# Bouncing breast avatars are ok now?



## Erethzium (Sep 23, 2013)

So I recently came across a couple users that had animated bouncing breast avatars, and ticketed them...but the response I got was that they don't violate AUP because there is no nudity.

I thought any kind of bouncing breast animated avatar, nude or not, was banned?

The two avatars in question:

http://a.facdn.net/tehbuttercookie.gif
http://a.facdn.net/darkelfaqua.gif


----------



## Wither (Sep 23, 2013)

Despite the fact that i'm totally ok with this, I do agree that it isn't really SFW. 

But honestly nothing about FA is SFW.


----------



## Troj (Sep 23, 2013)

I think they're applying the typical standard of, "No nipples, no nudity."

It definitely skirts the line, though.

I'm also slightly disappointed, because I thought I was going to see happy hopping anthropomorphic breasts.


----------



## Icky (Sep 23, 2013)

Somebody should make an avatar of an animated bouncing crotch bulge, just to see how quickly that would get taken down.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 23, 2013)

Who cares? It's bouncing boobs. How can you not watch that?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 23, 2013)

Troj said:


> I think they're applying the typical standard of, "No nipples, no nudity."
> 
> It definitely skirts the line, though.



It's funny how "evil" that nipple is. 

I rather think it's tacky (just like those ass avatars) but I guess that's just fa culture for ya.


----------



## Wither (Sep 23, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> It's funny how "evil" that nipple is.
> 
> I rather think it's tacky (just like those ass avatars) but I guess that's just fa culture for ya.



The art that's of completely nude anthros that's "general audience" because it's fur covering the breasts and nipple is unshown is ridiculous. It's like saying a cock - sheath is A-OK because it's hiding the penis.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 23, 2013)

talk to society about that. they made the "rules" about nudity


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2013)

We all know that breasts need to be covered up because they're not suitable for children...oh wait, no; that's who they are explicitly evolved for.


----------



## Wither (Sep 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> We all know that breasts need to be covered up because they're not suitable for children...oh wait, no; that's who they are explicitly evolved for.



You feed from it first, then you never see one again until you turn 12 and have Internet access.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> We all know that breasts need to be covered up because they're not suitable for children...oh wait, no; that's who they are explicitly evolved for.


Well hey, FA made the rule. They want the site to be as SFW as possible while the mature filter is turned off, and huge bouncing tits are not very SFW, "covered up" or not.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> So I recently came across a couple users that had animated bouncing breast avatars, and ticketed them...but the response I got was that they don't violate AUP because there is no nudity.
> 
> I thought any kind of bouncing breast animated avatar, nude or not, was banned?
> 
> ...



Quit being a homosex.

Homosex.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 23, 2013)

Saliva said:


> Quit being a homosex.
> 
> Homosex.



Just following the AUP.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Well hey, FA made the rule. They want the site to be as SFW as possible while the mature filter is turned off, and huge bouncing tits are not very SFW, "covered up" or not.



Fallow wasn't addressing you I believe. He was making a point about how people cry "think of the children" over a natural body part.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Just following the AUP.



The AUP is a homosex too.

u shud butfuck him.

homosex.


----------



## Dire Newt (Sep 23, 2013)

Well it's pretty tasteless, so I'd say it's a perfectly acceptable avatar for FA.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 23, 2013)

Dire Newt said:


> Well it's pretty tasteless, so I'd say it's a perfectly acceptable avatar for FA.



What a true patrician you are.


----------



## Dire Newt (Sep 23, 2013)

Saliva said:


> What a true patrician you are.



I forgot the ":V", my bad.


----------



## efflorescence (Sep 23, 2013)

Batsy said:


> Who cares? It's bouncing boobs. How can you not watch that?



^


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 23, 2013)

Dire Newt said:


> I forgot the ":V", my bad.



What a true patrician you are. :V::V:V:V:V:V:V:v;v;v::V:V:v:V:v:V:V:


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 23, 2013)

Wasn't the icon rule no PG-13 in general?

I remember this icon rule taking effect shortly after I paid the guy making them, if we mean Bes.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 23, 2013)

Well, according to the mod that answered the ticket, he "double checked with Dragoneer", and yes, giant bouncing tit icons are perfectly okay as long as there's no nudity.

When was this changed? The original avatars that CAUSED the ban in the first place had no nudity either.

Oh well. If the rule is "giant bouncing tits are fine long as there's no nudity", then I guess it's time for an avatar change!


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Well, according to the mod that answered the ticket, he "double checked with Dragoneer", and yes, giant bouncing tit icons are perfectly okay as long as there's no nudity.
> 
> When was this changed? The original avatars that CAUSED the ban in the first place had no nudity either.
> 
> Oh well. If the rule is "giant bouncing tits are fine long as there's no nudity", then I guess it's time for an avatar change!


Do it, and then have yours taken down

And the avatars that cause this whole shit storm in the first is oddly enough was ones made by Besped


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 24, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Well, according to the mod that answered the ticket, he "double checked with Dragoneer", and yes, giant bouncing tit icons are perfectly okay as long as there's no nudity.
> 
> When was this changed? The original avatars that CAUSED the ban in the first place had no nudity either.
> 
> Oh well. If the rule is "giant bouncing tits are fine long as there's no nudity", then I guess it's time for an avatar change!



I want a screenshot of this because (and pardon my language) I'm calling bullshit.  Anyone who puts them up as an active avatar gets them removed.  If Dragoneer really did say that and it's not something the admin that supposedly checked on, then they need to change the policy to reflect that.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 24, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> I want a screenshot of this because (and pardon my language) I'm calling bullshit.  Anyone who puts them up as an active avatar gets them removed.  If Dragoneer really did say that and it's not something the admin that supposedly checked on, then they need to change the policy to reflect that.



Here you go:






So yeah, either this mod is lying, or they changed the rule without telling anyone.

But he does claim that these are "not sexual" which...is also bullshit. Giant bouncing tits aren't sexual? Since when?


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 24, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Here you go:
> 
> So yeah, either this mod is lying, or they changed the rule without telling anyone.
> 
> But he does claim that these are "not sexual" which...is also bullshit. Giant bouncing tits aren't sexual? Since when?



I want to air on the side of the admin is lying since the icons Besped made were seemingly what caused the no bouncing boobs icons rule like Verin pointed out.  Edit because I can't type to save my life today.


----------



## Wither (Sep 24, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Closing the Ticket"
You reply 
"Closing the Ticket"
You reply. 
Ticket is still open. 
I know that's a bit unrelated but I just found that odd and funny.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 24, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




....half tempted to put back up one of the two breast icons I have then letting someone report me...


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 24, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> I want to air on the side of the admin is lying since the icons Besped made were seemingly what caused the no bouncing boobs icons rule like Verin pointed out.  Edit because I can't type to save my life today.


Either that or he's just using his own judgement instead of the rule. He claimed that giant bouncing tits are "not sexual" (lol), and thus, those avatars aren't breaking any rules. I mean, after all, on the upload/change avatar page, it just says "no sexual content", it doesn't mention "bouncing tits". But gigantic bouncing tits ARE sexual....apparently this mod disagrees.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 24, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Either that or he's just using his own judgement instead of the rule. He claimed that giant bouncing tits are "not sexual" (lol), and thus, those avatars aren't breaking any rules. I mean, after all, on the upload/change avatar page, it just says "no sexual content", it doesn't mention "bouncing tits". But gigantic bouncing tits ARE sexual....apparently this mod disagrees.



Wouldn't doubt it honestly.  This is my own personal account of them but the staff members hardly seem to be on the same page a lot.


----------



## rednec0 (Sep 27, 2013)

I actually remember a couple years ago when the whole "bouncing boobs" drama happened. There was a crackdown on it and people haven't been allowed to use them since then. So either the drama was repealed or a mod/admin isn't doing their job.


----------



## Kajet (Sep 27, 2013)

I have to wonder though... how many banana hammock based icons were ignored each time bouncing boob icons were bitched about?


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 27, 2013)

rednec0 said:


> I actually remember a couple years ago when the whole "bouncing boobs" drama happened. There was a crackdown on it and people haven't been allowed to use them since then. So either the drama was repealed or a mod/admin isn't doing their job.



Your avatar and signature are scaring me.

That's coming from someone with a muscle fetish, mind you.


----------



## FluffMouse (Sep 27, 2013)

So women jogging is sexual? :C Poor ladies with bigger boobies can't not be sexualized. I don't know why they'd be banned in the first place.. I've seen worse. Really.


----------



## Willow (Sep 27, 2013)

SugarMental said:


> So women jogging is sexual? :C Poor ladies with bigger boobies can't not be sexualized. I don't know why they'd be banned in the first place.. I've seen worse. Really.


Because technically it's mature content and kind of bypasses the whole PG-13 thing. 

Bouncing boobs aren't inherently sexual because boobs naturally do that to some capacity but obviously the intent of the icons is supposed to be sexual. (But of course because nipples aren't showing that suddenly makes it okay apparently). So don't even try to make this into an argument on how people demonize breasts. A person jogging is completely different.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2013)

Kajet said:


> I have to wonder though... how many banana hammock based icons were ignored each time bouncing boob icons were bitched about?


cause those who defended the icons that werent sexualized actually went "ok, we will agree to lose our icons if the ass and crotch icons go away also"
Many of use then realized if the icon isnt animated we can use em still which actually did anger some people as we used a loop hole as I been doing on FA for a long time.


----------



## FluffMouse (Sep 28, 2013)

Willow said:


> Because technically it's mature content and kind of bypasses the whole PG-13 thing.
> 
> Bouncing boobs aren't inherently sexual because boobs naturally do that to some capacity but obviously the intent of the icons is supposed to be sexual. (But of course because nipples aren't showing that suddenly makes it okay apparently). So don't even try to make this into an argument on how people demonize breasts. A person jogging is completely different.



There's tons of icons of asses wiggling and sexually suggestive crap. If nothing is showing what's the problem? Anything can be suggestive yet still allowed within the PG-13 rating as long as it doesn't show anything.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2013)

SugarMental said:


> There's tons of icons of asses wiggling and sexually suggestive crap. If nothing is showing what's the problem? Anything can be suggestive yet still allowed within the PG-13 rating as long as it doesn't show anything.


*links are to clean images
The problem is the besped icons* still started this, the ones people were using were clothed but due to they were animated they got deemed sexual. People stop caring when people were using then the still frame versions. This what lead to people then thinking "its the idea behind the icon is what people are considering"
There were a set of glass press icons* a long time ago, the creator made them without anything to show nipples but the idea was still in a sexual nature, if not a teasing one.

Neer himself went about and said the icon in nature has to be tasteful...you can already tell why doing it like that isnt quite smart cause everyone has different tastes on what is tasteful. Even my own clan have gone "you do not leave grey areas when it comes to stuff like this, you need to leave ground work/foundation"


----------



## EthanQix (Sep 28, 2013)

Willow said:


> Because technically it's mature content and kind of bypasses the whole PG-13 thing.
> 
> Bouncing boobs aren't inherently sexual because boobs naturally do that to some capacity but obviously the intent of the icons is supposed to be sexual. (But of course because nipples aren't showing that suddenly makes it okay apparently). So don't even try to make this into an argument on how people demonize breasts. A person jogging is completely different.



Mmmmh, no. The two icons involved in the report that started this whole nonsensical thread are not really sexual. They involve bouncing breasts, true, but they're more funny than anything. Are we really debating whether or not funny icons should be banned because they contain breasts ? Seriously ^^'


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 28, 2013)

EthanQix said:


> Mmmmh, no. The two icons involved in the report that started this whole nonsensical thread are not really sexual. They involve bouncing breasts, true, but they're more funny than anything. Are we really debating whether or not funny icons should be banned because they contain breasts ? Seriously ^^'



3/10 I almost responded seriously.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 28, 2013)

At least these are not as bad. The icons made by Besped back then had like... house sized tits. Not to mention that some users were retarded enough to upload the fully nude version of these icons.
But to make it fair for everyone these icons should be removed as well. The focus is on the bouncing tits, same as it was with the other icons.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> At least these are not as bad. The icons made by Besped back then had like... house sized tits. Not to mention that some users were retarded enough to upload the fully nude version of these icons.
> But to make it fair for everyone these icons should be removed as well. The focus is on the bouncing tits, same as it was with the other icons.


do note though we have abused a loop hole that exist as somehow the instant those to icons I show as an example were made in a still frame (without being animated) people stopped caring. But then...they arent bouncing breast any more, it just change to concentrate on the breast :V

also besped did the breast base on the size the person wanted said character breast to be, most who got them had characters with large breast, I'm one of the few folks who got that had the lower end of the size spectrum.

I respect the wishes of those who got angry about those breast, who didnt have any sexualized icons...I will not respect those that wanted breast icons to go away when they have an ass/crotch icon.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2013)

SugarMental said:


> There's tons of icons of asses wiggling and sexually suggestive crap. *If nothing is showing what's the problem?* Anything can be suggestive yet still allowed within the PG-13 rating as long as it doesn't show anything.


Intent. It's painfully obvious what the intent is behind besped's icons especially and you can't deny that. 
And if you don't like the other icons then complain about it. Though I don't see very many of those aside from the occasional tail wag or those diapered ones. There's also those pec icons but again, the intent isn't blatantly sexual. 



