even a carefully considered one, is limited in the extent of personal creative talent displayed. You don't usually see Art Galleries of simple pet photos. A photo where, for example, a person has watched a landscape, chosen a specific vantage point to shoot from, waited for a certain weather/lighting situation, and framed the shot with thoughts of composition and such, is very different from a very well-made photo of Mittens the Cat.

A problem that is inherent in this issue is that some people will disagree with the staff's decisions, and/or tell them they need to draw the line here, or there, or right between this and this, etc. Those people need to just sit tight. The staff will make up their own minds, and that will be good enough. The people running this place aren't a collection of assholes. They're not going to be dicks about it. 

If anything at all, this staff has proven to be EXTREMELY lenient in the enforcement of their rules. So I don't think anyone needs to worry about the staff suddenly sprouting horns and dismissing people at random. They don't kick out people just for not likeing them, in fact they have specifically allowed many people they're not fond of to stick around, so I don't see where people get the idea they'd act that way. :


----------



## TCMarrik (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Wow Great Policy for getting rid of people who have different artist talents than Traditional Pen and Paper or Pro Photographers. I guess spending 3+ years learning proper Techniques to paint my "Toys" or Learning the Ins and outs of Photoshop to create new textures for furry Avatars in second life isn't really artistic enough.  Much like the cub art policy, this is poorly thought  out. When I have access to my account again I will be removing everything in my gallery and will find some place else to post.


I wish you luck in keeping FA running if for no other reason than for the up and coming furry artist.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Hm. Two ways this could go:

Either people accept that the staff can make their own judgements on a case-by-case basis over whether photos of animals constitute Art or not...

...or people won't be happy until the staff says either All animals are okay or No animals are okay.

So people, either accept the wiggle-room they've given; that some photos are art, and snapshots of your pets usually are not.

Or keep insisting that they make a more hardline rule, where they will either ignore you or listen to you and simply say no animal photos.

Please, let's learn from the recent drama and everyone accept that sometimes grey area IS acceptable, and trying to force a hard line decision will usually result in an answer you're even less happy with.


----------



## kitetsu (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

If anything, i express dissatisfaction of this policy. I will not state my reasons why.


----------



## Hanazawa (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Photographs of pets that are artistic: here, here, and here, for just a few. I'm pretty sure that the FA mods/admins can recognize these as art rather than just "photos", and as long as the users can also make this distinction, I'm not convinced there should be a problem.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				TCMarrik said:
			
		

> Wow Great Policy for getting rid of people who have different artist talents than Traditional Pen and Paper or Pro Photographers. I guess spending 3+ years learning proper Techniques to paint my "Toys" or Learning the Ins and outs of Photoshop to create new textures for furry Avatars in second life isn't really artistic enough.  Much like the cub art policy, this is poorly thought  out. When I have access to my account again I will be removing everything in my gallery and will find some place else to post.
> 
> 
> I wish you luck in keeping FA running if for no other reason than for the up and coming furry artist.



Dude, read the thing, because you obviously didn't.

They are disallowing shots of things not created by the user, or excessive shots of the SAME thing created by the user.

If you MADE the majority of whatever is the focus of the image, and you're not posting excessive shots of it, then its not going anywhere. 

Is it really so hard for people to actually read a rule before dismissing it as stupid and a sign of the furry apocolypse?


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				kitetsu said:
			
		

> If anything, i express dissatisfaction of this policy. I will not state my reasons why.



That's helpful. :

There will be much dissatisfaction with this policy. Because people are being told there's something they can't do. That in itself is no reason to discourage going ahead as planned with this policy.



			
				Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Photographs of pets that are artistic: here, here, and here, for just a few. I'm pretty sure that the FA mods/admins can recognize these as art rather than just "photos", and as long as the users can also make this distinction, I'm not convinced there should be a problem.



I'm confident in the staff's ability to recognise the difference. I'm also confident that most users won't be able to understand the distinction. The question is whether or not the staff can stand their ground with the fact that whether or not the users agree with their decisions on this is kindof irrelevant.

Anyone told "that's not art" will be upset. Some people will not be happy with any rule unless they are given exception to it and can just do what they please. Sometimes you just let the unhappy people stay unhappy and focus on keeping the happy people happy.


----------



## Krystallwolvelt (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Krystallwolvelt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok


----------



## TCMarrik (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> TCMarrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did Read it and what I have in my Gallery despite being made by me falls into the 5 images per account clause. The only legal Images left after I remove everything else are con badges, and there are not enough of those to reasonably keep a FA account.



> "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, parties, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life.
> If you are posting pictures of 3D models you have created (3D meshes, Second Life avatars) you may post up to three images per model to highlight your design. Second Life designs which are modifications of "for sale" avatars (such as Lost Creatures suits) do not apply to this rule, and constitute towards your five picture limit.


1. I do not create Skins or Textures for sale currently Therefore the Exception does not apply to me. 
2. My minitures are by a fair number of people considered toys no matter how well painted or modified. 
As such 90% of my gallery is now not permited by this new policy. So tell me why should I keep a gallery where I'm not allow to post Images of what I use as an artistic medium?


----------



## timoran (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Fur Affinity:

Where Freedom Of Expression Reigns!


----------



## KurtBatz (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

100% agree with this policy. It's well overdue and a very positive step in the right direction. I applaud and thank Dragoneer immensely for bringing it in as it's something I've been hoping to see for a very long time. Will gladly edit my gallery to fit in with the new criteria if required.


----------



## Mikau (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

While I may not exactly approve of this sort of thing, I feel that it may be appropriate for most users who treat this site like ImageShack. And personally, it drives me nuts sometimes

However, I don't draw, and photography is pretty much my only form of art... well, that and sprite animations. Will my comedic photos and sprite animations still be allowed on the site? If so, that would indeed be a wonderful day for me, as I like to entertain people with funny stuff I take and upload.

As well, I write rants, expressed on what I have on my mind, and I do sincerely hope that, too, is also allowed.


----------



## Endless Night (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Someone had actually photographed a picture of their socks the other day. Plain white Walkmart socks. I was kind of stunned. I'm so glad to see something like this in place. Plushies and toys too. I understand if you make them yourself, as soft sculpture and toy making is hard, but seeing just shots of someone's favourite wolf plushie or comic book toys confused me. They might be important to you and your life but that doesn't make them your art, it make sthem the kind of thing you share on a personal webspace or web blog. You can even link that from your gallery comments so you can still share them with people who visit your art. 
Even five+ photos of the artist taken on their webcam in the uploads confused me. I mean one shot of yourself I sort of get, but even then I would say that's LJ material. So thank you FA, I think most people are going to be very happy to see a lot of nonsense trimmed out of uploads and galleries. 
I guess I'd be too tough since in regards to the person who poses plushies I really wouldn't even consider that art. Unless those are your plushies you created and you are using them like puppets. Posing someone elses' creation in a "suggestive pose" doesn't really strike me as art. I really have to go check out the gallery know, maybe it'll change my mind. But I don't see posing a plushie as too much different than a screen cap of SL avatars getting it on. You're just staging another person's creation. 

I see people freaking about 'one person's art photo is another one's snapshot' but I really think that most people are going to know in their hearts which images are in their gallery are honestly art photos and which are just showing off item X, Y or Z shots. Or their socks. 
I also have a feeling that if you get asked to remove some shots and in turn explain to the admins the artistic merit and ideas behind the images and it's reasonable they aren't going to antagonise you. I have yet to see the admins do that to anyone. (I'm sure there's some embittered folks out there who would disagree, but I personally have yet to see the admins go on a blood thristy, take no prisoners admining rampage around here)


----------



## Mikau (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				cesarin said:
			
		

> maybe they can later add something similar to Y!G..
> feacturing "EXTRAS" and you can upload to photobucket there and just link the image ?
> 
> Edited by Dragoneer



That would be great if they did something like that. Although I haven't heard very much from Y!Gallery at all since I left.

After the suspension struck me, I overall left the site, and two weeks later I returned to bid my final farewell and left officially. I haven't returned to Y!G since then. And I'm not in the least too surprised that a good percentage of people are still pretty ticked off with the "LOL NO FURRIES ALLOWED" rule on their site.

But if you ask me, they're just drunk with power, just like deviantART, except the dA admins are total nazis and could care less if stolen art was posted.

That's why I enjoy FA. The admins are really nice here, and I like to do my very best to remain on their good side.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				TCMarrik said:
			
		

> I did Read it and what I have in my Gallery despite being made by me falls into the 5 images per account clause. The only legal Images left after I remove everything else are con badges, and there are not enough of those to reasonably keep a FA account.



If that is the case, then the sad fact of the matter is that what you have shared is outside of the site's intended scope. Trust me, these people hate to turn ANYONE away, even people who have openly attacked the site. But at some point, it becomes unreasonable to expect to be a service for everyone to do everything they want.

If you do not feel that what you have contributed falls under what is now stated as the site's purpose, there is still no rule preventing you from continuing to be a member of the community and to keep interacting with everyone here. There are MANY thousands of users who do not contribute, but are still able to happily maintain an active role in this community. Whether or not you choose to do so as well or not, is your choice and yours alone.


			
				TCMarrik said:
			
		

> > "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, parties, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life.
> > If you are posting pictures of 3D models you have created (3D meshes, Second Life avatars) you may post up to three images per model to highlight your design. Second Life designs which are modifications of "for sale" avatars (such as Lost Creatures suits) do not apply to this rule, and constitute towards your five picture limit.
> 
> 
> ...



