# Banned for being a photographer?



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

I have not seen a thread on this yet and would like some clearification on the matter.  I've recently read that Seberhusky is getting banned for having his whole gallery pictures of his dogs.  Is this true that you can be banned for taking too many pictures of one thing?  I thought the point of being a artistic photographer was to have a artistic view in the pictures you take.  The pictures them selves did not depict the exact same thing in everyone.  Sure the focus was on the dogs, but they were in new pose's or doing new things in each picture.  If a photographer can't take too many pictures of the same thing for fear of being banned.  Will there be a hunt on for ppl who have most of their gallery full of real wolves, or perhaps many multiple pics of a animal or scenery from a zoo, or another area.  It's like saying a writer can't have too many of one thing in their gallery.  If all they have is Poems, Sure they may be different but the fact remains they are all poems.   Perhaps a comic artist who has comics posted in their gallery should worry?  Sure they have a new scene in every comic posted, but the fact remains it's all the same comic line.   I know Furaffinity can't be held to things like free speach.  It is a privately owned site that can set it's own restrictions.  But refraining a person who likes taking artistic and interesting pictures of their own animals seems to be a bit far to me.    Maybe alil clearification on other reasons for the gallery deletion and possible ban could be explained? 

Thanks. 
Sheppard


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 6, 2012)

He's not getting banned. He just got his gallery wiped for posting literally hundreds upon hundreds of photos of his dog. The same dog. In maybe 4 varieties of pose. They weren't 'artistic' photos or anything, they were just, "here's my dog doing something funny haha". Over and over.

Quit the hyperbole.


----------



## BRN (Mar 6, 2012)

It might be useful to check out FurAffinity's AUP in regards to photography.


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

One persons Idea of artistic may not be another ones.  Each of his photo's where slightly different.  I enjoed seeing what kiba was up to on a daily bases.  Not to mention the links online that reffered users back to the FA site.  Is getting new traffic from ppl a bad thing?


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> One persons Idea of artistic may not be another ones.


Artistic, as in, pay some kind attention to composition or lighting. Not just, "point at dog, press button".



sheppardwolfeyes said:


> Each of his photo's where slightly different.


"Slightly".



sheppardwolfeyes said:


> I enjoed seeing what kiba was up to on a daily bases.


That's what blogs are for.



sheppardwolfeyes said:


> Not to mention the links online that reffered users back to the FA site.  Is getting new traffic from ppl a bad thing?


Utterly irrelevant.

FA is supposed to be an art site, not a social network or a blog, as much as some people seem to treat it like one.


----------



## lostcat461 (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> One persons Idea of artistic may not be another ones.  Each of his photo's where slightly different.  I enjoed seeing what kiba was up to on a daily bases.  Not to mention the links online that reffered users back to the FA site.  Is getting new traffic from ppl a bad thing?



One person's idea of art is different than another. Luckily though, the site isn't run by everyone's opinion of art.


----------



## Jashwa (Mar 6, 2012)

I think LK explained it pretty well. 

I can't say I'm familiar with the dude, though, so I could be wrong.


I think it's funny though that you're so upset that he can't post a picture of his dog every day.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Mar 6, 2012)

I was kinda on your side until it became apparent that he posted photos of his dog like it was some sort of facebook.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 6, 2012)

We have photodump rules. Please read the AUP.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 6, 2012)

Ugh, this crap.

Is there anyway to institute some sort of rule that unless you're the user involved, people shouldn't come here to fight over moderator actions taken against someone else? If the user isn't concerned enough with the situation to make a thread here, why should someone else bother to?

Just a thought.


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I think LK explained it pretty well.
> 
> I can't say I'm familiar with the dude, though, so I could be wrong.
> 
> ...



It's not that I'm upset he can't post pics everyday of his dog.. It's that someones artistic Idea's are being bypassed.  I could understand if his photo's where of a disturbing nature.  Trying to keep things "PC" is very understandable to me, But his where just common day photo's of his enjoyment of his dog being silly or acting weird.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 6, 2012)

Yes we hate photographers >:C


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

Xenke said:


> Ugh, this crap.
> 
> Is there anyway to institute some sort of rule that unless you're the user involved, people shouldn't come here to fight over moderator actions taken against someone else? If the user isn't concerned enough with the situation to make a thread here, why should someone else bother to?
> 
> Just a thought.