Verin Asper said:


> I respect the wishes of those who got angry about those breast, who didnt have any sexualized icons...I will not respect those that wanted breast icons to go away when they have an ass/crotch icon.


Those can go away too, but as mentioned above, they probably won't unless enough people complain about it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2013)

Intent is a red herring. There are fetishistic drawings on the mainsite which evidently have the intent to appeal to fetishists, but which are not sexually explicit, and therefore are marked as general.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Intent is a red herring.


Not always. 



> There are fetishistic drawings on the mainsite which evidently have the intent to appeal to fetishists, but which are not sexually explicit, and therefore are marked as general.


Well yeah, fetish pictures aren't always sexual that's obvious. If I draw bara it's not inherently sexual but if I place focus on his junk then the intent is suggestive. 

 But this is blatantly sexual. At least besped's icons are. I think the fact that they have to be labeled as mature is kind of an indicator of the fact that they're not sfw.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 28, 2013)

SugarMental said:


> If nothing is showing what's the problem?



There doesn't have to be "things showing" for something to be sexually suggestive.

Though I will agree with you one the whole "asses wiggling" thing. I've reported a good handful of ass-shaking icons and was turned down by mods claiming that they're "not sexual". Because, you know, incredibly wide hip swaying with a focus on the buttocks is not sexual at all. Nope.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2013)

Sexual suggestion does not equate to explicit material.


----------



## Wither (Sep 28, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Sexual suggestion does not equate to explicit material.



Swinging tits that are clothed are not explicit. 
But isn't sexual suggestions / the like not PG13?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2013)

Wither said:


> Swinging tits that are clothed are not explicit.
> But isn't sexual suggestions / the like not PG13?



It depends what the country's standards and cultural expectations, which are often disputable, are.


----------



## Wither (Sep 28, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It depends what the country's standards and cultural expectations, which are often disputable, are.



US is the only thing that matters. 
That's what guidelines FA follows.


----------



## Wither (Sep 28, 2013)

I take it back. 
(MPAA) 
"PG-13 â€“ Parents Strongly Cautioned
Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Parents are urged to be cautious as the motion picture contains some material that parents might not like for their children under 13.
Such films may contain moderate to strong violence, horror, action and peril, strong coarse language, some suggestive material and partial or somewhat complete nudity, strong rude or unsophisticated behavior, discrimination/bullying, alcohol, smoking, intense sexual situations, crude situations, thematic elements, emotional intensity, disturbing/startling images, and/or soft drug use or references."

Legally, these boobie avatars are PG13


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2013)

edit: disregard then


----------



## Hewge (Sep 28, 2013)

Yay! Boobs for all!


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 28, 2013)

Wither said:


> Legally, these boobie avatars are PG13



FA does not follow this "MPAA". Bouncing breast avatars were explicitly banned a while ago.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> FA does not follow this "MPAA". Bouncing breast avatars were explicitly banned a while ago.



This is about your butthurt, rather than the risk we will accidentally corrupt Legitwaterfall, isn't it?


----------



## Wither (Sep 28, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> FA does not follow this "MPAA". Bouncing breast avatars were explicitly banned a while ago.



Did you just put quotations around MPAA? 
Do you not know what that is? 

Also I said Legally. 
Also no one gives a shit. If It doesn't break any laws, FA can do it. 
Stop bitching like a 40 year old soccer cunt.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=MPAA
:I

Inb4 you say it's for movies. 
Yes. But it applies to most other things.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 28, 2013)

Wither said:


> Inb4 you say it's for movies.
> Yes. But it applies to most other things.



No, it doesn't. There's other rating systems for those things you speak of. The MPAA only regulates movies/films and nothing else. Have you ever seen "Rated R" on a TV show? How about "PG-13"? Although the TV rating system does have similar ratings, they are not associated with the MPAA.

Not only that, but had you even read the wiki about the MPAA, you would have realized that their ratings have NO LEGAL STANDING. 

Regarding legality, nudity and other indecent/obscene things are not allowed in certain areas, but they are not regulated by the MPAA...what gave you that idea anyway


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2013)

Sadly in the end all this is up to FA to decide
yes Technically they are allowed if they are clothed but in the end its up to FA to say.

In other words neer needs to get his ass in here or an actual site admin to discuss (though prefer neer due to they somewhat caused this whole topic to show again)

I will agree if they fix up the rules that instead of being a gray area around the word "Tasteful" and instead put down ground work where it actually includes "intent"

With intent the person have to combat to show that the intent of the icon wasnt to be sexualized, instead of just hoping the admin or neer goes "yea its good cause its tasteful to me"


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Sep 28, 2013)

As long as they cover them tits.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> Not only that, but had you even read the wiki about the MPAA, you would have realized that their ratings have NO LEGAL STANDING.


Movies and games aren't technically required to put ratings on their products too if I'm not mistaken. 

I think if anything, the fact that the actual animated ones need a mature rating should be an indicator of intent. Which isn't a red herring.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2013)

Willow said:


> Movies and games aren't technically required to put ratings on their products too if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> I think if anything, the fact that the actual animated ones need a mature rating should be an indicator of intent. Which isn't a red herring.


not really
A picture can easily drop down from mature to general as long as the character is clothed with its intent remaining the same. FA does this a lot where people post a clean version and a mature/adult version of the same picture.

This is why my animated icon by besped the nude one was in the mature section while the clothed one was under general.


Edit: something my friend pointed out to me about TV: Did you know depending on the channel they may actually edit a movie where certain scenes are taken out and/or words are removed/ edited to be allowed to be shown? Did you also know certain movies in the past was on the same rating of the movies of these days but had far more gore and such that if those movies were made now they would of ended up with a higher rating? This is why Ratings do not work so much cause of different generations and also locations


----------



## Wither (Sep 29, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> No, it doesn't. There's other rating systems for those things you speak of. The MPAA only regulates movies/films and nothing else. Have you ever seen "Rated R" on a TV show? How about "PG-13"? Although the TV rating system does have similar ratings, they are not associated with the MPAA.
> 
> Not only that, but had you even read the wiki about the MPAA, you would have realized that their ratings have NO LEGAL STANDING.
> 
> Regarding legality, nudity and other indecent/obscene things are not allowed in certain areas, but they are not regulated by the MPAA...what gave you that idea anyway



You do know that I was using it as general guidelines right? Also, what the fuck is your point? Clothed tits are PG 13. Fuck off, sir. 

If FA decides to ban them then that's their choice. If they decide not to then that's also their choice. 
Just, legally, it's fine.

And you really didn't need three paragraphs of rage to say I'm wrong, despite me knowing that shit already. 
Sometimes short and sweet is most effective. "this is wrong because these reasons" is much more effective than "FUCK YOU, DID YOU EVEN READ BRO? LOOK IT SAYS RIGHT! CAPS BECAUSE EMPHASIS ON MY RAGE. >:CCC" 

Right?


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 29, 2013)

It's been said but I'd love to see 'Neer step in and say something on this.


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 29, 2013)

Aaaand it appears that they've changed their avatars from bouncing tits to depictions of characters squeezing and squishing giant tits.

:|

Alrighty then. Now to wait 3-5 weeks for another ticket response.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 29, 2013)

DA allows this, too, right?

If they can get through with it...


----------



## Wither (Sep 29, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> It's been said but I'd love to see 'Neer step in and say something on this.


Like hell. 


Erethzium said:


> Aaaand it appears that they've changed their avatars from bouncing tits to depictions of characters squeezing and squishing giant tits.
> 
> :|
> 
> Alrighty then. Now to wait 3-5 weeks for another ticket response.


Why do you caaaaarre so much? 
Why are you paying such close attention to their avatars? You've sent your ticket, they'll fix it if needed, move with your life.


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 29, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Aaaand it appears that they've changed their avatars from bouncing tits to depictions of characters squeezing and squishing giant tits.
> 
> :|
> 
> Alrighty then. Now to wait 3-5 weeks for another ticket response.



Honest question, but are you one of those people who constantly refresh the site in order to find things to report?
I mean, it's just an icon. I personally don't see how someone could get so worked up over an icon that they must report it as soon as it's mildly suggestive.

I get that there's a rule in the site's ToS about it, but still. It's an icon. 
And as far as "_protect the childrinz_" goes: most adverts they see on a daily basis are *way *more suggestive.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Ansitru said:


> Honest question, but are you one of those people who constantly refresh the site in order to find things to report?
> I mean, it's just an icon. I personally don't see how someone could get so worked up over an icon that they must report it as soon as it's mildly suggestive.
> 
> I get that there's a rule in the site's ToS about it, but still. It's an icon.
> And as far as "_protect the childrinz_" goes: most adverts they see on a daily basis are *way *more suggestive.



Perhaps one of _their_ icons was removed.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 29, 2013)

Wither said:


> Like hell.



Five minutes would not kill the guy.  Or even two minutes.


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Perhaps one of _their_ icons was removed.



"_An eye for an eye_..." comes to mind.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Ansitru said:


> "_An eye for an eye_..." comes to mind.



I did the same on another site when a background decoration I had designed [which featured the site's mascot being impaled on a pike] went viral. The site owners made me remove it and I felt angry that other people were still getting away with displaying _my_ background.


----------



## Kalmor (Sep 29, 2013)

Annnnd neer has replied to me on skype:



> [9:02:19 PM] Raptros (Connery): http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/322292-Bouncing-breast-avatars-are-ok-now People are requesting 'neer's input in this.
> [9:03:42 PM] Preyfar: Sexually explicit avatars, including those containing outlines of genitalia or nipples.
> Avatars which use another artist/user's work or characters without permission. We will remove avatars at the owner's request.
> [9:04:15 PM] Preyfar: "Sexually explicit avatars, including those containing outlines of genitalia or nipples." Unless it's sexually explicit or shows nipples... they're fine per current policy.
> ...


So there.


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I did the same on another site when a background decoration I had designed [which featured the site's mascot being impaled on a pike] went viral. The site owners made me remove it and I felt angry that other people were still getting away with displaying _my_ background.



It's not that I don't get how that would make someone angry, but it seems a bit ... petty and childish? D:


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Ansitru said:


> It's not that I don't get how that would make someone angry, but it seems a bit ... petty and childish? D:



I was a child at the time; ~12 maybe 13.


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I was a child at the time; ~12 maybe 13.



Ah, that makes sense then. Mind you, I'd be peeved to if I got reported for something and others got away with it.

*But*, the whole "_revenge-reporting_" (if that is even what is going on in this case) is just petty and a waste of time, to be honest.
It's time that can be better spent, I reckon.


----------



## Wither (Sep 29, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> Five minutes would not kill the guy.  Or even two minutes.


Oh hey, he did. 
Kinda. I guess. 
Does that count? Who won?


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 29, 2013)

Wither said:


> Oh hey, he did.
> Kinda. I guess.
> Does that count? Who won?



Wasn't here but suppose that works out.  Looks like the icons are good to go.


----------



## Etiainen (Sep 29, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> Looks like the icons are good to go.





> [9:04:15 PM] Preyfar: [...] Unless it's sexually  explicit or shows nipples...


Problem is that "_sexually explicit_" is one of those vague admin terms used when someone is too lazy to write an actual guideline as to what is considered as such. tl;dr - It's too broad and the icons can be considered as such hence the ban in the first fucking place. Does anyone even read this shit?


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Problem is that "_sexually explicit_" is one of those vague admin terms used when someone is too lazy to write an actual guideline as to what is considered as such. tl;dr - It's too broad and the icons can be considered as such hence the ban in the first fucking place. Does anyone even read this shit?





> hence the ban in the first fucking place. Does anyone even read this shit?


It's because nipples aren'y showing which somehow makes it less sexually explicit. Which doesn't really make any sense.

But that does actually need to be cleared up because aside from being pretty blatant, they're not in good taste to be honest.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 29, 2013)

Willow said:


> It's because nipples aren'y showing which somehow makes it less sexually explicit. Which doesn't really make any sense.
> 
> But that does actually need to be cleared up because aside from being pretty blatant, they're not in good taste to be honest.



I remember there being a ban specifically stating "No bouncing breasts or avatars PG-13 and up" around the time the whole ban took effect.  What happened to that?


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> I remember there being a ban specifically stating "No bouncing breasts or avatars PG-13 and up" around the time the whole ban took effect.  What happened to that?


Enough people probably whined about it being banned because there were butt icons and whatever else. Which I seriously have never seen except for a few times. :/


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

I see plenty of butt icons. Perhaps I browse a different region of FA to you. 

None of these icons are explicit, however. They are sexually implicit; they imply sexual connotations rather that showing actual sexual situations.


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> None of these icons are explicit, however. They are sexually implicit; they imply sexual connotations rather that showing actual sexual situations.


In other words, these icons are acceptable because of how the AUP is worded.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Willow said:


> In other words, these icons are acceptable because of how the AUP is worded.



Or because they're just saucy, rather than full out porn. Only pedants are upset by it.


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Or because they're just saucy, rather than full out porn. *Only pedants are upset by it.*


What does this even mean? In what way are you using this word. Because I looked it up and I'm not sure you're using it right. 