1. You misread. The rule says models YOU have created are allowed three images per model. The exception of "for sale" avatars means if you BOUGHT it, it is off-topic. It does not say 'for-sale' avatars are allowed and self-created ones are not.

2. Try them. Ask an Admin if the work you have put into your miniatures would constitute enough personal creative work to allow the images. Seriously, I am not being condescending or sarcastic, but ASK them if your work is dismissed before just dismissing yourself.


----------



## Endless Night (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Mikau said:
			
		

> except the dA admins are total nazis and could care less if stolen art was posted.



 Wow that's a really offensive, broad unfair generalisation to make. How do you know people here aren't also DA staff? They aren't all evil furry haters. If you had bad experiences on DA you might want to look at your own actions before you slam every admin there. 

And as per stolen art I've seen my share of clip art from Disney and etc. recoloured and uploaded here. Or traced. Or commissions depciting fanart characters. So you've got art rips, just from large companies, and fan art which is technically stealing from the owners of the original intellectual property, and at the least infringing on their lisence to the characters. 
You may think that is the lesser of two evils when it comes to fan art or blatantly taking another furry's else's piece of original artwork but they're both technically wrong. So it strikes me odd you'd dis on DA saying they allow stolen artwork, while praising FA which allows fanart and fanart commissions to be posted.


----------



## STRAKER (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> STRAKER said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





the hell??? ok, so, if it's an "image in which the photographer (me) clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image" but it happens to be a picture of a stuffed animal, i can post it without restrictions, and seeing as how it's a stuffed animal pic and as there are plenty of furries that are into "plushie" then it's not off topic. but, if the admin doesesn't like my art or ME personally, they could say "so what if you held a flashlight and pointed it at your stuffies, that's not lighing and artistic merit." and it's removed...

by the way wolfblade, a  "photo where, for example, a person has watched a landscape, chosen a specific vantage point to shoot from, waited for a certain weather/lighting situation, and framed the shot with thoughts of composition and such, is very different from a very well-made photo of Mittens the Cat" huh, well, the photographer didn't make the landscape either, so i don't call it art because they didn't make it themselves. subjective rules DO NOT WORK.  someone ALWAYS has a different idea as to what is and is not art!

I wonder if you remember the problems caused at y! with the "anthro rule", what constitutes  anthro and what doesn't and how they allow basically "humans with animal ears and tails" but THATS not "anthro" somehow.

oh, and i never said I "worry about the staff suddenly sprouting horns and dismissing people at random." and i know "They don't kick out people just for not likeing them, in fact they have specifically allowed many people they're not fond of to stick around" i said "joe schmoes like me that can't draw, will have to withdraw our abilities to interact with artists and just be a "watcher" and therefore ignorable and not a real part to this community that we are here for in the first place." as in, i will loose all the people who watch me BECAUSE of my "plushie porn" pictures. also, as to the "this staff has proven to be EXTREMELY lenient in the enforcement of their rules." yeahhhh, except that Dragoneer himself has stated that it "will be enforced lightly at first, more strict over time." so please, don't try to make it seem that this rule may not even mean anything to us.


----------



## zorrofeta (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I'd honestly like to see how you are going to seperate photography from what you call 'personal'. The line you've drawn seems very thin, if not non-existant.

It doesn't sound like you've thought this through much, as by the fact you can't even be serious on wikiffinity.


----------



## dyrwolfe (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Does this affect the abstract art images??


----------



## Sym_Gryphon (Dec 3, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

1. What is the "five picture limit"?

2. Have I violated the Imageshack Behavior policy?


----------



## Tamen (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Wonderful idea!  I think this will be a really good way to cut out garbagey things that have no place on an art site!  Kudos to the admin on this one.


----------



## Dragoon_of_Light (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I hope this doesn't include stories, or poems, or music.


----------



## Thassalante (Dec 4, 2006)

*Common Sense Is Your Friend*

Ok people, since so many people are already diving off the deep end on this, let me put my 2 cents in and hopefully clear this up.
Here is an easy way to tell if your pictures or other images of things potentially labeled 'off topic' really deserve the axe:
Look at your picture.  I mean really look at it.  Did you take it for artistic reasons, or can you see real artistic quality in it?  If the answer is "no", then you may as well consider it part of the "five picture limit".  If the answer is "yes", but your account gets flagged anyway, or if you want to preemptively protect your work, send a message to the administration that calmly and rationally explains your opinion.
Remember, this rule is really only there to keep people from dumping tons and tons of meaningless crap photos of everything and their kitchen sink onto FA.  If you think that your pictures have even a shred of artistic value, you probably have nothing to worry about.


----------



## I_Own_Charles (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

All this from a stock/reference photo of a deer fetus. Oh and someone's "hairy Mexican ass".

Does no one else appreciate the irony that a drawing of a furry shitting on another furry's face while being vomitted and pissed on by two other furries is considered 'art', yet an average photograph of someone's dog (that, maybe, someone could use as a pose reference?) will be considered 'photobucketing' and deleted?

Yes pedophilic cub fur. No potential animal reference photos. Yes scat, rape, drugs, vomit. No 'hay guyz this is what i look leik find me at AC' photos.

Somehow, it all makes sense. 

Yeah I know, this doesn't affect me since I killed my gallery off anyhow. But I'm just saying. 600 is so far away...;-)


----------



## Jaywuff (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> A new policy has gone into effect called the "Imageshack Behavior" policy. This policy, in essence, affects only those users who use FA as an image dump for anything and everything NOT art related.
> 
> *Policy: Imageshack Behavior*
> 
> ...



SO does photgraphy fall under this new rule?


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				TCMarrik said:
			
		

> I did Read it and what I have in my Gallery despite being made by me falls into the 5 images per account clause. The only legal Images left after I remove everything else are con badges, and there are not enough of those to reasonably keep a FA account.


Guest art can still be posted provided you have permission from the original artist.


----------



## TheListener (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Jaywuff said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From the sounds of it, if you are taking the picture to show off your skills and talents, then no, it does not fall under this new rule. however, if you are taking the pic to either show off something you didn't make nor contribute to, or as a basic "webcam" style shot, then yes, it is involved under this rule.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Jaywuff said:
			
		

> SO does photgraphy fall under this new rule?


Read the rule on the wiki. It's fairly clear that photography is allows unrestricted provided it's artistic. Aka, you're taking a shot to make a piece of art, not just "snap a picture of what's happening"


----------



## timoran (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Idea.

Keep a copy of all the images you [have] submit to FA. If they're deleted, congregate somewhere off FA servers and post the deleted images and keep track of what is getting axed. As soon as FA goes too far in defining "art", there will be hundreds of furries crying bloody murder and demonstrating with evidence that there is a problem.

Until that happens, don't worry about it. Most likely even if the admins would have abused this rule, knowing that the artists will be archiving the deleted images and keeping track of them is enough to make them tread carefully.

Accountability and transparency brings out the best outcome in almost every situation. Just a thought.


----------



## Endless Night (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Also you could always make a personal webpage and link it in your artist comments to share any photos that were removed. If people care about you enough or are curious about you enough to want to see your webcam shots, TLK plushie collection, pet rabbit,  potato chip that loooks like a dog penis, etc. they'll be willing to click an extra link to see those pics.


----------



## Defiler Wyrm (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

[size=x-small]Well, _someone's_ gotta ask it, and it might as well be me. [/size]
On the subject of photography, where will "stock photography" â€” images intended primarily for the sake of reference â€” fall? Also, since I haven't seen anything that distinguishes thus far [and forgive me if I've missed something], does this apply to user galleries as a whole [including Scraps], or only to the main galleries [excluding Scraps]?


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> Keep a copy of all the images you [have] submit to FA. If they're deleted, congregate somewhere off FA servers and post the deleted images and keep track of what is getting axed. As soon as FA goes too far in defining "art", there will be hundreds of furries crying bloody murder and demonstrating with evidence that there is a problem.


And what's to stop people from just posting random images, saying it was on FA when it never was to discredit us?

We haven't started removing images yet.


----------



## Calbeck (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Growly said:
			
		

> _"Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, *fursuits*, people, household items, parties, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life._



Hey now, WAIT a second.  I CREATE stuff in Second Life.  Stuff with a furry motif, or which is used by and for furries on SL.  And I've occasionally taken an in-game shot of my creations, each of which contains distinctly furry content.

I can understand not being allowed to post pics of random things or material with non-artistic interests, but every one of the SL pics I've posted (by far the minority of my normal work, which is hand-drawn and PC-colored) has been artistically posed and shot.  The effect is no different than if I'd created a real-life sculpture of an anthro character and snapped a photo of it for general viewing.

So do I have to take down this material just because it was created using Second Life, or what?


----------



## KurtBatz (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Defiler Wyrm said:
			
		

> [size=x-small]Well, _someone's_ gotta ask it, and it might as well be me. [/size]
> On the subject of photography, where will "stock photography" â€” images intended primarily for the sake of reference â€” fall? Also, since I haven't seen anything that distinguishes thus far [and forgive me if I've missed something], does this apply to user galleries as a whole [including Scraps], or only to the main galleries [excluding Scraps]?