So you think it's wrong to be informed on a issue and try to understand why it was done?  If things are explained in a open fashion it may result in taking care of further curiositys or misunderstands as to why something was done.   Everyone should have the right to question things and give opinions.  Just as you state your opinion in your statement there.  I'd not ask that comments like yours that have no true baring on the subject at hand be removed.


----------



## Teal (Mar 6, 2012)

FA isn't Photobucket.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> just common day photo's of his enjoyment of his dog being silly or acting weird.



Which is, you know, kinda the point.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> So you think it's wrong to be informed on a issue and try to understand why it was done?  If things are explained in a open fashion it may result in taking care of further curiositys or misunderstands as to why something was done.   Everyone should have the right to question things and give opinions.  Just as you state your opinion in your statement there.  I'd not ask that comments like yours that have no true baring on the subject at hand be removed.




His dog was plastered at all times every day. Honestly I am sick of it. I have reported it myself at one point. Its pathetic to have 23472394872394872938742938742938749238742398 pictures of the same dog doing the same damn shit. There is nothing to question, he broke aup and was delt with dont baw here.


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Which is, you know, kinda the point.



Hmmm?  The point being they each had their artistic point of view and where unique in their own right?  I'd agree with that.



dinosaurdammit said:


> His dog was plastered at all times every day. Honestly I am sick of it. I have reported it myself at one point. Its pathetic to have 23472394872394872938742938742938749238742398 pictures of the same dog doing the same damn shit. There is nothing to question, he broke aup and was delt with dont baw here.



This post isn't about being butt hurt by what happened.  I'll survive just fine.  I can always go to his other pages to get my updates.  This post for me is just about clarity.  You can clearly remove other ppl's galleries on a very wide range of reasons with this regulation.  I know ppl who have taken 5 pics of one animal at a zoo and posted them.  ect.  Under this rule they should technically have their galleries removed.   As I said i'm no worse for wear and i'll go on with life reguardless of this outcome.   Is it wrong to want something clarified and hear other ppls opinions on something.  (looks up)  this does say forums and it is the correct area to post a subject like this.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> It's not that I'm upset he can't post pics everyday of his dog.. It's that someones artistic Idea's are being bypassed.  I could understand if his photo's where of a disturbing nature.  Trying to keep things *"PC"* is very understandable to me, But his where just common day photo's of his enjoyment of his dog being silly or acting weird.



Well, there goes my respect


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Mar 6, 2012)

OP, all of your posts are physically painful to read. Every single one. The English language is not a raid boss. It does not drop epic loot. It does not give you experience points. Please stop killing it.

Anyway, there's a stark difference between treating your FA like it's a facetube page for your dog and doing actual artistic photography. 

It sounds like this guy was doing autistic photography instead. :V


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> Hmmm?  The point being they each had their artistic point of view and where unique in their own right?  I'd agree with that.



Haha, *no*. The point being they were "just common day photo's" (your own words). No mention of artistry or creativity, just "here is my dog". 



sheppardwolfeyes said:


> I know ppl who have taken 5 pics of one animal at a zoo and posted them.  ect.  Under this rule they should technically have their galleries removed.



Uh, no. They get 2 of them removed. The reason his gallery was wiped was because _the whole damn thing_, for hundreds upon hundreds of submissions, was the same thing. If say, he had 6 photos out of 300 submissions that were of his dog, then yes, a gallery wipe would be excessive and over-reactionary. But that is clearly not the case. At all.

What part do you not understand, exactly? What would you like clarified?


----------



## Kayla (Mar 6, 2012)

Didn't he like post a shitton of pictures of just his dog like an art dump? I think there's some kind of rule against that.




Xenke said:


> Ugh, this crap.
> 
> Is there anyway to institute some sort of rule that unless you're the user involved, people shouldn't come here to fight over moderator actions taken against someone else? If the user isn't concerned enough with the situation to make a thread here, why should someone else bother to?
> 
> Just a thought.