I wouldn't generalize like that though. I just don't like having boobs bounced in my face.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Willow said:


> What does this even mean? In what way are you using this word. Because I looked it up and I'm not sure you're using it right.
> 
> I wouldn't generalize like that though. I just don't like having boobs bounced in my face.



People excessively concerned with minor matters of trivial consequence. Yes, pedants.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Annnnd neer has replied to me on skype:
> 
> 
> So there.


...did...
Did neer just put is back to damn square one with nothing resolved?


----------



## Erethzium (Sep 29, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Annnnd neer has replied to me on skype:
> 
> 
> So there.



How nice of them to remove the "no bouncing breast avatars" rule without telling anyone.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Sep 29, 2013)

Tempted to finally use the icon I got back when the ban came up.


----------



## Etiainen (Sep 30, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> ...did...
> Did neer just put is back to damn square one with nothing resolved?


Are you truly surprised or do I sense a hint of sarcasm?


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 30, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Are you truly surprised or do I sense a hint of sarcasm?


Its both
Neer tends to not actually solve problems but just do a recap of what happen where everyone else still stuck having to solve it
Sarcasm is cause due to being back to square one the same thing happens


Neer just put us in a loop

we'll forever now be stuck in the loop of people constantly bitching about these type of icons, them getting banned, then being secretly unbanned cause no one talked about them and back to folks using them to then leading to people bitching about them...




you know, I asked for the wrong person...
"can we get an site admin that is willing to actually talk, debate and clarify things, from this point on anyone but neer"
Cause this is FA a site that secretly updates the block system (yea there are people surprise when you block someone they block em completely when they just want you to shut up but dont mind you being around), and secretly adds the disable account feature (which so far proven not only abusable but also useless) and not tell anyone....still

you know what...this is actually how I feel
[video=youtube;omLve_vezbA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omLve_vezbA[/video]


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 1, 2013)

It does leave room for 2 conclusions:
1. The ban was eventually revoked. but no one was notified.
2. The ban was bullsh- *cough* _never legitimate_ in the first place.

Ultimately though, both conclusions leave us back where we started - With people bitching about these kind of icons. This may lead to another ban, which could be stealthily lifted either due to a change in policies or unspoken words.

Next time the administration wants to shoot itself in the foot, please make sure there isn't a foot left to shoot afterwards. I recommend just taking a grenade, pulling the pin, and sticking it in your mouth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2013)

Willow said:


> In other words, these icons are acceptable because of how the AUP is worded.



Just gotta point out...this is kind of the reason anything is acceptable.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 1, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> 2. The ban was bullsh- *cough* _never legitimate_ in the first place.


Pretty sure it was. I remember ticketing bouncing breast icons in the past and they did get removed.

So it seems #1 is the case; they decided to remove the ban without telling anyone.

Either that or the mod that responded to my ticket was new and unaware of the ban. In which case, administration's fault again for not outlining this rule in the AUP.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 1, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Pretty sure it was. I remember ticketing bouncing breast icons in the past and they did get removed.
> 
> So it seems #1 is the case; they decided to remove the ban without telling anyone.
> 
> Either that or the mod that responded to my ticket was new and unaware of the ban. In which case, administration's fault again for not outlining this rule in the AUP.


well remember, they claimed to talked to neer, and another mod talked to them and got information from neer on all this...so yea we are stuck in a bullshit loop

damn loopers


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 1, 2013)

Willow said:


> I just don't like having boobs bounced in my face.


Some people don't want ponies shoved in their face, but pony avatars are still allowed. I do not see why the rules should change to keep from offending a smaller portion of FA's userbase so long as it isn't, as others have said, all-out pornography. If you start trying to cover everything that offends someone then you might as well not do anything.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 1, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> Some people don't want ponies shoved in their face, but pony avatars are still allowed.



Maybe because pony avatars aren't blatantly sexual.

This isn't about "not offending people", it's about adhering to the rules. The avatar upload rules state that avatars cannot contain anything sexual, and when the focus of the avatar is gigantic bouncing tits...that's pretty damn sexual, whether or not nipples are showing.

But since apparently Dragoneer said "as long as there's no nipples it's fine", I guess I'll switch back to my breast inflation avatar, because it has no nipples.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 1, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> Some people don't want ponies shoved in their face, but pony avatars are still allowed.\


You're absolutely right, we should ban pony avatars. And bronies in general. Brb starting petition.


----------



## Willow (Oct 1, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Just gotta point out...this is kind of the reason anything is acceptable.


That's not what I meant and you know it. 



Infestissumam said:


> Some people don't want ponies shoved in their face, but pony avatars are still allowed. I do not see why the rules should change to keep from offending a smaller portion of FA's userbase so long as it isn't, as others have said, all-out pornography. If you start trying to cover everything that offends someone then you might as well not do anything.


Ponies are an entirely different story. Unless ponies offend you in some way then I don't really see what you're getting at.
I didn't say it was necessarily offensive either. Just pointing out that FallowFox was generalizing why people don't like the avatars. Which is only really to show that he has no problem with them while everyone else is obviously just overly sensitive.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 1, 2013)

Ponies aren't the same as bouncing breasts unless Ponies has a rating issue to be concerned about?

It's not so much as "offended by them" but what's deemed acceptable specially for a "SFW" kind of rating. This is understandable to have it debated to a degree because it makes no sense to have a "SFW" version of FA that isn't deemed acceptably SFW.

That being said I'm kinda mixed because some of the arguments about big bouncing breasts is kind of...well wtf, since I have big boobs and people act like the act of having them people should be locked up in a room for existing  There's also the fact that unlike some dude's bulge breasts tend to be more prominent because most people are staring upwards and well naturally boobs are kinda in that area, vs starting downwards at people's crotches. If we didn't care about the upper body so much along with faces, "self portraits" would mainly consist of the crotch as an identifier. 

On the other hand I can understand people who would like a little more of a respected shared environment where people should consider their avatar a bit more sfw until they have some kind of implementation to block out mature avatars. I don't think the act of big boobs or boobs is more of the problem but the added attention of them bouncing is the combination people are having the most issue with - it's more attention getting than a static image unless the nudity is more detailed?

Of course yes there is ad block or something, but it doesn't help if you don't know who has these avatars to begin with  or later that person has a more acceptable avatar.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 2, 2013)

Willow said:


> That's not what I meant and you know it.


I have a something sad to tell you....
what they said is true anyway, there are many rules arent defined thus they leave massive "technically" loop holes


Arshes Nei said:


> Ponies aren't the same as bouncing breasts unless Ponies has a rating issue to be concerned about?
> 
> It's not so much as "offended by them" but what's deemed acceptable specially for a "SFW" kind of rating. This is understandable to have it debated to a degree because it makes no sense to have a "SFW" version of FA that isn't deemed acceptably SFW.
> 
> ...



True, even Sofurry sorta has a system for mature icons but to them the clothed boob icons are not mature, but if you use the none clothed ones it is definately adult.

Then again I use a static version of all my boob icon and still people have chosen to ignore me now


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 2, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> That being said I'm kinda mixed because some of the arguments about big bouncing breasts is kind of...well wtf, since I have big boobs and people act like the act of having them people should be locked up in a room for existing



I'm not saying "Ban big boobs!" I'm saying "Ban animated icons that are blatantly focusing on the sexual aspect of big boobs, because they're violating the "No sexual content" part of the avatar upload rules". Huge difference.

As of now, the avatars in the OP have changed from bouncing boobs to squeezing and squishing giant boobs. Still blatantly sexual.



Arshes Nei said:


> Of course yes there is ad block or something, but it doesn't help if you don't know who has these avatars to begin with  or later that person has a more acceptable avatar.



What I want to know is whatever happened to the explicit ban on these types of things? "Bouncing boob icons" were very specifically banned a while ago...why was that rule repealed, and why did nobody say anything about it when it was? Now Dragoneer is saying that they're fine, and you're saying we should just adblock them?


----------



## Ruen (Oct 2, 2013)

They're dangling before my eyes! @_@


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 2, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I'm saying "Ban animated icons that are blatantly focusing on the sexual aspect of big boobs, because they're violating the "No sexual content" part of the avatar upload rules". Huge difference.


Now we're back to the difference between "Sexually Implicit" and "Sexually Explicit". _Loopudalaloop~_

Ban both, fix all the issues.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Now we're back to the difference between "Sexually Implicit" and "Sexually Explicit". _Loopudalaloop~_
> 
> Ban both, fix all the issues.



Prohibiting sexually implicit images would filter a large portion of FA if such a standard were applied to the whole site. _All _my furry images are implicitly sexual, even if nobody else thinks they're kinky.


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Prohibiting sexually implicit images would filter a large portion of FA if such a standard were applied to the whole site. _All _my furry images are implicitly sexual, even if nobody else thinks they're kinky.



Foxes turn me on. 
Ban them all!


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 2, 2013)

I rather have a actual set of rules and guidelines, is that so hard FA?
I have seen what happen when you guys go "gray area" with rules, its literally the reasons I stop reporting things cause you could end up with that one admin and you just have to stop and go "wait...wut?" when they say its fine and not actually explain why or how its fine, while another submission similar to the one you reported gets taken down...

This is why I sorta now regretted going out of my way to get SL back as submissions, cause we are back to the original shit, thus now I'm waiting for people to bitch enough to have that stuff banned again.

"Its better for something to be outright banned/not allowed if you not gonna have guidelines for it"


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 2, 2013)

Well it seems the rule was changed sometime between June and now, because the last time I ticketed a sexual avatar and got it removed was June 6th.







I'd really like an admin/mod response as to why/when the rule was changed and why they decided to not tell anyone.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Oct 2, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Well it seems the rule was changed sometime between June and now, because the last time I ticketed a sexual avatar and got it removed was June 6th.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Though to the credit of Raptros getting a reply from Dragoneer, I get the feeling this won't be settled unless we hear directly from him on here or after he talks to the staff he has now then speaks to us.  I'm patient (unlike I was a few posts ago) and want to hear from the guy on here when he can get on and say something.  All in all I'm not honestly surprised we're at where we are now in this loop.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 2, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Now Dragoneer is saying that they're fine, and you're saying we should just adblock them?



I'm really hoping maybe you're being rhetorical and actually read what I stated


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 3, 2013)

Okay, admins, when were you planning on telling us that you removed the ban on these types of avatars?

It seems I got the same mod response as last time though...same mod telling me that "giant bouncing boobs are not sexual".


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 3, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Okay, admins, when were you planning on telling us that you removed the ban on these types of avatars?


Hahaha.
The admins actually telling us something? That's rich. They can't even share information among themselves, let alone with others who use the site.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 3, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Okay, admins, when were you planning on telling us that you removed the ban on these types of avatars?
> 
> It seems I got the same mod response as last time though...same mod telling me that "giant bouncing boobs are not sexual".


Whelp then putting my icons back


----------



## PheagleAdler (Oct 6, 2013)

Wither said:


> You do know that I was using it as general guidelines right? Also, what the fuck is your point? Clothed tits are PG 13. Fuck off, sir.
> 
> If FA decides to ban them then that's their choice. If they decide not to then that's also their choice.
> Just, legally, it's fine.
> ...



Well, it sounds like you're the one enraged here, not me. I was merely correcting your apparent misconceptions. I'm not sure why you brought up legality in the first place, which is why I told you outright that the rating systems have nothing to do with legality. 

The only reason we use "PG-13" and other ratings to describe content is because of the MPAA, which created the rating system. And I understand you may already know certain aspects of rating systems, but that doesn't give you cause to yell and curse at me. My capitalization was solely for emphasis, and nothing more (I could have used bold, italics, or underlining also to get my point across).


----------



## Willow (Oct 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Prohibiting sexually implicit images would filter a large portion of FA if such a standard were applied to the whole site. _All _my furry images are implicitly sexual, even if nobody else thinks they're kinky.


Your gallery =/= your icon. What you do with your own gallery is kind of your own business unless you're blatantly ignoring guidelines. I mean some people label their stuff as mature because there's a little bit of blood or the word "Fuck" written somewhere on it. I get the feeling though that you're trying to apply the word implicit in such a broad definition and well, do I even have to tell you why that's wrong?



PheagleAdler said:


> Well, it sounds like you're the one enraged here, not me. I was merely correcting your apparent misconceptions. I'm not sure why you brought up legality in the first place, which is why I told you outright that the rating systems have nothing to do with legality.


Not to mention that kind of legality can't really be applied to images very well seeing as how the ratings are categorized by general, mature, and explicit. These icons are kind of borderline and where they fall is really subjective.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 6, 2013)

Willow said:


> Your gallery =/= your icon. What you do with your own gallery is kind of your own business unless you're blatantly ignoring guidelines. I mean some people label their stuff as mature because there's a little bit of blood or the word "Fuck" written somewhere on it. I get the feeling though that you're trying to apply the word implicit in such a broad definition and well, do I even have to tell you why that's wrong?


Actually they were using the gallery prove their point as their example which is actually still true due to you actually provided the why.

Then again in this whole system all it takes is for someone else to believe its implied thus what brought about the first problem about the animated icons as there have been stray bullets that hit very innocent people just cause of someone deem the icon was implying something of a more mature/adult nature.