As you're probably all too aware, some of us as far less than satisified with other users definition of 'stock photography'.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Calbeck said:
			
		

> I can understand not being allowed to post pics of random things or material with non-artistic interests, but every one of the SL pics I've posted (by far the minority of my normal work, which is hand-drawn and PC-colored) has been artistically posed and shot.  The effect is no different than if I'd created a real-life sculpture of an anthro character and snapped a photo of it for general viewing.
> 
> So do I have to take down this material just because it was created using Second Life, or what?


I made a minor clarification to the exception, but the original exception stated if you CREATED the item, you can post up to three pictures of it to show it off.

Essentially, the rule stands as it always does: if you CREATED it you can POST it.

Thus, if you make a design in SL or an avatar, you can post up to three pictures to it highlight the item. The original exception did cover this, but was not worded as well as it could be.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Defiler Wyrm said:
			
		

> [size=x-small]Well, _someone's_ gotta ask it, and it might as well be me. [/size]
> On the subject of photography, where will "stock photography" â€” images intended primarily for the sake of reference â€” fall? Also, since I haven't seen anything that distinguishes thus far [and forgive me if I've missed something], does this apply to user galleries as a whole [including Scraps], or only to the main galleries [excluding Scraps]?


Main galleries. If you want to post items to your scraps you may feel free, but keep in mind flooding still applies. We have had too many users post half a dozen images of the exact same item and that does tend to annoy people.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Defiler Wyrm said:
			
		

> [size=x-small]Well, _someone's_ gotta ask it, and it might as well be me. [/size]
> On the subject of photography, where will "stock photography" â€” images intended primarily for the sake of reference â€” fall? Also, since I haven't seen anything that distinguishes thus far [and forgive me if I've missed something], does this apply to user galleries as a whole [including Scraps], or only to the main galleries [excluding Scraps]?


I revised the rule to further define the image. As far as stock photography, I guess it depends...


----------



## Defiler Wyrm (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Main galleries. If you want to post items to your scraps you may feel free, but keep in mind flooding still applies. We have had too many users post half a dozen images of the exact same item and that does tend to annoy people.


Duly noted.



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> I revised the rule to further define the image. As far as stock photography, I guess it depends...


Cheers. Suppose we'll take the stock thing as it comes.


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Second Life? Good riddance for all the SL crap flooding my message boxes.

I hope my monthly desktop shots aren't doing anything :X


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

*Photos I consider of artistic merit:*
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/303978/ (although I'm not sure I want to know what's going on in this picture)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/300534/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/299002/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/298964/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/278183/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/297209/

*Examples of what is perfectly allowable and don't count towards your limit:*
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/195843/ (The guy posted a series of images of himself modding is car into a zebra... I'd consider that to be fair, although I'm not sure about the amount of pictures he posted. I can see some creative reasons for allowing this to slide)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/295265/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/169361/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/231518/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/137384/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/231122/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/260492/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/196073/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/255176/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/262498/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/191889/ (as I said, you make it... you can post it)

*Examples of what would count towards your 5*
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/293814/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/186271/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/186270/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/186269/

*Example of flooding:*
(I'm not picking on the user, as they have some great shots, but this would be an example of "flooding").
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183980/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183981/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183984/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183997/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/184001/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/180137/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/81681/


----------



## ryokukitsune (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I dont post much of anything that often but I do like to stay on topic and abide by the sites rules. I do 3d Art and I have several 3d models that grow up from several dramatic changes made to WIP models, I'm wondering if these also are affected by the post limit for meshes if they have edits.

I am one of the students of the craft who belives you can say just as much with 5 renders posted into one image rather than 5 full posts of the same thing though it is very important to show the evolution of a model from its rough stage to the finished product and sometimes on long projects it may take more than 5 images from start to finish.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				ryokukitsune said:
			
		

> I dont post much of anything that often but I do like to stay on topic and abide by the sites rules. I do 3d Art and I have several 3d models that grow up from several dramatic changes made to WIP models, I'm wondering if these also are affected by the post limit for meshes if they have edits.
> 
> I am one of the students of the craft who belives you can say just as much with 5 renders posted into one image rather than 5 full posts of the same thing though it is very important to show the evolution of a model from its rough stage to the finished product and sometimes on long projects it may take more than 5 images from start to finish.


I guess it depends. If there's enough change, we can overlook it... I'd run it by me first. I'm not against giving exceptions.


----------



## Kasarn (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

So... would this photo be considered artistic or not?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/263761/


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Kasarn said:
			
		

> So... would this photo be considered artistic or not?
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/263761/


It would be artistic if it had 50 more lensflares. And a cowbell.

(Yeah, I see no reason that should go - it has slick presentation).


----------



## Hunter (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

What is your position on Modles/Modlekits and figurs/wargame figurines.

They take a lot of time and effort to build and are often heavely modefide/costemised.

may i recomend thid falling in the same category as scupture ?
That way you can have a resenable oppertunaty to show your handy work with out floding.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Hunter said:
			
		

> What is your position on Modles/Modlekits and figurs/wargame figurines.


I honestly think it depends on the presentation of the miniatures/models. I've seen a lot of users post their entire armies, one mini at a time, and while the paint jobs are nice... 40+ pictures of Imperial Marines kind of floods the site.


----------



## zorrofeta (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> *Photos I consider of artistic merit:*
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/303978/ (although I'm not sure I want to know what's going on in this picture)
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/300534/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/299002/
> ...


*

Honestly, there is still a fine line between some of these things... for example the two cat pictures. There's no right way to monitor this rule, unless you let the users themselves report these personal pictures, or whatever your calling them. It seems more like your choice then the vast majority, and I don't like it.*


----------



## Neon Grizzly (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Interesting. What about those who use FA for their photography?


----------



## LaserBeams (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Overall I'm happy with this, but I'm a little fuzzy on the wording of some of the official rules:



> "Not of artistic merit" includes submission that serve artistic purpose and were created "on the fly" or "just for fun" and were not in attempt to make a frameworthy or portfolio quality imagery. Examples of such images include: screenshots, blog photos, image macros, etc.



That essentially rules out sketches and unfinished work - unless that counts as portfolio quality (usually it's not frameworthy)? I just think that could be a little more clear.


----------



## Foxstar (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				mrchris said:
			
		

> Second Life? Good riddance for all the SL crap flooding my message boxes.



Amen. So-long to that ugly polygon crap or at least cutting back on it.
And yes, that 'ugly mex ass' needed to be addressed.


----------



## nrr (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Everyone knows the answer.


----------



## dendora (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Is this just in the main gallery or in scraps too?
It'd be a shame to enforce it so harshly in scraps but on the whole its a pretty good idea.


----------



## Quaidis (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I think this was a good decision.  It fills up the system fast when the browse window is plagued with 50 pictures of the same unpainted clay sculpture of a blank head or the more popular 300 pictures of a 3d croc humping a well-endowed zebra chick.  I also found the constant pictures of users, their friends, the conventions they went to, their remote dental surgery the previous day, screenshots, repeated random puppy and kitten photos because their new pet is k@waI1, and the photos that people found on the net that they liked and wanted to show everyone else to be rather annoying.

Also find that people are over-reacting.  Why are you over-reacting?  

It's in human nature to take something someone else says and apply it to yourselves, I know.  But come on.  If someone is worried that their entire set of individual warhammer space marine pictures are going to be removed, why not simply cut and paste them all into one solid image or take a single photo with them all together?  Or make a website out of them and link it to your journal.  If you take 10 shots of your puppy playing with a ball, why not put all the different photos together into one picture?  You could also post these in your scraps and you wont have your fingers surgically removed by the staff.

Common sense says that the FA staff isn't going to witchhunt.  So calm down.  There's a huge difference between 20 shots you randomly took on SL then posted all at once and a shot of a SL pic that took you quite a while to accompish or put together with creative tastes (you could even post that accomplished pic in 3 different poses with no threat to your personal security).  There's a huge difference between a snapshot you took of your kitty playing with a toy mouse over a webcam and a photo (out of possible many) you broke your back taking of the contours in a cat's furred face as it lays in the autumn sunset.  There's quite a wide difference between taking a stock ebay photo of the jellybean/plushie they just bought and a sexually suggestive picture in spiffy lights and nice background of plushies/jellybeans with a message behind it.  

There's a rediculously huge difference between a submission you made/took/composed/wrote yourself and one you sacked randomly off the interweb because it looked cool.  


If you still think the rules are directed at you, look at your work.  Did you make/take/compose/write the submission, yourself? Did you do it with artistic reasoning or was it just 'spur of the moment'?  Are you submitting one pic with the same photos/pictures put together or 10 individual submissions of those same photos individually (btw, if you log on one day to post your work and the browse page contains All of your submissions for 3 pages, you're more than likely flooding your art)?  Is your gallery filled with repeated photos of yourself as... Yourself?  

(concerning photos) Remember that it's not the content of the photo that is the problem in this case, it's the purpose and way in which you took it.  People can disagree all they want for if the item in the photo is art.  However if the person took it spur of the moment with a bad webcam and filled their entire gallery with it to the point that people browsing FA get pissed by its ever-present looming, then it's a problem.  If you didn't take the photo, that might pose a problem.  Should that picture be taken for the purpose of displaying an item you bought and not for the purpose of displaying art (and done repeatedly), you might get a talk to.




And the rest just rambles on from here.



Btw, dendora.  Someone asked that a page or two back.  I believe the answer to it was that this only applies to main submissions, not scraps.