The thread will probably be locked in due time.
[Good god your avatar still makes me go ]


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 6, 2012)

If the photos had no composition whatsoever aside from "Taking picture of my dog on the floor and licking his balls", it's considered "junk photography".

If the user took a picture in motion, a mid air still of him catching a ball, etc, then it can be considered photography.

If the person wants to post junk photography of his dog, he can use Facebook or Tumbr.


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> OP, all of your posts are physically painful to read. Every single one. The English language is not a raid boss. It does not drop epic loot. It does not give you experience points. Please stop killing it.
> 
> Anyway, there's a stark difference between treating your FA like it's a facetube page for your dog and doing actual artistic photography.
> 
> It sounds like this guy was doing autistic photography instead. :V



Sorry, but I don't have the best writing skills.  It's enough to get my point acrossed tho.  I'd suggest maybe not even reading this reply if someone trying to write decently isn't good enough for you.  Also I'm not a big gaming fan. So your gaming references aren't the best examples to use.



Kayla said:


> Didn't he like post a shitton of pictures of just his dog like an art dump? I think there's some kind of rule against that.
> 
> The thread will probably be locked in due time.
> (Good god your avatar still makes me go )



He usually posted 2 a day (average there abouts)   Yeah i'm sure the topic will get locked in due time.  I'm rather suprised by the lack of posts supporting expression.  But hey, some of this was to see what reactions would be gained from a post like this.  Some was to just draw attention and clarify.  It's more onesided then I expected ;oP  .  I spoke my part enough n rest my case.  Life will continue to move.



dinosaurdammit said:


> His dog was plastered at all times every day. Honestly I am sick of it. I have reported it myself at one point. Its pathetic to have 23472394872394872938742938742938749238742398 pictures of the same dog doing the same damn shit. There is nothing to question, he broke aup and was delt with dont baw here.



This post isn't about being butt hurt by what happened.  I'll survive just fine.  I can always go to his other pages to get my updates.  This post for me is just about clarity.  You can clearly remove other ppl's galleries on a very wide range of reasons with this regulation.  I know ppl who have taken 5 pics of one animal at a zoo and posted them.  ect.  Under this rule they should technically have their galleries removed.   As I said i'm no worse for wear and i'll go on with life reguardless of this outcome.   Is it wrong to want something clarified and hear other ppls opinions on something.  (looks up)  this does say forums and it is the correct area to post a subject like this.


----------



## sheppardwolfeyes (Mar 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If the photos had no composition whatsoever aside from "Taking picture of my dog on the floor and licking his balls", it's considered "junk photography".
> 
> If the user took a picture in motion, a mid air still of him catching a ball, etc, then it can be considered photography.
> 
> If the person wants to post junk photography of his dog, he can use Facebook or Tumbr.



Can't say I remember him posting a single picture of his dog doing a lude act as in licking it's balls or anything.  He did like to put different clothing articles on his dog like hats, jackets ect and just take pics of his dog in derp moments or happy moments.  Things that make one happy to be a pet owner usually.  I think he mostly wanted to post things that made himself happy.  Kiba is that being happy.   *yawns*  anyway it apparently matters not.


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> I'm rather suprised by the lack of posts *supporting expression.*



I see you're still not getting it. Righto.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> Can't say I remember him posting a single picture of his dog doing a lude act as in licking it's balls or anything.  He did like to put different clothing articles on his dog like hats, jackets ect and just take pics of his dog in derp moments or happy moments.  Things that make one happy to be a pet owner usually.  I think he mostly wanted to post things that made himself happy.  Kiba is that being happy.   *yawns*  anyway it apparently matters not.



For Buddha's sakes, use the multiquote system!

I used it as an example. I know of the user you speak of and I also got tired of his photo spam of the same dog being uploaded to FA. We're not photobucket and not every picture a person takes with a camera will be art. 