Willow said:


> Not to mention that kind of legality can't really be applied to images very well seeing as how the ratings are categorized by general, mature, and *Adult*. These icons are kind of borderline and where they fall is really subjective.


(fixed something that bugged me due to many art posting site rather not use explicit but adult with SoFurry lumping mature and adult works under adult and having space for the extreme rating) The problem is FA dont care much for implicit cause that is a major gray area, they do care if the icon is Explicit as technically that has a much smaller gray area. 
They made this very known now with the silent change of rules, BUT after taking to a couple of my friends just having a debate on this one person actually said this "...The icon system doesn't fallow the rating system, it just leaves a small list of a guide of things that wont be allowed as an icon. It just happens one of the rules is _Sexually explicit avatars, including those containing outlines of genitalia or nipples. _Meaning your icon can be a damn torso of the female...as long as it doesnt have nipples or genetalia or an outline of em or any bodily fluids on it...bonus points if you just have the torso clothed. If FA wanted to make sure no icons were of mature/adult nature they would actually have to put down a rating system of which both SoFurry and InkBunny actually do. (with SoFurry having a system where they have general icons and adult icons of which only people who have adult turned on can see those icons, while IB openly states no adult or offensive material can be icons.)

So


we are actually tackling this from the wrong angle, its not from implicit we should be dealing with but on if the icon being explicit. Or in simple "They dont care for the implied, they don't want the actual act now."


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 6, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> "They dont care for the implied, they don't want the actual act now."


Pretty much this summarizes the change.

The implicity ban was removed but no one was notified. In fact I feel as if I'm lying when I use the word "remove", it more or less just faded away. However, the rule on explicit nature remains intact (as it should).


----------



## Mewtwolover (Oct 8, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Now we're back to the difference between "Sexually Implicit" and "Sexually Explicit". Loopudalaloop~
> 
> Ban both, fix all the issues.


Nope, banning both isn't the solution. Mature filter for avatars is practically perfect solution since it allows use of mature icons so there's no need for separate avatar rules anymore and what's best, it won't cause any drama because people see it as good improvement.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 8, 2013)

Mewtwolover said:


> Nope, banning both isn't the solution. Mature filter for avatars is practically perfect solution since it allows use of mature icons so there's no need for separate avatar rules anymore and what's best, it won't cause any drama because people see it as good improvement.



Exactly! this is what I've been saying for years, but every time I bring it up with an admin (specifically Dragoneer) I'm told that it would be too hard to do. and on top of it being a perfect solution it would also give people the ability to use icons containing sex and nudity because it can all be filtered out as per FA's General/Mature/Adult Rating system but specifically for avatars. If Furocity and SoFurry can do it then so can FA.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 8, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> If Furocity and SoFurry can do it then so can FA.



You forget that FA's coders are lazy as hell and can't do shit. Useful features like Folders, or things like you suggested? Pfft, fuck those, we need pointless bullshit like "hidden favorites" and larger thumbnails that break the usage of custom thumbnails. (Which, STILL HAS NOT BEEN FIXED after more than a year) Not to mention the "UI Overhaul" that we were promised back in 2008, which still isn't here 5 years later.

I'm convinced that FA hasn't had a stable team of coders in years.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 8, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> You forget that FA's coders are lazy as hell and can't do shit. Useful features like Folders, or things like you suggested? Pfft, fuck those, we need pointless bullshit like "hidden favorites" and larger thumbnails that break the usage of custom thumbnails. (Which, STILL HAS NOT BEEN FIXED after more than a year) Not to mention the "UI Overhaul" that we were promised back in 2008, which still isn't here 5 years later.
> 
> I'm convinced that FA hasn't had a stable team of coders in years.



I agree with that, Dragoneer has personally complained to me about how hard it is to implement a content filter for avatars/icons.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 8, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> Exactly! this is what I've been saying for years, but every time I bring it up with an admin (specifically Dragoneer) I'm told that it would be too hard to do. and on top of it being a perfect solution it would also give people the ability to use icons containing sex and nudity because it can all be filtered out as per FA's General/Mature/Adult Rating system but specifically for avatars. If Furocity and SoFurry can do it then so can FA.


Heres the thing...
For SoFurry to do that they had to redo how icons are seen in their system
Note the icon system for SoFurry doesnt mark things as mature, all it does is *tick* people with adult setting on can see this icon but not people with general setting. Meaning for FA we would actually have to do MORE than what SoFurry does cause of the second note below.
Also note the reason of the animated icons ban originally was around some users didnt like the sexualization of the icons, some of these people actually have the ability to look at porn, they just didnt like the icon's being up in their face about it.

So lets recap

SoFurry only uses a activation system, that is automatic. Meaning if someone have an adult icon and you are set to adult, you will see adult icons even if you dont want to, you will have to actually go down to general to avoid adult icons. Meaning for FA would have to do much more work than what SoFurry does as they not only have to make it that adult/mature icons activate ONLY if the person is of age, but to add a system where people may choose to not see others adult/mature icons (at the same time killing their own from being seen by themselves and others).

Sadly that wont actually stop the bitching problem, a filter doesnt do that as the problem will still be "Is this icon mature or general"
But this is fa...people believe the best course of action is to filter filter filter...while not actually tackling the problem...


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 9, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> Dragoneer has personally complained to me about how hard it is to implement a content filter for avatars/icons.


It's not hard at all for someone who's actually competent and knows what they're doing.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 9, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Heres the thing...
> For SoFurry to do that they had to redo how icons are seen in their system
> Note the icon system for SoFurry doesnt mark things as mature, all it does is *tick* people with adult setting on can see this icon but not people with general setting. Meaning for FA we would actually have to do MORE than what SoFurry does cause of the second note below.
> Also note the reason of the animated icons ban originally was around some users didnt like the sexualization of the icons, some of these people actually have the ability to look at porn, they just didnt like the icon's being up in their face about it.
> ...



you do know that on FA if you have your settings set to general you can still see your submissions that are marked adult and mature? and they really wouldn't have to do much more work, they essentially already have a filter system in place with submissions they simply need to apply it to icons. you have three different icons active at once. General, Mature, and Adult. when you browse FA and you have your icon setting to show adult icons then you always see everybody's adult icon unless they don't have an adult icon at which point the site will default to the highest rating icon that user has active. and your content filter settings for icons is separate from your content filter settings for submissions so you can see mature and adult art but if you don't want to see mature or adult icons then you don't have to.



Etiainen said:


> It's not hard at all for someone who's actually competent and knows what they're doing.



this guy gets it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 9, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> you do know that on FA if you have your settings set to general you can still see your submissions that are marked adult and mature? and they really wouldn't have to do much more work, they essentially already have a filter system in place with submissions they simply need to apply it to icons. you have three different icons active at once. General, Mature, and Adult. when you browse FA and you have your icon setting to show adult icons then you always see everybody's adult icon unless they don't have an adult icon at which point the site will default to the highest rating icon that user has active. and your content filter settings for icons is separate from your content filter settings for submissions so you can see mature and adult art but if you don't want to see mature or adult icons then you don't have to.


>Settings to General
>still see submissions marked adult and mature

No you can't if not shouldnt,that have been a glitch thats been around after introducing the SFW button (if not before) for a damn while that FA haven't fixed due to coming down from a high rating of mature or adult and then dropping down to general (this have been done before to artist who drew mature works but then get aged lock when their real age was shown to be lower than 18 they ended up being unable to see their own mature/adult works). On top of that, thanks for actually showing that "Yes, FA have to do more work than what SoFurry did" to which with FA having that "can see submissions thumbnails of mature and adult on the general rating" currently learn how to tackle that and fix it before doing something with this... SoFurry oddly can probably can pull this off as they are willing to redo code instead of hamfist new code into old code and actually have users testing it out and give input (the SoFurry Ambassadors are their beta testers for new things over on SoFurry)
Then again the idola clan have gone "Yea thats fine and dandy later on, *but* how does that actually solve people complaining about icons now cause we don't have 3+ years to wait for FA to be able to do such a thing so we need something now to keep people fine and happy till something like *that* comes out?"


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 9, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> >Settings to General
> >still see submissions marked adult and mature
> 
> No you can't if not shouldnt,that have been a glitch thats been around after introducing the SFW button (if not before) for a damn while that FA haven't fixed due to coming down from a high rating of mature or adult and then dropping down to general (this have been done before to artist who drew mature works but then get aged lock when their real age was shown to be lower than 18 they ended up being unable to see their own mature/adult works). On top of that, thanks for actually showing that "Yes, FA have to do more work than what SoFurry did" to which with FA having that "can see submissions thumbnails of mature and adult on the general rating" currently learn how to tackle that and fix it before doing something with this... SoFurry oddly can probably can pull this off as they are willing to redo code instead of hamfist new code into old code and actually have users testing it out and give input (the SoFurry Ambassadors are their beta testers for new things over on SoFurry)
> Then again the idola clan have gone "Yea thats fine and dandy later on, *but* how does that actually solve people complaining about icons now cause we don't have 3+ years to wait for FA to be able to do such a thing so we need something now to keep people fine and happy till something like *that* comes out?"



the people at SoFurry had to create an entirely new website so FA definitely doesn't need to do as much work as SoFurry. also "No you can't if not shouldnt,that have been a glitch thats been around after introducing the SFW button" that clearly proves that the admins are lazy and incompetent when it comes to fixing and improving the site, they change one thing and then it breaks something else which then never gets fixed.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Oct 9, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> the people at SoFurry had to create an entirely new website so FA definitely doesn't need to do as much work as SoFurry. also "No you can't if not shouldnt,that have been a glitch thats been around after introducing the SFW button" that clearly proves that the admins are lazy and incompetent when it comes to fixing and improving the site, they change one thing and then it breaks something else which then never gets fixed.



Some things.  However it takes them years to do so for those things that do eventually get "fixed".


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 10, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> the people at SoFurry had to create an entirely new website so FA definitely doesn't need to do as much work as SoFurry. also "No you can't if not shouldnt,that have been a glitch thats been around after introducing the SFW button" that clearly proves that the admins are lazy and incompetent when it comes to fixing and improving the site, they change one thing and then it breaks something else which then never gets fixed.


No, they created a whole new website cause they felt like improving from yiffstar to SoFurry...which actually took them MONTHS which they then did another site update...which took them months
I mean heck right now they are preparing to update the site to SoFurry 3.0
This is the third version of SoFurry they are doing

For them since they did this with NEW Code instead of the old code of Yiffstar its easier to manage and include new things, while FA is on legacy and we have seen what happen when they add new things to old code that they have to do duct tape type work. SoFurry on the other hand when things get broken they try to get it fix right away, and when they include new things they have it beta tested by the SoFurry Ambassadors to see if its working properly or things that be changed to improve it before running it out to the public.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 10, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> No, they created a whole new website cause they felt like improving from yiffstar to SoFurry...which actually took them MONTHS which they then did another site update...which took them months
> I mean heck right now they are preparing to update the site to SoFurry 3.0
> This is the third version of SoFurry they are doing
> 
> For them since they did this with NEW Code instead of the old code of Yiffstar its easier to manage and include new things, while FA is on legacy and we have seen what happen when they add new things to old code that they have to do duct tape type work. SoFurry on the other hand when things get broken they try to get it fix right away, and when they include new things they have it beta tested by the SoFurry Ambassadors to see if its working properly or things that be changed to improve it before running it out to the public.



and your saying FA hasn't been promising a full site update for years now? where is the progress?


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 10, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> and your saying FA hasn't been promising a full site update for years now? where is the progress?



Yeah, IIRC we were promised a "UI overhaul" set to release sometime in 2008....5 years later, it's "on the backburner", according to one of the mods.

FA's coders have to be the laziest coders I've ever seen, for such a populated website. Even besides the "UI overhaul", there are still quite a few things broken with the site that have been broken for 2 years or more. Yet, instead of fixing these things, we get stupid shit like "hidden favorites" and "disable userpage".


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 10, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> and your saying FA hasn't been promising a full site update for years now? where is the progress?


The Diffrence is that SoFurry doesnt promise anything, they basically look into things users suggest then toss the ideas over to the ambassadors to see whats interesting then from that pool of interesting things they go about seeing if they can include or fix the problem. Site updates on SoFurry is base on user feedback, the reason they havent dones SoFurry 3.0 yet is that they are still getting user feedback on it on the layout design

I mean look how long it took FA to just fix the commission tab...and that very few people used it cause by time they fixed it people have already adapted their business without it (my personal fave is those that instead  of doing commissions thru FA opt to use a fill out form via google docs)

but currently we are way to far off topic, though this topic have already been over and done with due to its seems that FA prefers that explicit icons are not to be used, but icons that imply things are fair as long as nipples and genitalia are cut out.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 10, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Yeah, IIRC we were promised a "UI overhaul" set to release sometime in 2008....5 years later, it's "on the backburner", according to one of the mods.
> 
> FA's coders have to be the laziest coders I've ever seen, for such a populated website. Even besides the "UI overhaul", there are still quite a few things broken with the site that have been broken for 2 years or more. Yet, instead of fixing these things, we get stupid shit like "hidden favorites" and "disable userpage".



exactly my point, if the people working at FA were half as good as the people at SoFurry then Furaffinity would be way better.