----------



## I_Own_Charles (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183980/ THIS is flooding?!

a.) Excellent quality; has good lighting, focus, cleaned up in photoshop
b.) animal-related
c.) can be used as a reference


----------



## Quaidis (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

did you see the entire example?  The person posted the same exact photo 10 some different times.  It's a nice photo, but they didn't have to post it in 10 different submissions.  The picture is good, the act of posting it multiple times is flooding.


----------



## I_Own_Charles (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Gotcha.


Inofitself, though, it should be allowed. I don't understand why anyone would submit something, 'art' or not, multiple times. :-/


----------



## Quaidis (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

The pic is allowed.  The rule isn't against the pic, it's against the fact that the pic was repeatedly posted.  The new guideline (or a piece of it anyway) is saying that you can post nice art, but you can't post it a billion times.  All the staff would probably do is either tell the person to crop it down to 1 submission of that specific photo or do it themselves.  They wouldn't go removing the nice pic of the bird completely off FA and say, 'never post this bird again'.

One reason people post a pic over and over again is so other people will 'notice it' more.  This implies that they'll get more comments.  In reality all it does it antagonize the system and flood it with unnessisary copies.  Also bugs people who browse the forum considerably.


----------



## Salt (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I think a lot of people are missing one other facet to their posted works.

Each item posted is accompanied (most of the time) with a description of what it is.

You can have a picture of a cat and say "Here's my cat, Mr. Cuddles" and that's going to be off-topic.

You can have a picture of a cat and trump it up with some glorified description about how this cat lived through two world wars and the great depression while still holding the title as the worlds greatest mouser, and it's probably considered art.

If some of you are so worried that what you post could be flagged, why don't you explicitly state in your description what makes it art-worthy? Dragoneer has already stated that he'll gladly make exceptions. So give him a reason to make an exception for your art. You'll sleep better at night.

Salt


----------



## Torakhan (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

FA isn't trying to screw anyone, they're trying to stop people who are taking advantage of the image-hosting service and don't seem to understand what the purpose of FA is (Furry artwork/craft by the artist themselves... not showing everyday nonsense to a captured audience.)

I'm so happy to see this go into effect.Â Â It's been a pet peeve of mine that's been growing quickly over the last few months. ("here's 10 pictures of my pet fish... rather than put the 10 pictures into one file, I'm dumping each one here without even a description!" *grrrrsnarl*)

This is a artistic/craft submission site, with a common thread of "Furries".Â Â I'll be so happy to see the decreased numbers of "off-topic" stuff now that we actually have the "Topic" in writing! 

Thank you, 'yena and crew.

(Mmmm... Might have to get me a Pay-Account here if they become available...  )


----------



## badkittyamy (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				I_Own_Charles said:
			
		

> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/183980/ THIS is flooding?!
> 
> a.) Excellent quality; has good lighting, focus, cleaned up in photoshop
> b.) animal-related
> c.) can be used as a reference



Oh bugger >_> lol that's me. I guess I'll move some of the others from the Preening Series to scraps. Looking at my gallery from a vewiers standpoint it does seem to look like a lot of the same of that guy. See people I'm affected by this rule but I don't care.

Why is when the mods try to better the site everyone complains? How hard is it to take these non-related photos to photobucket? It's free too and has tons of space. That's what I do FA is a place for constructive critisism so if you're posting just so that people can see you dog rather than critque the shot you're in the wrong place anyway. Art galleries are not pet your ego palace. 

Share your art not every minute aspect of your life THAT is what Photobucket and the forums are for. You want your friends to see Ms. Kitty? Post it on photobucket and link to it in the forums. It's even EASIER that posting it to FA so what's the problem? 

Question though mods, for series shots like mine are they allowed to just be sent to scraps or should I take them down completely?


----------



## Ziba the lioness (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Woha! Been aaages since I was here last, but anyway, back to topic 

I think this would be a very good idea. I can name a few friends (but wont) that uses FA as a photobucket account for atleast 50% of all their uploads and to tell the truth, it bugs the .... .... ....... out of me >.< It seriously does! But I have yet to have the guts to tell them that FA is not a photobucket, I dont want to make enemies with anyone Ive befriended there.

A rule that states that photobucket related uploads is not allowed would help greatly on this problem

and as far as Rouge2 wrote



> I hope there won't be a size limit to how much you can upload.



Somehow I too hope that a limit on image size will never get through, but on the other hand some people uploads art that stretches the size for miles and its a pain in the ... to look at, if you want to see the other half of the pic that is... If it could be made so you can choose wether you want a limited size on the images you view or not or if to follow the DA example, make it possible for people to "download" the image to see the full size.
Just some suggestions for the extreme sized images, lets say 2000x2000 (yes I have seen drawings uploaded on FA that big.....)


----------



## Torakhan (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Kels said:
			
		

> So animal-related art photography is not considered "art"?



It's more a question of "is it an artistic, well constructed artisticly created photograph, or just a picture?"  If you've put thought into composition, cropped, chosen the best ONE of the several you took, corrected it and it looks like there's been time and effort in it, then it should be obvious that it's allowed.  (Also, you'll get a few "off-topic" pics allowed anyways) and old photos will be grandfathered in (unless your current directory is excessively filled with random pics of your cat).


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				STRAKER said:
			
		

> the hell??? ok, so, if it's an "image in which the photographer (me) clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image" but it happens to be a picture of a stuffed animal, i can post it without restrictions, and seeing as how it's a stuffed animal pic and as there are plenty of furries that are into "plushie" then it's not off topic. but, if the admin doesesn't like my art or ME personally, they could say "so what if you held a flashlight and pointed it at your stuffies, that's not lighing and artistic merit." and it's removed...



Okay, I'm not meaning this to be insulting or anything, but I'm curious as to whether or not English is your first language. Let me try to explain again.

The staff is not going to remove your pictures just because they do not like you.

A: What reason do they have to not like you?

B: Have you seen them remove submissions just because they don't like someone?

C: There are people on the site that have given good reason to not be liked by staff, and yet they are still here, so there is no logic supporting any claim that the staff ejects people based on personal feelings.

I feel that you may be misinterpreting the rule, and twice now you seem to have taken the opposite of the intent of what you have read. That's why I ask if maybe English isn't your native language.



			
				STRAKER said:
			
		

> by the way wolfblade, a  "photo where, for example, a person has watched a landscape, chosen a specific vantage point to shoot from, waited for a certain weather/lighting situation, and framed the shot with thoughts of composition and such, is very different from a very well-made photo of Mittens the Cat" huh, well, the photographer didn't make the landscape either, so i don't call it art because they didn't make it themselves. subjective rules DO NOT WORK.  *someone ALWAYS has a different idea as to what is and is not art!*



Exactly. Art is subjective. You can not ever write a clear and concise rule that will be universally accepted as defining "Art." 

So the staff is going to use THEIR idea of what is Art on THEIR site. I think everyone will be perfectly alright if people could just chill and wait to see that the staff DOES NOT suddenly start deleting all these images that people have put time and effort into. Just sit tight, relax, and IF you receive a note from the staff regarding your submissions, THEN explain to them calmly why your works constitute "Art."



			
				STRAKER said:
			
		

> I wonder if you remember the problems caused at y! with the "anthro rule", what constitutes  anthro and what doesn't and how they allow basically "humans with animal ears and tails" but THATS not "anthro" somehow.



FA is not Y!G. It never will be. Even if they copy-pasted Y!G's entire site code over to FA. You know why? Because FA staff is not Y!G staff. They are not running the site to cater it specifically to their own personal tastes as Y!G is.

If they were, there would be a whole lot more than just random kitten photos being removed.

Y!G was a mess for very specific reasons. Those reasons will never apply to FA.



			
				STRAKER said:
			
		

> oh, and i never said I "worry about the staff suddenly sprouting horns and dismissing people at random." and i know "They don't kick out people just for not likeing them, in fact they have specifically allowed many people they're not fond of to stick around" i said "joe schmoes like me that can't draw, will have to withdraw our abilities to interact with artists and just be a "watcher" and therefore ignorable and not a real part to this community that we are here for in the first place." as in, i will loose all the people who watch me BECAUSE of my "plushie porn" pictures. also, as to the "this staff has proven to be EXTREMELY lenient in the enforcement of their rules." yeahhhh, except that Dragoneer himself has stated that it "will be enforced lightly at first, more strict over time." so please, don't try to make it seem that this rule may not even mean anything to us.



The rule will mean something. But not nearly the horrendous doom that some people are acting like it means. He said it will be lightly enforced at first, and more strict over time. That does not mean that eventually they will be banning all photography.

Even IF they were to completely ban your photos, which isn't likely to happen, you still would not lose your ability to interact with people. There are countless people who are happy and talkative members of this community without submitting a single image. People who are friendly, appreciative, and who comment and critique on artists they like and other users who respond to their comments.

Here, for example: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/brokenwing/

Not a single submission. He doesn't even post the art of his own character that is done for him (of which he gets plenty, not because he sucks up, but because people like him). Yet he has 102 watches. I'd say he manages to be a part of this community without being a contributor, just because he's an awesomely friendly guy.

Ultimately dude, just relax. If you never get a note about your submissions, then don't worry about it. IF you ever do, THEN you can talk with the Admin who notes you about whether or not your pictures count or not. Dragoneer has made it very clear that there will be consideration made for images that may or may not fall under this rule.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoon_of_Light said:
			
		

> I hope this doesn't include stories, or poems, or music.