Anyone can take a picture of a dog, but it takes the right lighting, the right background setting, the right focus, composition, ISO, etc, to make it a work of art. His photos were junk, and reported as such.
The the user's so happy with his dog's pictures, he can use flickr, Facebook, and Photobucket to use it. If he didn't brush up on the AUP and is pissed off for it, then oh well. Not the Admin's fault.


----------



## Zydala (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> I'm rather suprised by the lack of posts supporting expression.  But hey, some of this was to see what reactions would be gained from a post like this.  Some was to just draw attention and clarify.  It's more onesided then I expected ;oP  .  I spoke my part enough n rest my case.  Life will continue to move.



We support expression, but there's places better suited for certain kinds of expression. FA's owner and the staff that run it have decided on their standards, and most of those standards are actually based on feedback from the users of FA. Meaning that it's most likely a majority of users actually do not like spam photography (spam being defined as: multiple low-quality pictures of the same subject in similar contexts posted frequently) and think it clogs up what FA's original intentions were: to post creative works that have effort in their creations and thought in their display. 

As social as it is, FA is not a social networking site as much as it is a gallery site, and while it supports amateurs and professionals alike, the line has to be drawn somewhere to keep it from devolving into something that was never its intended purpose - i.e. sharing everyday things that are more suited for blogs, photobucket galleries, facebook, etc. That's just what's been decided.


----------



## Smelge (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> He did like to put different clothing articles on his dog like hats, jackets ect



Then he needs to be dragged into the street and shot in front of his family.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm willing to make some exceptions for artists who are truly capable of taking fantastic work, and the photography policies are even written as such as to defend similar items. To a point. However, I draw the line at abuse of site resources, and that's what this was at this point (where Seber realizes it or not).

First and foremost, FA is an art site. FA was intended for visual arts, NOT photography... but we chose to allow it, protect it and defend it (albeit with some caveats). Not just drawn art like some sites, but all art. Photography is a visual medium that can produce great results, but there is a point where we have to draw the line. Seberhusky had over 1,400+ images of his dog, Kiba. 1,400+. That's an INCREDIBLE amount of imagery, and Seber was using FA to showcase pretty much any image he took of his dog. FA is also very much a "hobby" site, as in we don't have infinite resources  and items. We provide what we do for free, fund the site with a few ads, and in return all we ask people adhere to a  few rules. FA's rules are NOT oppressive, nor are there REALLY that many  of them (really, there aren't). We still have to have some limits, however.

Some have argued why didn't this happen sooner? Honestly, it should have. Seber's had several prior violations, and we removed them... but didn't audit his gallery. Hell, even I was one of the prior admins, and even I missed it. We just don't have time to review every single gallery, every single submission. Even if we tripled the site staff that would still be implausible. Sometimes we rely on users reporting violations, as happened here. And Seber even pointed out several other artists uploading massive amounts of pet pictures to the who we had to take action on, too.

I gave Seber a chance to save his gallery, and would have let him keep 20 or 30 of the best of the best in accordance with site rules. He said no. All or nothing. He chose not to have any images left. I would have worked with him, but he refused.

Nobody banned him. Nobody forced him out. We just asked him to comply with the rules. 

That's the long and the short of it.


----------



## Osiris the jackal (Mar 6, 2012)

There is a group of people in Africa how believe that if a photo or picture is even drawn of them their souls get sucked into the image.

Strange isn't it?


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2012)

Osiris the jackal said:


> There is a group of people in Africa how believe that if a photo or picture is even drawn of them their souls get sucked into the image.


Take photo, retweet the shit out of that bastard.


----------



## Osiris the jackal (Mar 6, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Take photo, retweet the shit out of that bastard.



What do you mean by that? Like collecting their soul over an over again.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 6, 2012)

Osiris the jackal said:


> What do you mean by that? Like collecting their soul over an over again.




Collect *all* the souls


----------



## lostcat461 (Mar 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Collect *all* the souls



Gotta catch em all, gotta catch em all. Plus, there is nothing wrong with people dressing their dogs up in little outfits. It stimulates the economy.


----------



## RedSavage (Mar 6, 2012)

He's not being banned. He's leaving of his own accord because he doesn't want to follow rules and he feels entitled. 