Verin Asper said:


> The Diffrence is that SoFurry doesnt promise  anything, they basically look into things users suggest then toss the  ideas over to the ambassadors to see whats interesting then from that  pool of interesting things they go about seeing if they can include or  fix the problem. Site updates on SoFurry is base on user feedback, the  reason they havent dones SoFurry 3.0 yet is that they are still getting  user feedback on it on the layout design
> 
> I mean look how long it took FA to just fix the commission tab...and  that very few people used it cause by time they fixed it people have  already adapted their business without it (my personal fave is those  that instead  of doing commissions thru FA opt to use a fill out form  via google docs)
> 
> but currently we are way to far off topic, though this topic have  already been over and done with due to its seems that FA prefers that  explicit icons are not to be used, but icons that imply things are fair  as long as nipples and genitalia are cut out.



so we're in agreement then that FA's staff is lazy and incompetent?


----------



## Wither (Oct 10, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> so we're in agreement then that FA's staff is lazy and incompetent?


For the sake of getting it out there; the higher ups are the problem. Mods and admins are not the problem, they only follow instructions given and they're usually cool people. They're people like you and me. 

Though the decision makers/maintenance folk are a bit lazy. 

Sorry, It just bugged me. Carry on :v


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 10, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> exactly my point, if the people working at FA were half as good as the people at SoFurry then Furaffinity would be way better.


 Actually it would be on par with those sites, yes it would actually be on par on stuff against the others in its neighborhood (SF, IB, Weasyl)





Jango The Blue Fox said:


> so we're in agreement then that FA's staff is lazy and incompetent?


More on the line of "Since FA is too big if not way too volatile they cant do what the other sites can do"
Nothing FA can do but to play catch up and make do, and hope they get people who can do the work needed. When Furocity was here they did do the right thing on putting admins where their strength lies...but its rather stupid for then abolish that system when its far more efficient than everyone in the same pool.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 10, 2013)

Wither said:


> For the sake of getting it out there; the higher  ups are the problem. Mods and admins are not the problem, they only  follow instructions given and they're usually cool people. They're  people like you and me.
> 
> Though the decision makers/maintenance folk are a bit lazy.
> 
> Sorry, It just bugged me. Carry on :v



yeah thats all I meant, not everybody but the higher up people.



Verin Asper said:


> Actually it would be on par with those sites, yes it would actually be on par on stuff against the others in its neighborhood (SF, IB, Weasyl)




SoFurry can actually bug test and fix they're site in a timely fashion along with adding features requested by the community, FA doesn't do any of that so they are clearly not "on par" with each other.



Verin Asper said:


> More on the line of "Since FA is too big if not way too volatile they cant do what the other sites can do"
> Nothing FA can do but to play catch up and make do, and hope they get people who can do the work needed. When Furocity was here they did do the right thing on putting admins where their strength lies...but its rather stupid for then abolish that system when its far more efficient than everyone in the same pool.



the people at SoFurry created an entirely new website in the time it took FA to do what exactly? relocate a bunch of links to a drop down menu? but they for some reason can't do the full site update that they have been promising for years. FA had more than enough time to catch up with SoFurry, they could have caught up with SoFurry before SoFurry even existed.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 11, 2013)

Wither said:


> For the sake of getting it out there; the higher ups are the problem. Mods and admins are not the problem, they only follow instructions given and they're usually cool people. They're people like you and me.
> Though the decision makers/maintenance folk are a bit lazy.


It's a compound problem. The Mods and Admins can't do their jobs right because the people they're working under can't even do theirs.
I won't go into the specific qualities of our current administration, so I will only affirm its not very well polished.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 15, 2013)

Okay, what the hell.

Speaking to someone on FA, Dragoneer seems to have recently removed a few peoples' bouncing boob icons on the grounds of "the way that the boob bounce implies that there is someone behind them fucking them". (lol seriously?)

Whatever happened to "anything is fine as long as there's no nudity" ? Mods answering my tickets say that bouncing boob icons are "not sexual" and thus not against AUP, yet here Dragoneer is, removing them.

What's the deal, admins/mods?


----------



## Heliophobic (Oct 15, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Whatever happened to "anything is fine as long as there's no nudity" ?



Seems the staff is getting less retarded.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 15, 2013)

Not sure what you mean by that.

There seems to be an obvious disconnect between mods and Dragoneer though, if the mods are saying "no no bouncing boobs are fine, no nudity", yet Dragoneer is removing them, seemingly for his own reason that he made up.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Not sure what you mean by that.
> 
> There seems to be an obvious disconnect between mods and Dragoneer though, if the mods are saying "no no bouncing boobs are fine, no nudity", yet Dragoneer is removing them, seemingly for his own reason that he made up.


I actually did that on purpose actually, the reason I put back up my icon was to test something
This actually means there is a hidden rule of HOW the breast are bouncing now, the ones by besped being Version 2 the characters in the nude version have a gap behind them, but the animation over all does imply such a thing. I talked to Besped for a bit after they realized they ban was gone as they wish to make a new version. I passed this information over to them and they are currently working on a new version where hopefully they can find a way for the breast to bounce but not imply (though in truth you can imply things and still be work safe) such a sexual act.

problem is...if they include a rule about imply also that would actually kill off several other icons where there is no actual act but its implied act. (hip/crotch thrust and ass icons would get hit if they did that) so they are in a damned if  you do and damned if you dont. They would either have to do a kill all rule or *ACTUALLY *do work as leaving a guideline for future icons....
or they can just you know stick with this gray area shiz they tend to do and end up constantly having to do things this current way.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't get it though. I don't see any "implied sexual act" in those icons. That's dumb. I didn't know that being fucked from behind made tits bounce a specific way, or that Dragoneer seems to know what that specific way looks like.

Banning icons based on "implied sexual acts" is a very slippery slope, though. Those ass-shaking icons? You could argue that it's implying a sexual situation. Any kind of even remotely suggestive icon could be argued as "implying a sexual situation".

"Find a way for breast to bounce that does not imply" won't work, as it's subjective. Admins/mods could easily just say "we think it's sexual. Remove it"


----------



## MRGamer01 (Oct 15, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Okay, what the hell.
> 
> Speaking to someone on FA, Dragoneer seems to have recently removed a few peoples' bouncing boob icons on the grounds of "the way that the boob bounce implies that there is someone behind them fucking them". (lol seriously?)
> 
> ...



Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Willow (Oct 15, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I don't get it though. I don't see any "implied sexual act" in those icons. That's dumb. *I didn't know that being fucked from behind made tits bounce a specific way,* or that Dragoneer seems to know what that specific way looks like.


I guess you've never seen real breasts before (or watched porn)


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 15, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> What's the deal, admins/mods?



Seems like they can't decide on explicity or implicity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> I guess you've never seen real breasts before (or watched porn)


which then why I stated its a slippery slope as they can do a kill all if they wish to use the imply box


----------



## Willow (Oct 15, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> which then why I stated its a slippery slope as they can do a kill all if they wish to use the imply box


You know we can play dumb all we want but you know and I know what the implications are here. The only reason it gets away with being implied is because having a penis in the gif would make it truly adult.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2013)

Willow said:


> You know we can play dumb all we want but you know and I know what the implications are here. The only reason it gets away with being implied is because having a penis in the gif would make it truly adult.


a Penis in any art can make something adult :V
But hey it DOESNT change that the nude version is still listed as mature and the clothed one is still listed under general cause of how FA is.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 16, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> which then why I stated its a slippery slope as they can do a kill all if they wish to use the imply box



some people actually requested to have a person fucking the character in the icon but that cost extra money and was only available in the nude version. every single clothed version of the gif has nobody fucking the character.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 16, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> some people actually requested to have a person fucking the character in the icon but that cost extra money and was only available in the nude version. every single clothed version of the gif has nobody fucking the character.



And still, that leads back to the situation of "you can claim anything is "implied sexual act"." Focusing on things that aren't there and making rulings based on those nonexistent things seems kinda screwy.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> some people actually requested to have a person fucking the character in the icon but that cost extra money and was only available in the nude version. every single clothed version of the gif has nobody fucking the character.


Which the Clothed version was base on the ORIGINAL nude version, not the one people requested the addon
though again Besped is making a new one and hopefully the info they have will allow em to make a new one, for now I'm changing my icon to the version one.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 16, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Which the Clothed version was base on the ORIGINAL nude version, not the one people requested the addon
> though again Besped is making a new one and hopefully the info they have will allow em to make a new one, for now I'm changing my icon to the version one.



actually the original one was clothed, the nude version came later.
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/5426210/



Erethzium said:


> And still, that leads back to the situation of  "you can claim anything is "implied sexual act"." Focusing on things  that aren't there and making rulings based on those nonexistent things  seems kinda screwy.



and that was my point, if you can't see it then its not there.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> actually the original one was clothed, the nude version came later.
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/5426210/
> 
> 
> ...



I'm talking about the Version 2 one which is this one
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/11781015/


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 16, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> I'm talking about the Version 2 one which is this one
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/11781015/



which was based on the first one which didn't start nude.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 16, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> which was based on the first one which didn't start nude.


Which shouldn't make it any more acceptable as an icon.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Which shouldn't make it any more acceptable as an icon.


only reason they were banned the first time was cause the breast be bouncing, now its an implied act which in turn by idola clan thinking "Welcome to the land of semantics, you took this turn when you enter imply country"
By this technicality if I feel to be full on the malice (I was last two weeks, several people lost their livestreams cause of movies cause FA is too slow but LS is faster) I can actually use said back rule to have icons removed as long as I can prove it implies something sexual.

Though I now gone back to using my glass press and version one of Besped's boob bounce icon till well neer gets those and imply it means something really...


----------



## Fibriel Solaer (Oct 17, 2013)

The Avatar Upload Policy as stated on the site's upload interface says not to upload sexually explicit avatars.

If a girl swinging and fondling her massive, near-naked breasts is not considered sexually explicit, then I have lost all faith in humanity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2013)

Fibriel Solaer said:


> The Avatar Upload Policy as stated on the site's upload interface says not to upload sexually explicit avatars.
> 
> If a girl swinging and fondling her massive, near-naked breasts is not considered sexually explicit, then I have lost all faith in humanity.


You should never have faith in humanity anyway
Two people need to ACTUALLY know what Explicit means


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 17, 2013)

Fibriel Solaer said:


> If a girl swinging and fondling her massive, near-naked breasts is not considered sexually explicit, then I have lost all faith in humanity.



Mmhm. The mod kept telling me that gigantic bouncing tits and gigantic tits being squeezed and groped are "not sexual" solely because there's no nudity. And now we have Dragoneer shooting down bouncing boob avatars because of some stupid "implied sexual act" crap that he made up.

FA has some of the most dysfunctional moderation I've seen for a website.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Oct 17, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Mmhm. The mod kept telling me that gigantic bouncing tits and gigantic tits being squeezed and groped are "not sexual" solely because there's no nudity. And now we have Dragoneer shooting down bouncing boob avatars because of some stupid "implied sexual act" crap that he made up.
> 
> FA has some of the most dysfunctional moderation I've seen for a website.



With him being one of them.  He put us in that loop and we're back to where we started again.  At one point they were okay, then came the ban, then they were okay again, now suddenly they're not.  He needs to make up his mind and stick with it.  Then again he might flip the call again like he has in the past like the one person who was "never going to be an admin".


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 17, 2013)

and all of this crap could be solved just by adding a content filter to the avatar system, then they wouldn't need to worry about what is and isn't sexually explicit.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 17, 2013)

It would be solved if they wrong some actual guidelines as to what is (not) acceptable.


----------



## Willow (Oct 17, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> and all of this crap could be solved just by adding a content filter to the avatar system, then they wouldn't need to worry about what is and isn't sexually explicit.


I almost feel like that's really unnecessary tbh. Like it's an unnecessary thing for the people who have to put that in there and then they have to make sure it doesn't break the site and actually works. 

Maybe the AUP should like, be clear instead of vague because as I mentioned earlier, the only reason they were initially ruled as being okay was because of one word. Which really shouldn't be the case since what is implied is painfully obvious to anyone just glancing at them. 

Maybe I should start making icons of bouncing crotch bulges. And they wouldn't be implicit either because the subject would just be jumping like these ladies are so obviously [not] doing. That should be okay right?


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 17, 2013)

Willow said:


> I almost feel like that's really unnecessary tbh. Like it's an unnecessary thing for the people who have to put that in there and then they have to make sure it doesn't break the site and actually works.
> 
> Maybe the AUP should like, be clear instead of vague because as I mentioned earlier, the only reason they were initially ruled as being okay was because of one word. Which really shouldn't be the case since what is implied is painfully obvious to anyone just glancing at them.
> 
> Maybe I should start making icons of bouncing crotch bulges. And they wouldn't be implicit either because the subject would just be jumping like these ladies are so obviously [not] doing. That should be okay right?