It doesn't. Please, go read the link provided to the wiki. Don't hope and fret over whether this rule affects you, go read for yourself and that way you _know_ what the rule is. K? ^_^



			
				I_Own_Charles said:
			
		

> All this from a stock/reference photo of a deer fetus. Oh and someone's "hairy Mexican ass".



Those specific cases had no more to do with this than any and all of the other equally off-topic photos. At all. They're simply particularly visible examples of a much more general problem.

This change in policy has been discussed for months if not longer. People, both staff AND users, have been complaining about the amount of extremely off-topic and just-for-the-hell-of-it photos for a long time. And not just the small vocal minority that were whining about cub art, but an actual signifiant number of people.

This is not so much a new rule as it is merely putting down in writing what they had tried to have as a general guideline for a long time, but were unable to enforce because it wasn't written anywhere.



			
				Endless Night said:
			
		

> Also you could always make a personal webpage and link it in your artist comments to share any photos that were removed. If people care about you enough or are curious about you enough to want to see your webcam shots, TLK plushie collection, pet rabbit,  potato chip that loooks like a dog penis, etc. they'll be willing to click an extra link to see those pics.



Exactly. Nobody is trying to excise the "community" part of this community, but this site IS here for a fairly specific purpose despite the rather large amount of leeway they give people to deviate from that purpose.

With user traffic and hardware resource usage beginning to become a concern, stemming a little bit of off-topic use now can make a big difference for getting the most out of this upgrade in the long run.



			
				LaserBeams said:
			
		

> Overall I'm happy with this, but I'm a little fuzzy on the wording of some of the official rules:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That line refers to photography only, as do all the "imageshack behavior" rules. Drawings are not intended to be covered by this.



			
				Salt said:
			
		

> If some of you are so worried that what you post could be flagged, why don't you explicitly state in your description what makes it art-worthy? Dragoneer has already stated that he'll gladly make exceptions. So give him a reason to make an exception for your art. You'll sleep better at night.



Please, yes. If you genuinely feel your photo to be Art, do this. I am sure everyone will be pleased at how much of a difference this would make.



			
				Torakhan said:
			
		

> Kels said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct, except that he said old images will not be grandfathered in. That doesn't mean they will suddenly start deleting things at random though, it just means that sooner or later, some people MAY find themselves being asked to trim back some of the excess of their gallery.



			
				badkittyamy said:
			
		

> I_Own_Charles said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You, sir, are Awesome, and an excellent example of the proper way for a user to respond to this announcement. I hope everyone who is concerned about this takes their cue from you here. *applause* ^_^

Again, everyone with questions and concerns, PLEASE go actually READ the wiki, AND this thread. Most questions and clarifications people are likely to ask for have already been posted here. There's no sense in not reading a 6 page thread and repeating questions already answered, so it then becomes a 15 page thread and even fewer people read what has already been said. X_x


----------



## Zelinko (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

*[size=xx-large]ANOTHER BAD IDEA[/size]*

You're screwing over the Authors now.

ALSO WTF WITH ALL THE 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERRORS AND 505 BAD GATEWAYS NOW!


----------



## Xan_vega (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I have read the wiki, I have read the forum but I keep seeing the same question being asked and not get answered (if I missed it, sorry) does this ONLY pertain to the gallery or is scraps included? scraps is where I put my non-artistic items, as that was what I was told it was for. If you limit on the scraps, then what's the point for that folder?


----------



## Zelinko (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Xan_vega said:
			
		

> I have read the wiki, I have read the forum but I keep seeing the same question being asked and not get answered (if I missed it, sorry) does this ONLY pertain to the gallery or is scraps included? scraps is where I put my non-artistic items, as that was what I was told it was for. If you limit on the scraps, then what's the point for that folder?



Also No one has touched the issue of stories, music, flashes [both wip and completed].

The Wiki is so vague I'm seeing everyone going Crazy. I'd personally say stupid change and most of the spamming is because the Upload system has been fucked up for a while. People *unsure the image is even uploading* and with all the *error messages* people might be having a hard time deleting them.

Apparently Dragoneer's thinking he can make up for royal server fuckups after the entire drama storm almost 2 months ago.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Is there a legitimate reason for so much "quote wang" I mean geeze. I understand people wanting to discuss the issue, but really.


----------



## Foxstar (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> *[size=xx-large]ANOTHER BAD IDEA[/size]*
> 
> You're screwing over the Authors now.
> 
> ALSO WTF WITH ALL THE 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERRORS AND 505 BAD GATEWAYS NOW!



As Yiffstarr is around, I don't really see a issue here.


----------



## Foxstar (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Is there a legitimate reason for so much "quote wang" I mean geeze. I understand people wanting to discuss the issue, but really.



Because furries take any cutting back on their 'freedoms' rather poorly even though this rule will really only effect people who used FA like Photobucket.
People need to understand this is so the new server doesn't end up wanged to hell in six months to a year and while yes, they may have helped pay for it, there is no divine right of donation that gives the right to flood, post ten pictures of their room, cat, seven copies of the same story or 20 pictures of their Gundams.

It's logical, if people want to upload whatever, whenever, then FA is going to end up a pay site and you haven't even come close to seeing drama as you will when that happens.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Xan_vega said:
			
		

> I have read the wiki, I have read the forum but I keep seeing the same question being asked and not get answered (if I missed it, sorry) does this ONLY pertain to the gallery or is scraps included? scraps is where I put my non-artistic items, as that was what I was told it was for. If you limit on the scraps, then what's the point for that folder?



Scraps, as I understood it, was mainly created for art works that the user may have felt were "unfinished" or "rough" works. It has been used by many as a dumping ground for off-topic images, and I think most people felt this to be okay for a while, but there has been just too much image-dump behavior, and so this new guideline is here.

As I have understood its intent from staffmembers(though perhaps some clarification would be useful), the imageshack behavior policy applies to both scraps and the main gallery.



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> *[size=xx-large]ANOTHER BAD IDEA[/size]*
> 
> You're screwing over the Authors now.
> 
> ALSO WTF WITH ALL THE 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERRORS AND 505 BAD GATEWAYS NOW!





			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> Also No one has touched the issue of stories, music, flashes [both wip and completed].



Because they are not an issue. This announcement specifically addresses photography, and for the moment, that is all that is being addressed.



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> The Wiki is so vague I'm seeing everyone going Crazy. I'd personally say stupid change and most of the spamming is because the Upload system has been fucked up for a while. People *unsure the image is even uploading* and with all the *error messages* people might be having a hard time deleting them.



The purpose of having a wiki is to have documentation that is easily updated and adapted as the need for such becomes apparent. Maybe it would help things if people going crazy would... not go crazy. Just for a moment at least. Everyone stay calm, ask questions if they have not been addressed already (like Xan_vega), and otherwise just stop with the prophecies of doom.



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> Apparently Dragoneer's thinking he can make up for royal server fuckups after the entire drama storm almost 2 months ago.



Nice to know we have some clairvoyants in the userbase. However, if I may suggest an alternative way of looking at this; it is possible that the staff, not just Dragoneer, has decided as an Administration, to enact a more firm policy on an issue that has been a source of irritation to many for a long time. The issue may have been handled at this particular time BECAUSE of all the server and traffic issues, and this is one way of lessening hardware and resource strain by removing usage that really was never what this site was intended for.


----------



## Zelinko (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

WHAT ABOUT THE GOD DAMN ERROR MESSAGES!


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> WHAT ABOUT THE GOD DAMN ERROR MESSAGES!



Not relevant to this thread. By all means, start a new topic in the appropriate forum if you feel the need to do so.

Also, you might not have noticed, but your caps lock appears to be on. Just FYI.


----------



## Foxstar (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> WHAT ABOUT THE GOD DAMN ERROR MESSAGES!



Cry more about the site your not paying to use. I'm sure Dragoneer/Preyfar could pull the logs and let you see how many people use the site every single day and as like it's been said, the current server can't handle teh load.


----------



## Quaidis (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

On page 5, post 85, Dragoneer says that scraps were ok to post items in and this only applied to the main gallery.  However the flooding rule still applied for everywhere.  I don't want to start a fight, but he did answer the 'scraps included?' question.  

Zelinko, please calm down.  How long have we had these error messages?  As far as I know, those I converse with and I have only had them for, at most, no more than 48 hours.  Compaired to the entirety in time that FA's existed, that's drastically abrupt.  I'm sure they're simple bumps in a road that will be paved over and not the doom of all FA.


----------



## Kels (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Maybe it would help things if people going crazy would... not go crazy. Just for a moment at least. Everyone stay calm, ask questions if they have not been addressed already (like Xan_vega), and otherwise just stop with the prophecies of doom.



That is precisely what I was doing with my question, although it occasioned a bit of condescention from you about photography vs. drawing.  All I wanted to know was are artistic photographs of pets lumped in with all other photographs of pets, which had not by then been addressed.  Dragoneer's answer seemed to imply that yes, they were all considered "not-art", which made me do a double-take.

No panic, no prophecies, no nothing.  A simple question and a bit of a surprised response.  Although immediately after I seemed to be lumped in with the panickers, even though I believe if dealt with evenly, it can be a good policy.


----------



## Xan_vega (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Quaidis said:
			
		

> On page 5, post 85, Dragoneer says that scraps were ok to post items in and this only applied to the main gallery.  I don't want to start a fight, but he did answer the 'scraps included?' question.



Thank you for pointing that out to me, I must have overlooked it.