My reaction: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3240098/#cid:24980355


----------



## Teal (Mar 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Collect *all* the souls





lostcat461 said:


> Gotta catch em all, gotta catch em all. Plus, there is nothing wrong with people dressing their dogs up in little outfits. It stimulates the economy.



And then I'll make them into trading cards.


----------



## Jashwa (Mar 6, 2012)

I think this is my favorite comment on that journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3240098/#cid:24958684


Neer has his page bookmarked and has been ready to delete stuff for a long time guys. Even though they've let him slide by for the last few years without really noticing he was breaking rules :V


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I think this is my favorite comment on that journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3240098/#cid:24958684
> 
> Neer has his page bookmarked and has been ready to delete stuff for a long time guys. Even though they've let him slide by for the last few years without really noticing he was breaking rules :V


Excuse me? No. I saw the derpy picture of his pup, Kiba, on the front page... and honestly thought it was a great image. I +fav'd it and tweeted it. That's all. I didn't go through the rest of his gallery, audit it, make bookmarks, etc.

Please don't assume wild scenarios that didn't happen.


----------



## Aden (Mar 6, 2012)

sheppardwolfeyes said:


> I know ppl who have taken 5 pics of one animal at a zoo and posted them.  ect.  Under this rule they should technically have their galleries removed.



then report it :v

\also, they'll have the offending images removed, not the whole gallery
\\sheesh


----------



## Xenke (Mar 6, 2012)

That entitlement mang.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 6, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Excuse me? No. I saw the derpy picture of his pup, Kiba, on the front page... and honestly thought it was a great image. I +fav'd it and tweeted it. That's all. I didn't go through the rest of his gallery, audit it, make bookmarks, etc.
> 
> Please don't assume wild scenarios that didn't happen.



That was sarcasm Neer. The :V face means sarcasm. We're laughing at how stupid that idea was, not saying you actually were waiting to delete the pics.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2012)

Fay V said:


> That was sarcasm Neer. The :V face means sarcasm. We're laughing at how stupid that idea was, not saying you actually were waiting to delete the pics.


I was wondering, but given half the other crap I was accused of... =P


----------



## Fay V (Mar 6, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> I was wondering, but given half the other crap I was accused of... =P



Bitches gonna bitch *shrug* 
honestly looking at how he reacts to even legitimate suggestions like "try photographing other figures and grow as an artist" the site isn't losing much beyond a couple of whiners that think the rules are all random and unfair because it won't let them do whatever they want.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Bitches gonna bitch *shrug*
> honestly looking at how he reacts to even legitimate suggestions like "try photographing other figures and grow as an artist" the site isn't losing much beyond a couple of whiners that think the rules are all random and unfair because it won't let them do whatever they want.



Exactly. The skill of any artist comes down to one word: _diversity_. Artists need to branch out, focus and draw everything, expand their portfolio and challenge themselves. When you have 1,400+ images of the same thing... you're not growing. You resigned to improve. Harsh words, but true.

This is a reason I, honestly, sometimes loathe my own art. Because I know I don't challenge myself enough to improve where I should.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 6, 2012)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> He's not being banned. He's leaving of his own accord because he doesn't want to follow rules and he feels entitled.
> 
> My reaction: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3240098/#cid:24980355



Then DA takes down all of his junk photos and the process repeats itself like herpies.




Dragoneer said:


> Exactly. The skill of any artist comes down to one word: _diversity_. Artists need to branch out, focus and draw everything, expand their portfolio and challenge themselves. When you have 1,400+ images of the same thing... you're not growing. You resigned to improve. Harsh words, but true.



And it's a same. People feel uncomfortable moving out into another style because it is either "boring", or they feel that they can't do it. Honestly, I hate drawing people and still life because I feel that I really suck at it, but I am improving. 


> This is a reason I, honestly, sometimes loathe my own art. Because I know I don't challenge myself enough to improve where I should.



You are your own worst critic and it takes practice and learning to loosen up and experiment.