Theres a difference between "Painfully" and "happens to be" Specially since Besped when they made those icons actually didnt actually think the way the breast were bouncing wasnt to imply a sexual act. They were literally surprised as thats the reason why NOW their icons are not allowed as before it was cause "the breast were bouncing"


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 18, 2013)

Willow said:


> I almost feel like that's really unnecessary tbh. Like it's an unnecessary thing for the people who have to put that in there and then they have to make sure it doesn't break the site and actually works.
> 
> Maybe the AUP should like, be clear instead of vague because as I mentioned earlier, the only reason they were initially ruled as being okay was because of one word. Which really shouldn't be the case since what is implied is painfully obvious to anyone just glancing at them.
> 
> Maybe I should start making icons of bouncing crotch bulges. And they wouldn't be implicit either because the subject would just be jumping like these ladies are so obviously [not] doing. That should be okay right?



Improving the site is unnecessary? thats new to me. if there was a content filter on the icon system then nobody would need to worry about what is and isn't acceptable because anything you don't want to see can be filtered out. its the best way to fix this problem.

also if your looking for animated crotch bulge icons then this is what you want.
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/3803477/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8467650/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8812901/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/9454797/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/9455039/
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/10076937/

yes they exist too.


----------



## Willow (Oct 18, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> Improving the site is unnecessary? thats new to me.


That's not what I said though. Did you actually read the post?



> if there was a content filter on the icon system then nobody would need to worry about what is and isn't acceptable because anything you don't want to see can be filtered out. its the best way to fix this problem.


Because just fixing the AUP and informing your entire admin staff on what is and isn't acceptable isn't. Riight. 



> also if your looking for animated crotch bulge icons then this is what you want.
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/3803477/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8467650/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/8812901/
> ...


In the first one the artist mentions mature icons not being allowed. And the other ones are just sprites, not actual icons. But I wouldn't mind those in icon form.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2013)

Willow said:


> That's not what I said though. Did you actually read the post?
> 
> 
> Because just fixing the AUP and informing your entire admin staff on what is and isn't acceptable isn't. Riight.
> ...



Do you mean you* would* actually mind or *don't* actually mind? Cause we dont want to enter that road again Willow
That same kind of thinking is what cause a shit storm last time that nearly got all kinds of icons like that banned out right.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 18, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> That same kind of thinking is what cause a shit storm last time that nearly got all kinds of icons like that banned out right.


Let's do it again. If you just want to lazily resolve the issue though, just add "_Icons which are sexually implicit are not allowed_" to the AUP and call it night. On a more serious note, I can't help but feel like we're being lead down that road and this time it may be somewhat intentionally. The staff, at this point, should have already acknowledged the issues of the obscure and vague definitions in regards to submissions and icons as whole - Hell, as well as anything deemed (in)tolerable. The lack of consistency when dealing with this particular issue (as well as others) shows that this too poses a problem for them as well. Why not fix it?

There's a clear problem with the guidelines, yet no one even attempts to fix them. I mean, we can sit around preach about what is/isn't a good idea (Hell, the admins do it all the time) but no one actually wants to implement a solution. Oh, and if we ever get to the fixing part, let's fix them* for the better*.
You know, so stuff like this won't end up happening again.


----------



## Willow (Oct 18, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Do you mean you* would* actually mind or *don't* actually mind? Cause we dont want to enter that road again Willow
> That same kind of thinking is what cause a shit storm last time that nearly got all kinds of icons like that banned out right.


I was joking for the most part.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2013)

Willow said:


> I was joking for the most part.


Joking for most part, but you wouldnt actually believe that was an argument used last time this came around.
also note using the word most, means while most of it was jovial, there was some truth in it...(Sorry I'm just a person who knows words and sayings cause I use to write stories. I had to know this kind of stuff)


Etiainen said:


> Let's do it again. If you just want to lazily resolve the issue though, just add "_Icons which are sexually implicit are not allowed_" to the AUP and call it night. On a more serious note, I can't help but feel like we're being lead down that road and this time it may be somewhat intentionally. The staff, at this point, should have already acknowledged the issues of the obscure and vague definitions in regards to submissions and icons as whole - Hell, as well as anything deemed (in)tolerable. The lack of consistency when dealing with this particular issue (as well as others) shows that this too poses a problem for them as well. Why not fix it?
> 
> There's a clear problem with the guidelines, yet no one even attempts to fix them. I mean, we can sit around preach about what is/isn't a good idea (Hell, the admins do it all the time) but no one actually wants to implement a solution. Oh, and if we ever get to the fixing part, let's fix them* for the better*.
> You know, so stuff like this won't end up happening again.


That sort of tactic dont work cause it also seems admins were just hoping either one or two things
1)People continue to just follow the last version of the rules of the bouncing icons without knowing it was changed
2)People to just accept thats how it is cause the last who argued about this have been rather silent since then

If they had announced they changed the rules, the people from last time would of shown up, we would of have that whole event all over again and spend time all over again going "if this icon is going then that one should go too"

What Besped is doing since they wish to make a new icon is that they are going directly to the admin team to get a verification of that their icon would be allowed, if anything I would like that to be an option. Fuck the idea of "we're a community let the users decide" fuck that. Not even SoFurry rely on the community at whole, they have a group of users who is deemed to not only represent SoFurry but act as the inbetween of the SoFurry admin team and the Userbase.

If the admin team wants to do Vague gray area, they have to have something in place to assist in the deciding


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 18, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Fuck the idea of "we're a community let the users decide" fuck that.


Tbh, the last time they kept taking the community's advise FA lost their Paypal and couldn't keep a donation service running until they ended up going against the community and banning cub porn.
The customer isn't always right, that being said though, neither is the worker. There's a clear lack of bridging between the two.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 18, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Tbh, the last time they kept taking the community's advise FA lost their Paypal and couldn't keep a donation service running until they ended up going against the community and banning cub porn.
> The customer isn't always right, that being said though, neither is the worker. There's a clear lack of bridging between the two.



thats not true, they didn't have to ban cub art. they banned cub art because it was easier than doing anything else. which further proves that the administration at Furaffinity is lazy. the customer is always right.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 18, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> the customer is always right.


Totally.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> thats not true, they didn't have to ban cub art. they banned cub art because it was easier than doing anything else. which further proves that the administration at Furaffinity is lazy. the customer is always right.


Do note that SoFurry and IB have also lost their own automated way to get donations picking to keep cub porn, which in the end all 3 sites got fucked over in the end (due to adult works being hosted on the sites, not much on cub porn itself)
The customer isnt always right, here in florida we know its actually "the customer needs to feel right to shut them up"


----------



## Willow (Oct 19, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Joking for most part, but you wouldnt actually believe that was an argument used last time this came around.
> also note using the word most, means while most of it was jovial, there was some truth in it...(Sorry I'm just a person who knows words and sayings cause I use to write stories. I had to know this kind of stuff)


Well if boob icons are allowed it's only fair that non-sexual bouncing balls should be too right? And those sprite icons in particular look decent in which case, I wouldn't mind having one in icon form. The whole "I should make bouncing crotch icons but make them totally work safe" part before that was the joke. 

Though I'm not surprised it was an argument. 



Jango The Blue Fox said:


> thats not true, they didn't have to ban cub art. they banned cub art because it was easier than doing anything else. which further proves that the administration at Furaffinity is lazy. the customer is always right.


Correction: They banned cub *porn* not cub art. Not to mention the ultimatum was either ban this and save the site or don't ban it and not be able to run the site. 
Also, why take a more complicated route when the easiest and most obvious solution is to just amend what needs to be fixed?


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 19, 2013)

Willow said:


> Well if boob icons are allowed it's only fair that non-sexual bouncing balls should be too right? And those sprite icons in particular look decent in which case, I wouldn't mind having one in icon form. The whole "I should make bouncing crotch icons but make them totally work safe" part before that was the joke.
> 
> Though I'm not surprised it was an argument.


Yea when our opposition was willing to ban boobs but not wanting to give up their ass and crotch we pretty much change tactics to "well if you were gonna kill us, well the neighboring towns will burn too. Problem is FA some odd reason would actually disallow the balls just cause its balls...genitalia being outlined being the rule somehow...

actually if one was to stop and gawd damn plan it out fully, SOMEONE could actually convince the admin team to allow their jiggling balls icons to exist...but that gonna be fuckton of heavy planning.



Willow said:


> Correction: They banned cub *porn* not cub art. Not to mention the ultimatum was either ban this and save the site or don't ban it and not be able to run the site.
> Also, why take a more complicated route when the easiest and most obvious solution is to just amend what needs to be fixed?



Cause the complicated road involve FA doing coding while SoFurry and IB took alternate routes and kept the cub porn due to they already have a system in place to deal with such shiz.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Oct 19, 2013)

Willow said:


> Also, why take a more complicated route when the easiest and most obvious solution is to just amend what needs to be fixed?


Because it's worth the effort. The easiest and most obvious solution isn't always right.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 19, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Cause the complicated road involve FA doing coding while SoFurry and IB took alternate routes and kept the cub porn due to they already have a system in place to deal with such shiz.



exactly, doing anything else would be too much work for them so they went the easy route and just banned the art. not to mention FA completely bypassed paypal by allowing the community to donate money and server components through amazon.com.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 23, 2013)

still no official word on this from anybody?


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 23, 2013)

Only on THIS site would people be crying and whining and ARGUING about clothed tits bouncing. 

Some of you are either tryhards trying too hard to prove some kind of point or just flat out petty...not much difference I suppose.


----------



## Willow (Oct 23, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Only on THIS site would people be crying and whining and ARGUING about clothed tits bouncing.


Well yeah only on this site because we're on this site and it's a problem specific to this site.



Mewtwolover said:


> Because it's worth the effort. The easiest and most obvious solution isn't always right.


Then you go ahead and fix it. Instead of you know, defining solid guidelines, let's just create more work for the coders. Because it's not like there aren't enough broken things on FA already.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Oct 24, 2013)

8 pages of arguing...for something that doesn't even seem to be such a big deal...


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 24, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> 8 pages of arguing...for something that doesn't even seem to be such a big deal...


The thing is it was a Big deal back then that FA put a BAN in place to prevent such icons from existing, and to only find out that FA silently remove the ban to know that the cycle will forever continue cause we'll have people come here and bitch and then the ban will be put back in place to be the end all problem.



XoPachi said:


> Only on THIS site would people be crying and whining and ARGUING about clothed tits bouncing.





XoPachi said:


> Some of you are either tryhards trying too hard to prove some kind of point or just flat out petty...not much difference I suppose.



Cause you werent here the first time
That to the point that FA did an end all ban the first time

at this point I want really two things
FA to actually reban the boob bouncing icons or actually do work and set a guideline instead of damn gray area as they so love to do cause how can you follow the rules if you damn don't know what will kill you if not WHICH admin(s) will be that random encounter.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 24, 2013)

Willow said:


> Then you go ahead and fix it. Instead of you know, defining solid guidelines, let's just create more work for the coders. Because it's not like there aren't enough broken things on FA already.



the coders hardly do anything as is. as I stated previously in the time it took SoFurry to make an entirely new website all the people at FA did was relocate a bunch of links to drop down menus. more work for the coders (or maybe better coders) would do FA a whole lot of good.


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 24, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Some of you are either tryhards trying too hard to prove some kind of point or just flat out petty


And you coming here just to insult people ISN'T "petty" ?



PheagleAdler said:


> 8 pages of arguing...for something that doesn't even seem to be such a big deal...


It got really annoying seeing people with blatantly sexual avatars, despite the rule explicitly banning them. But now it seems the administration has removed the rule without telling anyone, yet Dragoneer is still removing them, despite saying earlier that they're fine.

This whole thing is a clusterfuck, at this point, and the lack of mod/admin response is not helping.


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 25, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> the* coder* hardly does anything as is.


Fixed that for you. 

It's not so much a coding issue as it is "_I'm too lazy to open up a simple document to edit one or two line_s". An automated system that will detect avatars which aren't allowed? Not only is such a thing highly improbable as it is, expecting anything as far as automation from FA is just a disaster waiting to happen. We've already seen how badly the site performs by doing things manually.

So again, the easiest solution isn't the best. Not only is the regulation as clear as your reflection off molten lava, but any sort of enforcement of the rule (or any rules for that matter) has been just as convoluted.


----------



## Solyka (Oct 27, 2013)

If FA is anything like DA, the staff haven't/won't/don't network about things so one mod will say 'yay' and another will say 'nay'.
But at least, if that mod really did talk to Dragoneer, the mod checked in with the person who has the final say. 
Or they're lying because they dgaf and want OP to think it's okay and so stop even reporting them. 
I'm wondering what would happen if a different mod got the ticket. 

If Dragoneer himself is removing the avatars, then I would think that means they're not okay. 
But if the site says their okay, then it kinda just seems like somebody got lazy and decided to not update the rules?

Are the icons Dragoneer removed and the ones the mod said were okay similar at all?


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 29, 2013)

Solyka said:


> Are the icons Dragoneer removed and the ones the mod said were okay similar at all?


As stated on the first page, Dragoneer said "anything is fine as long as there's no nudity". But now he's removing specific bouncing breast avatars because of apparently being "sexually implicit" despite having no nudity.

The ones the mod said were okay, those ones were avatars of giant tits being bounced and squeezed...the mod said that they were "not sexual". Squeezing and bouncing gigantic tits is "not sexual" ? What.