----------



## sasaki (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Is there a legitimate reason for so much "quote wang" I mean geeze. I understand people wanting to discuss the issue, but really.



[align=center][size=x-large]"The Perfect Recepie for TL;DR"[/size][/align]
*Step 1:*
Click Reply below the member you wish to quote.

*Step 2:*
Break the quotes up into several blocks, in the order which they're written (despite how repetitive it is).

*Step 3:*
Reply to each quote boxwang with no less then a full paragraph. Bonus points if you take them out of context and/or use more then two paragraphs per quotedongboxwang. Don't forget to beat the dead horse!

*Step 4:*
Hit "Reply", rinse, repeat.



Mmmm, Mm~! TL;DR, just like grandma used to make!


----------



## Quaidis (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Kels, post 89 (also page 5) Dragoneer shows a few examples of what he considers offtopic and ontopic.  There is an ontopic photo of a cat with artistic merit and an offtopic photo of a cat as well.  Please look back on that post.  I think there only wants to be a distinction between 'Look at my kitty!  Isn't he cute?!' general snapshots of the pet and 'I wanted to capture the pattern of fur against the light while portraying this message' photos of an animal.  

Like someone also said recently (I think page 6) what you put in your notes can go a considerably long way.


----------



## Kels (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Quaidis said:
			
		

> Kels, post 89 (also page 5) Dragoneer shows a few examples of what he considers offtopic and ontopic.



I fail to see how examples given on page 5 means I shouldn't have asked my question on page 3, or my reaction to Dragoneer's answer on the same page, which was _before_ a definitive answer was finally given.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Quaidis said:
			
		

> On page 5, post 85, Dragoneer says that scraps were ok to post items in and this only applied to the main gallery.  However the flooding rule still applied for everywhere.  I don't want to start a fight, but he did answer the 'scraps included?' question.



Woops, I stand corrected. My apologies ^_^;;



			
				Kels said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I apologise if I came across as condescending to you, I'm not sure where I did that. I admit, I've been a bit short with the people who are going crazy and panicking, but you're not someone I'd count among them. You weren't going crazy, so I wasn't referring to you. Quaidis has it right though, check out Dragoneer's given examples. ^_^


----------



## Kels (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> I apologise if I came across as condescending to you, I'm not sure where I did that. I admit, I've been a bit short with the people who are going crazy and panicking, but you're not someone I'd count among them. You weren't going crazy, so I wasn't referring to you. Quaidis has it right though, check out Dragoneer's given examples. ^_^



S'okay, things are pretty much dealt with now, so I have a better idea of where Dragoneer (and others) are headed with the policy.  Although a bit more clarity wouldn't hurt.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> *[size=xx-large]ANOTHER BAD IDEA[/size]*
> 
> You're screwing over the Authors now.


How are we screwing over authors? The rule has absolutely nothing to do with writers or poets at all.


----------



## zorrofeta (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Foxstar said:
			
		

> Zelinko said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, cuz everyone knows all furry literature is porn. ALL.
jeez, think before you talk


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				zorrofeta said:
			
		

> Yeah, cuz everyone knows all furry literature is porn. ALL.
> jeez, think before you talk



He didn't say it was. Not everything on yiffstar is porn either.

And yes, "yiff"star, but this is also "FUR"Affinity but that doesn't mean everything here is furry.

Sometimes people think before they talk, and sometimes they don't. And sometimes they do, but people seem to think that they don't. Whee. XD


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I fully support this policy and am ready to defend it.


----------



## Torakhan (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> Also No one has touched the issue of stories, music, flashes [both wip and completed].
> 
> The Wiki is so vague I'm seeing everyone going Crazy. I'd personally say stupid change and most of the spamming is because the Upload system has been fucked up for a while. People *unsure the image is even uploading* and with all the *error messages* people might be having a hard time deleting them.
> 
> Apparently Dragoneer's thinking he can make up for royal server fuckups after the entire drama storm almost 2 months ago.



Leave.  No, seriously, get out of here.  
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; *"if you don't like the FREE SERVICE, get out and don't come back."  *Stop crying and calling names and such along with the other folks making a big deal out of this, stop trying to find holes, wiggle your fingers in them until you pull the stiching out and then complain that the holes are too big.  
Yes, some of the rules are a little vague, but that's so that there is room for interpretation and case-by-case calls.  
The point of the matter is that folks are uploading non-relevant items in large quantities onto an art-critique service.  Many have taken advantage of this service (or didn't understand the purpose of FA because they wandered in while others were doing the same thing without being "caught") and are now trying to make the issue "blow-up" so that it won't be resolved and they can keep posting off-topic garbage.

As for the server issues, this is *not* the point of the forum, so go troll somewhere else. Thank you, please get hit by a truck. 

... and now for a less aggrivated reply...


			
				Xan_vega said:
			
		

> I have read the wiki, I have read the forum but I keep seeing the same question being asked and not get answered (if I missed it, sorry) does this ONLY pertain to the gallery or is scraps included? scraps is where I put my non-artistic items, as that was what I was told it was for. If you limit on the scraps, then what's the point for that folder?



I use scraps for my non-finished work, or work that I don't really want folks to look at and grade me on.  They are my "scraps", items that if folks REALLY want to look at my process, or my life they can look there.  So sketches, unfinished works, a few pics of me and things... they go there (maybe even commissions by other artists done just for me.)  So there's plenty to use a scraps area for than just off-topic pics.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> Apparently Dragoneer's thinking he can make up for royal server fuckups after the entire drama storm almost 2 months ago.


Our server's been overloaded for some time, and that's why we're getting a new server. So, if I'm making up for anything, it's that.


----------



## FoxyWolf (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

So up to five off topic images... should more than enough... *eats dragoneer* Yum ^_^


----------



## spitfiredragon (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Perhaps a whole other section could be worked out that will display pictures hosted from other sources, for these people... (maybe not count as a submission for delivery notifications..) I can understand people wanted to dig out a little spot of their own on the web, and if they choose it to be here (probably because of the close proximity to art they are watching) than maybe it should be encouraged in alternative ways, if not fully supportive.

Of course Im not sure much about the innerworkings of this site as if its original coded by its owners, or if its based on others works, so this may not be an option..


----------



## *morningstar (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Zelinko said:
			
		

> *[size=xx-large]ANOTHER BAD IDEA[/size]*
> 
> You're screwing over the Authors now.
> 
> ALSO WTF WITH ALL THE 500 INTERNAL SERVER ERRORS AND 505 BAD GATEWAYS NOW!



Good job at totally not even reading the original post before having a shit fit. Keep yelling like that, it's really great for presenting your opinion in an intelligent and worthwhile way. :roll:

In fact, I'd wager that about half the people who posted in this thread didn't even read the first post before they came in here stomping their feet. Pro tip: It helps to understand what you're upset about before coming in and making fools of yourselves.

*If you created something, then it's fine. *SL avatars, sculpture, clothing, tattoos, whatever. That's all stuff that we make. You have to take photos of that kind of stuff to put it online anyway. *But, there is a also a really big difference between lolphotosomg of your cat Mr. Muffins and then well thought out portrait photographs of Mr. Muffins.* Same thing goes for lolphotosomg of your backyard and then good atmospheric landscape photography. People are going to argue about what exactly that difference is and what it means, but to me it seems the rule is in place to stop people from flooding with useless submissions that fall into the obvious 'lolphotosomg' category. 

Fur Affinity is an art community (ideally). Things you create belong here. It's not Livejournal. It's not MySpace. It's not Photobucket/Image Shack/Waffle Images/etc. It's not a dumping ground for submissions that in no way contribute to the site. Try looking around on DA for a little bit. There's hundreds, if not thousands of accounts filled with nothing but useless crap that is not creative personal on any level. That sucks, and that kind of content doesn't belong on a site like this.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

*[size=medium]NOTE:[/size]*
The "Imageshack" Policy has been temporarily retracted to offer a full re-write to offer further clarification based on feedback received. The image was not meant to limit photography as much as it was to stem non-artistic uploads. After further discussion, the original rule did not seem to convey that as much.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Hmm guess it's back to the TOS room *slides down a pole*


----------



## timoran (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

A wise decision, Dragoneer. Don't enforce this rule until ALL problems are settled.

Don't worry about over-defining anything. Being overbroad opens Furaffinity up to become - regardless of who the admins are - another boot camp like VCL. When admins exercise "quality control" over the content and become "judges" of whether something is "art" or not... favoritism and censorship become very real problems, just as they are at VCL.

Frankly, when FurAffinity begins practicing censorship is when the server problems will end... because nobody will want to be a part of that. I'm content to live with a bit of lag rather than face censorship, myself.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> Frankly, when FurAffinity begins practicing censorship is when the server problems will end... because nobody will want to be a part of that. I'm content to live with a bit of lag rather than face censorship, myself.


We already have to censor to stop fights, harassment, slander, attack images, etc.


----------



## timoran (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> timoran said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'll thank you not to make a straw man of my argument. You know that isn't what I mean.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> I'll thank you not to make a straw man of my argument. You know that isn't what I mean.


Sorry, was being a bit too tehnical.

Also, Yak proposed a better idea that I think we may go with...


----------



## Ch'marr (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				timoran said:
			
		

> Don't worry about over-defining anything. Being overbroad opens Furaffinity up to become - regardless of who the admins are - another boot camp like VCL.


 Really? What makes VCL a boot camp?  I'd really like to hear your rationale for that description


----------



## Endless Night (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Well now that it's pulled we all get to enjoy this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/306279/ kind of crap again.