----------



## Draconas (Mar 7, 2012)

I find it rather annoying that, anyone that tells him the site's rules, or suggest even fucking photobucket or something, that isn't giving him asspats, will get blocked and/or their comment hidden by him. Seriously, for someone butthurt about FA and "leaving" he is sure sucking hardcore at doing it.

Oh hell, I even commented on his thing, I even got the damned thing screencapped, I'll quote it. "Yeah... this isn't petaffinity, I've had shit removed and I didn't get this upset over it"

I got the hide/block combo over that? pfft

I find his DA, left another harmless comment "Felt that my comment was hidden for a bullcrap reason, 'Furaffinity isn't for pet pictures' was a little negative, but jesus, overreact much?"
14 minutes later, blocked, comment hidden, felt the need to upload the screenshots, also got one of him telling another member to "fuck off" just for suggesting photoshop.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 7, 2012)

Omg, people, both sides, stop caring.

Jesus, why does this matter? Why does he matter?

Move on, it's not worth the time.


----------



## Kesteh (Mar 7, 2012)

I suggested a photobucket. I also wittingly pointed out "*Comment hidden by the page owner*" because he's hiding everything. I got a reply of "Get a fuck-off." and immediately blocked. My comment wasn't hidden.
This person doesn't want to be reasonable to any extent and is just being a blatant asshole. 
Yeah sure they got images removed and are upset, but they're being a complete dick to a lot of people commenting. Just a personal opinion, but I think they deserve a forceful exit from the website just like their journal preaches. We don't need people like that here and they aren't bringing anything constructive to the place.


----------



## Draconas (Mar 7, 2012)

Kesteh said:


> I suggested a photobucket. I also wittingly pointed out "*Comment hidden by the page owner*" because he's hiding everything. I got a reply of "Get a fuck-off." and immediately blocked. My comment wasn't hidden.
> This person doesn't want to be reasonable to any extent and is just being a blatant asshole.
> Yeah sure they got images removed and are upset, but they're being a complete dick to a lot of people commenting. Just a personal opinion, but I think they deserve a forceful exit from the website just like their journal preaches. We don't need people like that here and they aren't bringing anything constructive to the place.



Ah yes, the person I was talking about at the end of my post.

mainsite admins, might I suggest doing something about his blatant block misuse? People are honestly trying to help him, such as kesteh here, and look at what they got, they in no way deserved that kind of treatment, from someone is supposedly leaving FA.


----------



## Bluflare (Mar 7, 2012)

*AUP:* The uploading of multiple photographs (more than a total of 3 in your gallery) of similar content (similar angle/composition of the same subject in the same location from the same photo session) is not allowed

*Sean*: The AUP does have a specific *exception* for *fursuits*, so they are within site policy. *Fursuits* have an *exception*. Pets do not.             

*FA-VOR-I-TIS-M*


----------



## CerbrusNL (Mar 7, 2012)

There's this one thing about the thread title:

If a person has a camera, that doesn't make him a photographer.


----------



## Aden (Mar 7, 2012)

Bluflare said:


> *FA-VOR-I-TIS-M*



a furry website likes fursuits
stop the presses


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 7, 2012)

Bluflare said:


> *AUP:* The uploading of multiple photographs (more than a total of 3 in your gallery) of similar content (similar angle/composition of the same subject in the same location from the same photo session) is not allowed
> 
> *Sean*: The AUP does have a specific *exception* for *fursuits*, so they are within site policy. *Fursuits* have an *exception*. Pets do not.
> 
> *FA-VOR-I-TIS-M*



It's not favoritism because there are some fursuit photos that are not exempt from that rule. Fursuits may be within Site policy, but spam dumps of 1,500 fursuits at the same angle are not.

And if you want to say "Well I see people who do that and they do not get in trouble", that means that it hasn't been reported yet or you, as a user, did not put any effort to open a TT reporting this. It would help more if people actually reported something that violates the AUP...or ask an admin if it is allowed or not than to rely on heresay to establish that it is 100% legit.