Like I said, this whole situation is a huge clusterfuck of miscommunication.


----------



## Blue Taffy (Oct 29, 2013)

Wither said:


> The art that's of completely nude anthros that's "general audience" because it's fur covering the breasts and nipple is unshown is ridiculous. It's like saying a cock - sheath is A-OK because it's hiding the penis.


I'm sorry but how is that ridiculous? It's like claiming that a cat is a naked sexual being. fur is like hair. If a girl had her entire body covered by hair so that you couldn't see whether or not she had anything on under it, and you saw a pic of this girl, would you start saying that she is sexual because you can see bumps where her boobs are?

For example, this was drawn for me https://www.furaffinity.net/view/11922100/ on gaiaonline- a site that has a zero tolerance policy to nudity outside of the critique subforum. 

I am not a furry. This is in no way sexual for me. If it is sexual to you that's your problem. A person can find a BOOT erection worthy. It doesn't mean that we should walk around with shopping bags around our shoes.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Oct 29, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> The ones the mod said were okay, those ones were avatars of giant tits being bounced and squeezed...the mod said that they were "not sexual". Squeezing and bouncing gigantic tits is "not sexual" ? What.



because breasts have absolutely nothing to do with sex.


----------



## Blue Taffy (Oct 29, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> because breasts have absolutely nothing to do with sex.


Why yes, boobs of that size moving that much has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with gravity and the fact that breasts are made up of muscle which make them perky and fat which make them bounce.

No the way to figure out of a girl with big boobs has had a (cheap) boob job or not? Watch them and see if they bounce. 

Now bouncing breasts like that may be sexual, in the same way that cleavage is sexual- but it's a measure of how sexual it is. A look can be sexual, but we don't ban those. this doesn't break any rules, and to be honest I don't think I would mind, if I were a parent, if my six year old daughter saw this. Or son, for that matter.


----------



## Blue Taffy (Oct 29, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> The thing is it was a Big deal back then that FA put a BAN in place to prevent such icons from existing, and to only find out that FA silently remove the ban to know that the cycle will forever continue cause we'll have people come here and bitch and then the ban will be put back in place to be the end all problem.
> 
> Cause you werent here the first time
> That to the point that FA did an end all ban the first time
> ...




Oh I know a rule! 


If mods don't take something off after you report it, instead of starting a lynch mob, you message another mod! If they keep not banning it, realize that it's fine!


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 29, 2013)

So far I havent had my glass press icon removed, so we can add: "The whole idea do come into play on the problem with breast focused icons"
we also learn from my icon done by besped: "even if you mean something else, if the motion can be seen as sexual, that also comes into play"

Meaning if you made an icon base around someone is eating ice cream and the ice cream is dripping onto their breast, you better show the whole upper body eating said ice cream as if you just made it focus around the breast and all you see is drips falling onto said breast, it can fall into being sexual. Also adding the info Jango added someone did ask besped to make their icon someone was fucking their character thus it does mean even though besped didnt think of the that being the idea someone else did or saw that as such.

Now I'm wondering "what about enticement?" I mean I think my glass press icon falls into that area...


----------



## Erethzium (Oct 30, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> because breasts have absolutely nothing to do with sex.



So you're saying that a character squeezing and bouncing her own impossibly large tits is not sexual at all?

We must have different definitions of "sexual", then.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 30, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> So you're saying that a character squeezing and bouncing her own impossibly large tits is not sexual at all?
> 
> We must have different definitions of "sexual", then.


no, cause in reality "Breast have NOTHING to do with sex" Society deemed them sexual.
Thats their point, we used this argument last time


----------



## Etiainen (Oct 31, 2013)

Blue Taffy said:


> A person can find a BOOT erection worthy.


Hey, the appeal for boots is nothing to joke about. There are some mighty fine pieces of leather out there.


Verin Asper said:


> Also adding the info Jango added someone did ask besped to make their icon someone was fucking their character thus it does mean even though besped didnt think of the that being the idea someone else did or saw that as such.


A bandage over a mistake.

Enticement isn't a viable factor or basis for any decision, because what entices some of the people on this site whole fucking planet exists between the lines of questionable and morally broke(For More Info, See:_ Some _People). The regulation has always danced between Implicity and Explicity and merely uses the reasoning of enticement to cover up terrible mistakes. That's how its used in practice actually, which leads us to bad decisions.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 1, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Meaning if you made an icon base around someone is eating ice cream and the ice cream is dripping onto their breast, you better show the whole upper body eating said ice cream as if you just made it focus around the breast and all you see is drips falling onto said breast, it can fall into being sexual. Also adding the info Jango added someone did ask besped to make their icon someone was fucking their character thus it does mean even though besped didnt think of the that being the idea someone else did or saw that as such.



kinda like this?
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/6543237/ SFW
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/6783880/ NSFW


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 1, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> because breasts have absolutely nothing to do with sex.



sexual != explicitly sex-related



Oh god I'm being sucked in again.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 1, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> kinda like this?
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/6543237/ SFW
> http://www.furaffinity.net/full/6783880/ NSFW


Yes as the original was the ice cream one, someone on e621 did an edited version

The artist did have that the first one as an icon for a while but stopped using it.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 2, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Yes as the original was the ice cream one, someone on e621 did an edited version
> 
> The artist did have that the first one as an icon for a while but stopped using it.



and in the original there is absolutely nothing sexual happening at all.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 3, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> and in the original there is absolutely nothing sexual happening at all.


though it doesnt change that they may not be able to use said icon again cause of the edit.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 3, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> though it doesnt change that they may not be able to use said icon again cause of the edit.



the edited version shouldn't matter, its a nonsexual icon. just because someone made a sexual version of it shouldn't change that.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 3, 2013)

This thread has been going on for three months
Why are bouncing tit icons still allowed? I remember a dude came raging in here because his dog-ass-and-balls icon was deleted because it was sexual, yet bouncing tits (where the entire fucking purpose of them is the tits) are allowed? Hhah whatever.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 3, 2013)

Clayton said:


> This thread has been going on for three months
> Why are bouncing tit icons still allowed? I remember a dude came raging in here because his dog-ass-and-balls icon was deleted because it was sexual, yet bouncing tits (where the entire fucking purpose of them is the tits) are allowed? Hhah whatever.



Dragoneer has yet to make an official comment on this matter and we have been hearing conflicting reports. also breasts are not sexual at all.


----------



## Willow (Nov 3, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> also breasts are not sexual at all.


But they are..

Like you can deny it all you want but in Western culture, breasts are considered sexual and especially in this case. There wouldn't be an entire type of surgery dedicated just to enhancing the size of someone's breasts if it weren't sexual (having large breasts wouldn't be such a thing either btw). Low cut shirts wouldn't be viewed as significantly sexual or appealing if breasts weren't considered even the slightly bit sexual. The list goes on. 

Don't be so dense.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> But they are..
> 
> Like you can deny it all you want but in Western culture, breasts are considered sexual and especially in this case. There wouldn't be an entire type of surgery dedicated just to enhancing the size of someone's breasts if it weren't sexual (having large breasts wouldn't be such a thing either btw). Low cut shirts wouldn't be viewed as significantly sexual or appealing if breasts weren't considered even the slightly bit sexual. The list goes on.
> 
> Don't be so dense.


Its not being Dense
Its being able to actually think

Do you know how many times western culture actually change on what is deemed sexual


----------



## Willow (Nov 3, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Its not being Dense
> Its being able to actually think


Sorry, I guess a better word is obtuse :v



> Do you know how many times western culture actually change on what is deemed sexual


Yes? But that's kind of not the point.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 3, 2013)

SugarMental said:


> So women jogging is sexual? :C Poor ladies with bigger boobies can't not be sexualized. I don't know why they'd be banned in the first place.. I've seen worse. Really.



... No
You completely miss the point.
Think of it like this: A guy in his underwear vs a close up of a dude's bulge in his underwear
A girl in her bikini on the beach vs a frontal-view of a girl's tits, in her bikini on the beach.
The point is that it's something that isn't normally sexual (or, shouldn't be), but is made sexual because the focus is directly on that one thing.



Jango The Blue Fox said:


> Dragoneer has yet to make an official comment on this matter and we have been hearing conflicting reports. also breasts are not sexual at all.


I don't believe breasts are sexual, but they _can be made sexual_. Google "bouncing tits", tell me what you find. Go ahead, I'll wait. Tell me how many PG rated sites you find.
To say in this day and age that "breasts are not sexual at all" is just.. extremely laughable. What? Since when? In what fucking country? Lol


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 3, 2013)

Clayton said:


> ... No
> You completely miss the point.
> Think of it like this: A guy in his underwear vs a close up of a dude's bulge in his underwear
> A girl in her bikini on the beach vs a frontal-view of a girl's tits, in her bikini on the beach.
> ...


ok, that I can get
but yes there was a time breast weren't deem sexual, there was a time people went "meh" to the human body. Then again the rules of life dictate that there are places that still is "meh" to the human body in this day and age


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 3, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I don't believe breasts are sexual, but they _can be made sexual_. Google "bouncing tits", tell me what you find. Go ahead, I'll wait. Tell me how many PG rated sites you find.
> To say in this day and age that "breasts are not sexual at all" is just.. extremely laughable. What? Since when? In what fucking country? Lol



you have this very wrong. ANYTHING can be made sexual but the only things that are sexual are genitalia. so breasts are not sexual.


----------



## Willow (Nov 3, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> you have this very wrong. ANYTHING can be made sexual but the only things that are sexual are genitalia. so breasts are not sexual.


Genitals aren't sexual either.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> Genitals aren't sexual either.



yes they are, sex cannot happen without genitals. I may find feet very arousing but they are not sexual, genitals on the other hand are sexual.


----------



## Willow (Nov 3, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> yes they are, sex cannot happen without genitals.


So you're saying artistic nudes are sexual then?


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> So you're saying artistic nudes are sexual then?



depends of if the nude model is doing something sexual or not, like masturbating. but as stated before society can make anything sexual but the only part of the human body that is inherently sexual is the genitalia and additionally the act of sex is also sexual.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 4, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> you have this very wrong. ANYTHING can be made sexual but the only things that are sexual are genitalia. so breasts are not sexual.



Anything can be made sexual, including feet. Breasts are needlessly sexualized by society - if you disagree with this, you're kidding yourself.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 4, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Anything can be made sexual, including feet. Breasts are needlessly sexualized by society - if you disagree with this, you're kidding yourself.


cause not everyone was raise the damn same way or in the same society


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 4, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> cause not everyone was raise the damn same way or in the same society


The only places that I can think of off the top of my head where breasts aren't sexualized is in native tribes.
What place are you thinking of that doesn't sexualize breasts?


----------



## Rinz (Nov 4, 2013)

Willow said:


> So you're saying artistic nudes are sexual then?


Actually, in general, many artistic nudes were the pornography of their day. They had very stringent rules on what was considered obscene in the 19th century (pubic hair, not being from greek myth, being a portrait of a then-living person) and were very well considered to be sexual.


----------



## Willow (Nov 4, 2013)

Rinz said:


> Actually, in general, many artistic nudes were the pornography of their day. They had very stringent rules on what was considered obscene in the 19th century (pubic hair, not being from greek myth, being a portrait of a then-living person) and were very well considered to be sexual.


Good thing this is the 21st century then.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 4, 2013)

Clayton said:


> The only places that I can think of off the top of my head where breasts aren't sexualized is in native tribes.
> What place are you thinking of that doesn't sexualize breasts?


Its base one ones upbringing comes into play but hey, in this world "no one else matters, the individual dont matter its the majority of said area...
But hey...maybe cause I was raised by nothing but women is probably why I'm heavily meh on such thing.


Willow said:


> Good thing this is the 21st century then.


Good thing you failed to notice that things change over time


----------



## Fezdani (Nov 5, 2013)

If this is for the children, then what are we going to do about all the foul language!?
Or topics that are definitely not something kids should read?
Halp!


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 5, 2013)

Fezdani said:


> If this is for the children, then what are we going to do about all the foul language!?
> Or topics that are definitely not something kids should read?
> Halp!



No, nothing, no, and no.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 5, 2013)

Fezdani said:


> If this is for the children, then what are we going to do about all the foul language!?
> Or topics that are definitely not something kids should read?
> Halp!



we shouldn't hide anything from children.


----------



## Willow (Nov 5, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> we shouldn't hide anything from children.


Then let's just get rid of the rules on who can and can't look at adult art too while we're at it. Let's let kids look at porn if they want to since we shouldn't hide anything from children. 

It's not like there's a law or anything making that sort of thing illegal.



Verin Asper said:


> Good thing you failed to notice that things change over time


Except I didn't. That's kind of what that statement implies.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 6, 2013)

Willow said:


> Except I didn't. That's kind of what that statement implies.



actually you did.



Willow said:


> Then let's just get rid of the rules on who can and can't look at adult art too while we're at it. Let's let kids look at porn if they want to since we shouldn't hide anything from children.



in todays world if a kid wants to look at porn they can, there is almost nothing stopping them, so what is the point of putting these stupid rules and regulations in place that aren't going to make a difference? all it takes is one Google image search. I first saw porn on the internet when I was 10.