I'm really looking forward for the phoenixing of the rule. 

Maybe you guys could start with banning the clearly nonsense stuff like that link above and leave the more tricky stuff like photos of pets which may be an artful portrait or may be snap shot depending on the eye of the beholder, posing items, etc.,  until you can further discuss it?

It's actually pretty sad that folks can't self police themselves even a little bit on this one now that it's been brought up as an issue. I think most people have the sense to know what should go in their LJ/Photobucket and what should go here. I still believe in the general common sense of the community, misplaced as that may be. Â Â  

Anyways I'm really hoping for a crack down on the completely inane submissions even before you guys try and tackled the more complex parts of the issues.


----------



## czgoldedition (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

I find that I disagree with this decision - photos equate art as well, or may have artistic value in being used as references, et cetera. Personally, I feel like "imageshack behavior" should be allowed, but simply restricted to scraps rather than out in a person's main gallery if the photos are just snapshots.

EDIT: Read part about the revision. My suggestion: just restrict "non-artistic" photos to scraps and/or give them their own category, as spitfiredragon mentioned might be beneficial. But regardless, do what you feel is right, of course - 'tis your site, and we should respect your decision. I just think not eliminating people's abilities to post photos may help maintain even more appeal amoungst the masses. :]


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				czgoldedition said:
			
		

> I find that I disagree with this decision - photos equate art as well, or may have artistic value in being used as references, et cetera. Personally, I feel like "imageshack behavior" should be allowed, but simply restricted to scraps rather than out in a person's main gallery if the photos are just snapshots.



_Server space_. That, and nobody wants to see 9 shots of your new shoes, scraps or not.


----------



## czgoldedition (Dec 4, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				WelcomeTheCollapse said:
			
		

> czgoldedition said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps designate them their own category that you can filter out if you'd like?

And I'm not sure what you're trying to express; I've never posted a photo of my shoes in my life, nor did I ever intend to. XD Paws I built, perhaps, I might - or a kitten sitting _in_ a shoe if such a shot presented itself. But this rule seems to restrict these things to some degree, which is why it merits re-evaluation, as is underway - so I have no complaint. Nor did I have one anyway.. just voicing my view. :]

And re: server space - is there any way to donate to FA? I'd gladly toss in a few bucks when I can to help purchase space if that means no restrictions for everyone.  I have hardly ever posted any "snapshots", ever, but I enjoy looking at those pictures others post of their pets, fursuits, etc.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 5, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Eh, the example was rhetoric conjured up from nothing. The point was that snapshots really shouldn't be allowed on the basis that they're not art. FA is an _art_ site. Snapshots of a non-art-related nature are a waste of this server's space and should be taken to a place like ImageShack or the like.

And Dragoneer, if people are in fact using this site like ImageShack, why not just block hotlinking?


----------



## Victoria Viper (Dec 5, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Boy, sorry about all the insanity, people who run FA. Nice try, though. 

Yeah, that's the #1 biggest problem: All art is subjective. What might be art to some is just garbage to others.... In some cases, literally, like that guy who makes pictures out of labels that I saw on the Food Network, once....

So, yeah, that's going to be really hard to get past. I wish you the best with the revision, though. The less useless crap on the site, the better. Heck, if you want me to, I could sift through all my pics, see which ones are the least popular, and delete them. I doubt anyone would mind.

C'mon, everybody. Join in! Get rid of your garbage. Nobody wants to see it, anyway. XD


----------



## *morningstar (Dec 5, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				VictoriaViper said:
			
		

> Boy, sorry about all the insanity, people who run FA. Nice try, though.
> 
> *Yeah, that's the #1 biggest problem: All art is subjective.* What might be art to some is just garbage to others.... In some cases, literally, like that guy who makes pictures out of labels that I saw on the Food Network, once....
> 
> ...



The images in question aren't art and don't belong on an art site, though. It's really funny to see people getting bent out of shape that their pictures of malformed muffins and lolcats and omg me and my friends lawl x50 are going to be removed when they never really belonged here in the first place. It's painfully obvious that some of this crap just does not belong here, but it's too broad of a category to define in some kind of anal retentive sort of way. I thought the policy was fine and some of the users were the ones with the problem.


----------



## Rrruff (Dec 6, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Endless Night said:
			
		

> Well now that it's pulled we all get to enjoy this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/306279/ kind of crap again.
> 
> I'm really looking forward for the phoenixing of the rule.
> 
> ...



Indeed, you do get to enjoy that 'crap', as that was the point of the picture! Enjoying something that was crappily made, was it not?

All 'jokes' a side, you're based on biased opinions, of course. Some people find cooking to be 'art work', some find dog poses to be 'art work', there are _so_ many definitions to 'art work'. If you are going to get rid of the cooking aspect, then mise well get rid of it all unless it is furry related.

No, I am not defending my image. I know it's got nothing to do with furries, however, it doesn't release the fact that the people who have seen it had smirked - And believe me, Databases can handle Rice Krispie treats, I would know. I'm a masters in Computer Science, I know how Databases work, and I work with them every single day at my real-life job. 

Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture? 

Or are you upset that there are regular furs out there who do not have the talent of every artist when it comes to picking up a pen/pencil with their hand. I can certainly post my art-work if you would love me to, but I assure you, that those Rice Krispie treats will look a lot better when you see a comic strip of mine like this.

So you can argue the fact that you dislike cooking, but to all the chef-furries out there, they'll know that this is one piece of 'art-work'.

(And, and I've already had offers of people wanting me to commission a piece of 'rice krispie' treat to their den).

--Clearly a humour-post here. Take it with a grain a salt, but I have put my opinion down, and with that I leave you to contemplate over such artistic talents of mine.

I might add, it can easily be removed, but it's the only picture in my gallery, sadly. I suck at furry-life.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 6, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Nice to know we have some clairvoyants in the userbase. However, if I may suggest an alternative way of looking at this; it is possible that the staff, not just Dragoneer, has decided as an Administration, to enact a more firm policy on an issue that has been a source of irritation to many for a long time. The issue may have been handled at this particular time BECAUSE of all the server and traffic issues, and this is one way of lessening hardware and resource strain by removing usage that really was never what this site was intended for.



I've spent some time clarifying with people not on the forum who had misconstrued that resource limitations were the reason for this decision.
Any casual (incomplete/"scribble") art submission or journal entry by one of the most watched FA community members is likely to cause something like a thousand times more load on the system than a newbie posting their mugshot or piccie of their cat.

Looking from over here, the issues are perhaps more one of personal redefinitions as to what the "site was intended for" (actually/originally intended not just a dump for art submissions, but a wider community scope for people with an affinity for fur(ry)/etc. art) and recognising that it's not primarily the total number of "off core-topic" images that's the "issue", but moreso the rare (barely once per day?) "floods" - in which "off-core topic" images are far more "obvious".
Far easier just to have anti-flood etiquette/possible controls (e.g. http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1396&pid=15762#pid15762 & as posted elsewhere) than trying to "fix" using hard non-timeframed limits with dubious "quality control" measures that will inevitably be divisive.
*
But all of this is relatively minor compared with the larger issues we actually need to be focusing on at present. And certainly not worth losing people over, as has happened.
If it's somehow deemed to be a "big issue", tag/flag as "real-life", "computer games", etc., and filter accordingly? 
(Sometimes it's difficult to please people who would rage incandescently over a single photo of a pair of socks, however, rather than just ignore or else smile, blithely reply "any socks is better than no socks" and carry on, enjoying, elsewhere...).

Just my 02c, anyhow. 
David/u2k.


----------



## dave hyena (Dec 6, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> But all of this is relatively minor compared with the larger issues we actually need to be focusing on at present.



What *are* the larger issues that need focusing on at present?

I see people say this and I see people say that, but If someone were to say to me: "what are the biggest issues, that transcend matters of personal opinion, facing FA at the moment?" I would then reply: "damned If I know". 

I would like to know, but as it is, all I can do is pontificate, speculate and procrastinate.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> What *are* the larger issues that need focusing on at present?
> 
> I see people say this and I see people say that, but If someone were to say to me: "what are the biggest issues, that transcend matters of personal opinion, facing FA at the moment?" I would then reply: "damned If I know".
> 
> I would like to know, but as it is, all I can do is pontificate, speculate and procrastinate.



Ditto.

I mean, obviously there are site functionality issues, but really, how much effort should be put into the current site code when you're going to be dumping it for an entirely new one soon? Which leads to the question of how far off is Ferrox still? How much of the current work on wiki and rules and regulations are being made for THIS site, without taking into account the differences that will come along with the new one?

There should be an effort made to keep the problems with the current site to a minimum of course, but at the same time, there's only so much energy you should put into something you know is only temporary anyway.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> There should be an effort made to keep the problems with the current site to a minimum of course, but at the same time, there's only so much energy you should put into something you know is only temporary anyway.


*nods*

The wiki is very modifiable, and we can edit it quickly and swiftly. Anybody who has access to that can edit it. The rules of the site will remain the rules, even into Ferrox.

As to Ferrox, progress is being made, but some of the code was scrapped. Now, the CODERS are still working on that, but I code about as well as the 500 internal server errors bring smiles to the average user's face. Thus, I concentrate my energy on attempting to improve the site in other facets.

Namely, rules, regulations and more. Things that help users NOW rather than THEN. Things can't always be instantaneous, but I can try my best to make things as painless as possible for users. I thought that's something you would have recognized...