----------



## MandertehPander (Mar 7, 2012)

Bluflare said:


> *AUP:* The uploading of multiple photographs (more than a total of 3 in your gallery) of similar content (similar angle/composition of the same subject in the same location from the same photo session) is not allowed
> 
> *Sean*: The AUP does have a specific *exception* for *fursuits*, so they are within site policy. *Fursuits* have an *exception*. Pets do not.
> 
> *FA-VOR-I-TIS-M*



Awwww, it's so cute when people have to scrap so low into the barrel just to try and make a nonexistent point.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 7, 2012)

I can see the logic to this.  I've taken maybe hundreds of random pictures of my pets, but how many of them are fit to post?  Maybe one or two.  Period.  The rest are random, boring, or just not worth showing off _as a work of art_.  And some aren't even worth making a LOLcat out of.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 7, 2012)

Stratadrake said:


> I can see the logic to this.  I've taken maybe hundreds of random pictures of my pets, but how many of them are fit to post?  Maybe one or two.  Period.  The rest are random, boring, or just not worth showing off _as a work of art_.  And some aren't even worth making a LOLcat out of.



I've taken pictures of Birds, but I only have a few images that are print worthy.


----------



## Draconas (Mar 7, 2012)

Meanwhile while the user is still going on a comment hiding and blocking spree.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 7, 2012)

Draconas said:


> Meanwhile while the user is still going on a comment hiding and blocking spree.



Just let the guy be. No amount of telling him or assisting him with a flickr will help because he does not want to listen. All you can do is just let him vent. I garuntee you that he will be on FA to watch and fave people, just not post.


----------



## Bluflare (Mar 7, 2012)

Aden said:


> a furry website likes fursuits
> stop the presses



But they are to real to look at some of them look like they can jump though my monitor. Wonder what they would look like in 3D


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 7, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Just let the guy be. No amount of telling him or assisting him with a flickr will help because he does not want to listen. All you can do is just let him vent. I garuntee you that he will be on FA to watch and fave people, just not post.




My question is why not make a fucking blog, if he has that many followers why not? Why does it have to be an art site where the TOS/AUP STRICTLY STATES THE RULES yet he has to break them.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 7, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> My question is why not make a fucking blog, if he has that many followers why not? Why does it have to be an art site where the TOS/AUP STRICTLY STATES THE RULES yet he has to break them.



I can assume that the phtos are animal related, therfore it is okay to post them, reguardless if they look like crappy cellphone pictures. And maybe a little self-entitlement.

Posting them to a tumblr or a flickr is the best route, but no. Some have to treat it like a myspace when in essence FA is just an art showcase site for hobbyists and the few that make a living from it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> My question is why not make a fucking blog, if he has that many followers why not? Why does it have to be an art site where the TOS/AUP STRICTLY STATES THE RULES yet he has to break them.



Sometimes I wonder if it's because someone desperately wants some kind of notoriety through the internet these days. "I got X number of watches, so I'm A GOOD artist, fuckjoo" or "I need to post X screencaps of my Minecraft builds and fuck X website for not recognizing my art!" "Look how great I am with my herm character everyone draws because I commissioned a bunch of artists to!"

I kinda refer to this as the Troy McClure syndrome

"Because you may know me for X reason" (therefore you must legitimize my existence)


----------



## Fay V (Mar 7, 2012)

I think everyone wants to be a "celebrity" or "popufur" I know people hate the word popufur but I find it so perfect because it is so fucking pointless. No one knows you outside of one website. 
I think that's why they stay on the site despite breaking the rules. It's easy. they don't want to work at it and gain a following again. They want attention, easy attention.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Mar 7, 2012)

I really think it's time for this to be closed. At the end of the day folks please try to remember that we have a finite amount of resources. We give that up to all users free and try to allow for as much as we can allow for. Posting hundreds of pictures of a dog is just as bad as posting hundreds of pictures of every random car you see. Be courteous to other users. Don't abuse site resources, read the rules, follow them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 7, 2012)

Draconas said:


> Meanwhile while the user is still going on a comment hiding and blocking spree.



He's entitled to block who he wants and hide what comments he wants. They're on his page. End of story.

*EDIT:* Did not see the thread was closed before responding. My B!


----------