Willow said:


> It's not like there's a law or anything making that sort of thing illegal.



laws get changed and repealed every day.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 6, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> ...so what is the point of putting these stupid rules and regulations in place that aren't going to make a difference? all it takes is one Google image search. I first saw porn on the internet when I was 10.


Because the law requires sites to do so. Regardless of how fucking useless the endeavor is, the effort has to be made to prevent it.


----------



## Willow (Nov 6, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> actually you did.


Nope. You guys just can't infer. 



> in todays world if a kid wants to look at porn they can, there is almost nothing stopping them


Except there is actually. 

That's kind of why most sites require you be 18+ to use them. And can get shut down if they find out they're letting minors look at porn. Which, kids really don't need to look at. 



> laws get changed and repealed every day.


COPPA's been in place for 13 years..


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 6, 2013)

I think we wandered away from the actual topic here
We have to literally remember "since FA is privately own they can do what they want" if that means they allowed bouncing breasts back they can deem it so
at that point we have to go "tough nuggets" to those that want it gone again unless they can truely bring something to the floor other than "its too sexualized to me" and "think of the children" cause A) things that were deemed sexualized now will either become something that's OK (again look at how ratings for movies in the past compared to them today), and B) "I cant think of the children" when each generation is different (once weirded out by kids in middle school thinking about sex when I was still in highschool which at that time I still didnt think about such thing but was told "having those thoughts in highschool is normal") along with it seems every generation they want someone else to look after the children instead of themselves (Ma'm this is not a daycare and we are not babysitters, thus its still your fault the kid broke the guitar for the guitar hero game...ma'm we told him several times to stop swinging that guitar around but due to laws we cant lay a hand on the kid. The only reason we found you is that he was kind enough to say you were upstairs..).

What we have to work with is either make the admin team to actually do guidelines (and keep em) or put this back to sleep and leave it there (cause no one gonna bitch when I used a still frame from that besped icon for the rest of my fa life [/sarcasm])


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 6, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> We have to literally remember "since FA is privately own they can do what they want" if that means they allowed bouncing breasts back they can deem it so...


Hah. Though as painful as it is to acknowledge for some, this is the gist of it.


> What we have to work with is either make the admin team to actually do guidelines (and keep em) or put this back to sleep and leave it there (cause no one gonna bitch when I used a still frame from that besped icon for the rest of my fa life [/sarcasm])


What we have to work with is poorly written guidelines and a poorly assembled administration. As such, the only thing we can do is leave this situation is the same mangled mess we found it in.
Because clearly what we think no longer matters, assuming it did in the first place.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 6, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Because clearly what we think no longer matters, assuming it did in the first place.



what we think has never mattered, the admins have stated in the past that FA is not a democracy.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 6, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> Hah. Though as painful as it is to acknowledge for some, this is the gist of it.
> 
> What we have to work with is poorly written guidelines and a poorly assembled administration. As such, the only thing we can do is leave this situation is the same mangled mess we found it in.
> Because clearly what we think no longer matters, assuming it did in the first place.



eh...yea,
.....
who all votes we close this damn topic since we all said our piece as we all know "FAF and FA somehow two different entities instead of one whole, if people who are normally on the site dont say anything, but regulars of the forum do...theres nothing wrong".

not to mention theres only like what 5-7 of us talking about this thus in truth its nothing of a problem to have changed.

So yea, its for the best this topic gets closed and we just accept that we have vague rules on icons which even then we have to deal with hits and miss with admins.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 6, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> So yea, its for the best this topic gets closed and we just accept that we have vague rules on icons which even then we have to deal with hits and miss with admins.



At least we can still be assholes about it if we want to.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 6, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> At least we can still be assholes about it if we want to.


We always had that right to be asshole about it
thats one thing they cant take away from us


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 6, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> eh...yea,
> .....
> who all votes we close this damn topic since we all said our piece as we all know "FAF and FA somehow two different entities instead of one whole, if people who are normally on the site dont say anything, but regulars of the forum do...theres nothing wrong".
> 
> ...



I vote that we don't close the thread until there is official word from Dragoneer on this subject.


----------



## Midnight Gear (Nov 6, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> I vote that we don't close the thread until there is official word from Dragoneer on this subject.



i vote we do because I feel that this post is not such a big deal we have to drag it along for two months.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 6, 2013)

Midnight Gear said:


> i vote we do because I feel that this post is not such a big deal we have to drag it along for two months.



actually it is a big deal because it shows just how unorganized FA's administration is along with how poorly the site is run. the admins can't add simple features to the site that many people have clearly requested.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> I vote that we don't close the thread until there is official word from Dragoneer on this subject.


how bout no,
how about you instead get that official word yourself cause in the end 5-7 people going back and forth for 2 months means that its not a real problem.
Two you know the site, "it doesnt matter what the head says anyway either, all the admins down below work from the vague as fuck rule book created by him"

Everyone else have reach this point
[video=youtube;AJaZ03k2U5U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJaZ03k2U5U[/video]


----------



## Willow (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> actually it is a big deal because it shows just how unorganized FA's administration is along with how poorly the site is run. the admins can't add simple features to the site that many people have clearly requested.


And by many people, you mean two. Maybe three. Possibly four.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 7, 2013)

Willow said:


> And by many people, you mean two. Maybe three. Possibly four.





Verin Asper said:


> how bout no,
> how about you instead get that official word yourself cause in the end  5-7 people going back and forth for 2 months means that its not a real  problem.
> Two you know the site, "it doesnt matter what the head says anyway  either, all the admins down below work from the vague as fuck rule book  created by him"



you two do realize that when Mature icons were first banned lots of people were pissed, and even if they aren't actively speaking out about it anymore they would still be happy to see FA unban them or even actually do some work on the site and implement an icon filter system. besides not many people even go to the FA forums unless the site crashes. I'm always tempted to start a group on FA advocating for an icon filter system so people can use they're mature/adult icons since no one else will rally support around this issue.

it may not be a real problem for the FA staff but its a real problem for the people who use the site, not only because the site isn't getting features that the community requests but also because that very thing also outlines how lazy the staff is or how uninterested they are in feedback from the community.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 7, 2013)

Willow said:


> And by many people, you mean two. Maybe three. Possibly four.



None as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> you two do realize that when Mature icons were first banned lots of people were pissed, and even if they aren't actively speaking out about it anymore they would still be happy to see FA unban them or even actually do some work on the site and implement an icon filter system. besides not many people even go to the FA forums unless the site crashes. I'm always tempted to start a group on FA advocating for an icon filter system so people can use they're mature/adult icons since no one else will rally support around this issue.
> 
> it may not be a real problem for the FA staff but its a real problem for the people who use the site, not only because the site isn't getting features that the community requests but also because that very thing also outlines how lazy the staff is or how uninterested they are in feedback from the community.



I was here the first time
you know who the ones were pissed off?
THE PEOPLE WHO DIDNT WANT THEM
sur-fucking-prise it was the people who didnt want the icons to exist bitching the most...not those that wanted them to be around (cause that group was too busy bitching at those with ass base icons getting a pass thus within their own group they were fighting), and there was a third party who wished that FA would then do a system where they can go about okaying icons if artist wish to know if they are ok to be used on FA.

I was part of that third group, the third group didnt give a fuck if the icons were out right banned or not, we just wanted rules around icons that not only can people follow but something to also allow artist to get  a double check with an admin or with neer to see if the icon they made would be allowed to use on FA.

Those people who are vocal then...they stop giving a fuck, if they wanted those icons to come back they would actually still be actively trying to come up with a way to fix the system. 

Heck lets do a check now, at this point you are the only one that want mature icons, everyone else here is either talking about either: how is FA limiting on whats truly sexual and just an icon (which we still dont know thus we accepted that its a hit and miss system) and then theres probably just me wondering "will FA finally give us actual guidelines or is this gonna end up like how Secondlife now once again rampant cause the FA admins decided that having guidelines isnt needed (when the first time it did help people know what they can or cannot post and what information they need to have to be allowed to post).

Its not a problem for the site, and its not a damn problem for those people who want mature icons cause they dont give a fuck (cause idola says "they are using those damn mature icons elsewhere anyway)

P.S. a group on FA is as good as tree falling in a forest, the only people who know about it is those that actually happen to be there or learn of said tree falling.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 7, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> if they wanted those icons to come back they would actually still be actively trying to come up with a way to fix the system.



we did come up with a system, the administration is just too lazy to implement it. and besides they don't care what we want anyway.



Verin Asper said:


> I was here the first time
> you know who the ones were pissed off?
> THE PEOPLE WHO DIDNT WANT THEM



yeah I was there too, the people that wanted Mature/adult icons we pretty fucking pissed too. everybody was pissed about something but the admins were too lazy to do something that would make all parties happy, like an icon filter system.



Verin Asper said:


> Its not a problem for the site, and its not a damn problem for those  people who want mature icons cause they dont give a fuck (cause idola  says "they are using those damn mature icons elsewhere anyway)



it is a problem for the site because it isn't just about the icons anymore, it shows just how lazy the administration is about improving the site. and it is a problem for the people that want mature/adult icons, they want the icon filter system and they want to use the mature/adult icons they bought from people on FA on FA but every time one of them brings up the issue with the administration they are basically told to "shut the fuck up about it" because the administration doesn't give any fucks about what WE the users of the site, the community actually thinks and wants for the site.


----------



## Midnight Gear (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> actually it is a big deal because it shows just how unorganized FA's administration is along with how poorly the site is run. the admins can't add simple features to the site that many people have clearly requested.


I am not saying it's not an issue. i'm saying it's not an issue we need to keep up untill the end of time which at this rate we will.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> we did come up with a system, the administration is just too lazy to implement it. and besides they don't care what we want anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just go, just get out of this topic as you arent being helpful in anything

This fucking topic is about the breast icons on why it they are active again when we though they were banned
understand they werent BANNED for being mature, they were banned for deemed sexual the first time
many of these icons are fucking listed as general art for many people, even the base artist had them as such cause they were clothed and no nipples or genitalia were showing.

So get out, you arent even using the same damn book revision at this point.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Nov 7, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> just go, just get out of this topic as you arent being helpful in anything
> 
> This fucking topic is about the breast icons on why it they are active again when we though they were banned
> understand they werent BANNED for being mature, they were banned for deemed sexual the first time
> ...



seems your the one that isn't being helpful here, telling the person with the opposite views and opinions to "fuck off" isn't a good way to resolve a conversation (argument?)

anyway this is simply one issue which makes all of the other issues shine, it may have started out as being about the mature avatars but its no longer simply about some avatars people want to use. it now has to do with the entire structure of the FA staff and how useless they are at doing simple improvements to the site in a timely manner, and actually communicating with the community to see what they want.

according to all of the avatar rules the bouncing breast icons from Besped fully comply.

Avatars may not contain the following: 

Bodily fluids or gore. 
Rapidily flashing images which can inflict seizures. 
Harassing, racist or bigoted messages. Profanity is permitted so long as it does not target any group, interest or religion. 
Sexually explicit avatars, including those containing outlines of genitalia or nipples. 
Avatars which use another artist/user's work or characters without permission. We will remove avatars at the owner's request. 

there are no bodily fluids or gore.
there are no rapidly flashing images.
there are no harassing, racist, or bigoted messages.
they aren't sexually explicit and don't contain outlines of genitalia or nipples.
and the original artist gave the people who commissioned them permission to use them.

they are not sexual and they are not mature, the clothed version of my two Icons from Besped are in my gallery listed as general, the administration has said that avatars that meet the above rules must be the equivalent of a general submission on FA. if the icons weren't general then the rating on my icons in my gallery would have been changed by now.

  another very big problem with this situation is yet another issue with the administration, they like to make up rules that aren't even in effect. so again this whole thing transends simply people wanting mature/adult avatars it underlines almost every single other problem with FA as a whole.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> seems your the one that isn't being helpful here, telling the person with the opposite views and opinions to "fuck off" isn't a good way to resolve a conversation (argument?)
> 
> anyway this is simply one issue which makes all of the other issues shine, it may have started out as being about the mature avatars but its no longer simply about some avatars people want to use. it now has to do with the entire structure of the FA staff and how useless they are at doing simple improvements to the site in a timely manner, and actually communicating with the community to see what they want.
> 
> ...



Cause it took an admin and another user to simply go "it looks like the character is being fucked"
Besped didnt notice that shit till I told them what neer told me about why my icon was being taken down
Why do you think someone ACTUALLY asked for a version where someone is fucking the character..."cause that what they saw"
This in turn proved that willow is right on that imply does come in to play, even if the imply was not the original intention

So no, this is the damn reason why besped is making a new boob bounce icon where they shall try to avoid implied undertones which they will constantly work with the admin team to get the new one they are making be ok.

This have nothing to do with mature icons people want to use, this deals with at what point is an icon deemed too much to be used.

I'm gonna request this topic to be closed as theres nothing more we can do on this, we got two posts about what dragonneer said, and I got my own infomation about the issue from neer when they took down my icon.

The point of this topic is to find out why boob bounce icons are allowed again, the admin team deemed them fine again...nuff said.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 7, 2013)

Closed due to outlined ruling and request.


----------