----------



## dave hyena (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> The wiki is very modifiable, and we can edit it quickly and swiftly. Anybody who has access to that can edit it. The rules of the site will remain the rules, even into Ferrox.



Aha! I was thinking strictly in terms of "issues = problems and problems = issues", but not all issues are problems and nor are all problems issues.

The Wiki is an issue that deserves focusing on, but it is not a problem, it is a rather important and useful resource. As long as FA is there, so will be the wiki, and everyone will go to the wiki for help.

To the Wikimobile!


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Aha! I was thinking strictly in terms of "issues = problems and problems = issues", but not all issues are problems and nor are all problems issues.
> 
> The Wiki is an issue that deserves focusing on, but it is not a problem, it is a rather important and useful resource. As long as FA is there, so will be the wiki, and everyone will go to the wiki for help.
> 
> To the Wikimobile!


True, but we have people who can work on coding issues specifically (real issues) and those who can handle others (wiki, harassment, admin stuff). People seem to think that we're devoting all our resources to these items, but we're more than just two or three people.


----------



## Endless Night (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



> Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture?




No. But that's when you get a personal webpage or personal webspace. Not join an <i>art site</i>


----------



## dave hyena (Dec 7, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Endless Night said:
			
		

> Not join an _art site_



if you use [ in place of < it will work 



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> People seem to think that we're devoting all our resources to these items, but we're more than just two or three people.



Ah yes, that is also true. 13 people are there on the staff page.

It's those we see and interact with most that we remember and it is easy to forget the others, but they are there and working.

When one looks at a hunter type watch, certain cogs are more visable than others, but they all are essential to the running of the mechanism nonetheless.


----------



## Dancougar (Dec 8, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Upon reading the posts here and the wiki, it appears to me that the policy was not a very well thought out one. Although the emphasis was upon curbing the tendency of members to flood the site with "Off Topic" images, this really set the policy itself up for a fall, since submitted works could be of decidedly non furry subject matter such as Anime. This made any act against works of this genre as being 'unfurry' to be acts of hypocracy. It does no good to put the 'fur' back into furaffinity when it was cast off for a broader userbase long ago. If one wants to go that route, why not eliminate the genre from the listings in submittable artworks alltogether, since well, if one really must get into it, furry characters are furry characters no matter where or what genre or medium they are found in. This puts furries in classical works, literature, media, ect all on the same page. And would do good to clean up the submissions pages alot too. Although seemingly off the scope of this discussion, it is in fact part of the problem that this failed policy was trying to fix. Upon further analysis it seems to me that the policy as it was, was pretty unfriendly to 3D artists who use characters, environments, ect, who did not actually model them, although they bought or dled them, and have the licenses to use them. It mainly stressed upon the creation portion as being a qualifying stricture for submission, and not the actual works themselves, or the possibility of using the same models but in different renders. For example, while one may have say, foxy-fox and robot servant A in this picture, as written it seemed to count against the artists number of times the characters could be used, even if the end images were totally different in content and presentation. The fact that thes same models were used in each picture was a strike against the posting artist. Having a posted max number of images didn't help matters either, this made the policy really seemingly hostile against the posting of series of works in progress, thereby defeating the very act of doing so unless you went with the bare minimum of views, those being a preliminary work, work in progress, then finished work showing such progression. It was pretty hard on presentation variants of works, and on those works that were created when inspiration struck as well. In the point of the latter, it denies the possibility of sharing with the others that creative spark that hit the artist when their muse really influenced them. Recalling the policy was a good step though. Its best to keep the lines open for feedback, to see what works and what does not by listening to what everyone has to say. These are just my two bits on the subject to take or reject as you see fit.
--Dancougar


----------



## GranDragon (Dec 8, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Many artists we have one or two pictures of ourselves. Will we be able to conserve them?




			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> A new policy has gone into effect called the "Imageshack Behavior" policy. This policy, in essence, affects only those users who use FA as an image dump for anything and everything NOT art related.
> 
> *Policy: Imageshack Behavior*
> 
> ...


----------



## Asria Wolf (Dec 8, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Good, I'm tired of seeing my submissions page filled with photos and second life screenshots. v.v


----------



## Rrruff (Dec 21, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				Endless Night said:
			
		

> > Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Aye. But you post your 'master pieces' and get opinions. Have to start somewhere. I rather happen to be a very good cook - This is all part of my marketing scheme. Start back and get substantially better. 

So be nice. The 'mature' thing to do would be to _not_ point out a specific post. Though, I don't mind at all, someone else with low self-esteem may care.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Dec 21, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

Quick thought, if this new policy becomes active, will I have to clear out some of my gallery?

I have a few pics of my dog from just before she died, along with 1 random thing I noticed at work.

Just curious.


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 21, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Quick thought, if this new policy becomes active, will I have to clear out some of my gallery?
> 
> I have a few pics of my dog from just before she died, along with 1 random thing I noticed at work.
> 
> Just curious.



Those all sound like they'll fall under the "general off-topic" heading, and thus be limited to no more than 5 in your main gallery.


----------



## yak (Dec 22, 2006)

*RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior*

AFAIK the policy has been suspended for revision since day one of it's use, so... It'not in effect yet

*edits thread topic*


----------



## SageHendrix (Jan 29, 2008)

I know this is a long going thread so maybe that is why this is happening, but the wiki entry that the OP linked to has no information.

Regardless, I agree with this policy.  Case in point  As you can see by the first 2 comments (one being someone commenting and the other being this user's direct response to that) , the attitude of "this is my furspace" seems to be what has developed from this restriction not being in place yet.

I sure hope that things will improve.  I still sit on the fence about "furry vs. non furry content" but the "Photobucket Syndrome" is definitly where I see how "allowance of human content" can go overboard.


----------



## uncia (Jan 30, 2008)

_(fast-forward from 2006...)_

_*tailwaves over*_ Heyas, Kat: long-time, no speak. ^^



			
				Catwoman69y2k said:
			
		

> Case in point  As you can see by the first 2 comments (one being someone commenting and the other being this user's direct response to that) , the attitude of "this is my furspace" seems to be what has developed from this restriction not being in place yet.


That's a delete per the current AUP. Flagged and gone now.
_"Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. â€œpixel artâ€) using art directly from games."_

Lack of admin timeliness to enforce existing rules doesn't necessarily mean further, more restrictive ones are required, IMO.



			
				Catwoman69y2k said:
			
		

> I sure hope that things will improve.  I still sit on the fence about "furry vs. non furry content" but the "Photobucket Syndrome" is definitly where I see how "allowance of human content" can go overboard.


For FA as a whole, that's still running at around 10% on content and much less in terms of page views. And a considerable amount of community building from that, from reading various submissions (of those which /are/ valid by the AUP) and journals.
Fwiw, your own "non furry art" content is still running well above that 10% level and was higher prior to those deletions a long time back. (A few others are probably also pushing the AUP now, given the new "apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature" clause therein).

Sometimes it's best not to wish for more restrictions on others in case those end up impacting oneself? The only person who's fully immune to that syndrome is the site owner.  
02-snowie-c, anyhow...

Cheers & Best wishes,
David/uncia.


----------



## SageHendrix (Jan 30, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> Lack of admin timeliness to enforce existing rules doesn't necessarily mean further, more restrictive ones are required, IMO.



Yeah, I didnt mean in my post before this at all.  I just meant that it is more of a commonplace thing for these "photobucket" type images to grace the pages of FA and thus is perpetuating the problem to the point of it creating a "this is acceptable" idea in some furs heads.  



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Fwiw, your own "non furry art" content is still running well above that 10% level and was higher prior to those deletions a long time back. (A few others are probably also pushing the AUP now, given the new "apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature" clause therein).
> 
> Sometimes it's best not to wish for more restrictions on others in case those end up impacting oneself? The only person who's fully immune to that syndrome is the site owner.
> 02-snowie-c, anyhow...
> ...



Im not going to get too far into this but I am not really sure how to take that statement from you.  I would rather not try and draw conclusions of my own, and contribute to unnecessary drama.  Besides, with FA, I find it best not to try and convince them about anything related to the artworld-wide artistic nudes vs porn argument.  2257 seems to be the easy fact to bring up by many sites concerning artistically expressed images such as mine.

However I will say, in an unrelated context, that when it comes between helping out in reporting (which I do occasionally if I happen to find something gracing the front page that looks to be in a site violation) vs running the risk that my account will be drawn to attention by admins, I really could care less what happens to my account.  Always had that attitude and, in the case of FA, it has been moreso in recent months. 

If you feel the need to further express what you feel about things like this in relation to my personal account and activity here, by all means send me a note.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 30, 2008)

This original idea died long ago, and there was really no need to resurrect this old, defunct thread. The original incarnation of this was scrapped, and while there is no doubt in my mind we will return to this subject at hand, for the mean time this is dead.


----------



## SageHendrix (Jan 31, 2008)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> This original idea died long ago, and there was really no need to resurrect this old, defunct thread. The original incarnation of this was scrapped, and while there is no doubt in my mind we will return to this subject at hand, for the mean time this is dead.


Oh.  Well that I actually didnt know.  Thanks for the heads up.  i dont know why it appeared at the top of the thread subject list as if it had been recently answered. Usually dead horse threads get locked as well.  Sorry for bringing up old shit.  I suppose that would explain Uncia's response.

Kat


----------

