# Rule Clarification



## OdinWolf (Sep 2, 2011)

Hey, this is something I have been wondering for some time. I hope this was the correct place to ask.

A bit ago one of my accounts was suspended for linking to xtube (It was un-suspended a few weeks ago). No, I am not complaining about the suspension or anything, so please bear with me.
The suspension was enacted because "linking to an adult site is unacceptable". I'd just like some clarification, please. Where in the ToS does it state that linking to an adult website is unacceptable?
And, why, then is Bad Dragon able to link their toy website publicly?

Does this mean linking to Inkbunny and other sites is unacceptable as well?

I would just like to clear this up so I can avoid any rule-breaking in the future, and I know a few of my friends were unclear on this subject as well! ^^

I think there was either a simple mistake in judgment or that the ToS should be updated to clarify this rule. 

I thank-you for any help on this subject, I appreciate it!

(I would only like to hear a moderator or site admin's input on this subject so I may get a direct answer. Please keep speculation and negative comments to yourself. Thanks.)
--
Oh, and this was the closest thing I could find in the ToS:
"Don't post links to materials that could harm other users'  computers or would allow others to inappropriately access software or  web sites, or that would otherwise violate the Code of Conduct"
However this is -obviously- meant to say that links to malicious websites or illegal file-sharing websites is not allowed, nothing mentions adult websites.
--


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm guessing because linking publically to a site with actual human porn might have had to do with it while PedoInkbunny is just a furry art site with adult content.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 2, 2011)

If I recall correctly, Bad Dragon ads may contain Mature Content and are therefore only served to people whose Mature Content settings are enabled.  On the other hand, URLs aren't filtered by content and get served to everyone.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 2, 2011)

There's a difference between a site selling dildos and another site showing videos of people shoving dildos up their butt/Vagina, but then again, that's something that an admin has to answer to reinforce my thoughts on it.



Stratadrake said:


> If I recall correctly, Bad Dragon ads may contain Mature Content and are therefore only served to people whose Mature Content settings are enabled.  On the other hand, URLs aren't filtered by content and get served to everyone.



That too.


----------



## Kayla-La (Sep 2, 2011)

It should really be in the TOS if they're going to go suspending people for it. This site is full of porn, and while it's different, I could easily see people thinking it'd be okay to link to normal human porn sites, especially if they read the rules and don't see anything about it in there.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 2, 2011)

Kayla-La said:


> It should really be in the TOS if they're going to go suspending people for it. This site is full of porn, and while it's different, I could easily see people thinking it'd be okay to link to normal human porn sites, especially if they read the rules and don't see anything about it in there.



This says terrible things about common sense.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 2, 2011)

*Links to Dragoneer's FA Profile"
*Gets banned for linking to (im)mature site*


----------



## Accountability (Sep 3, 2011)

Unless xtube is a site "that could harm other users'  computers" there really isn't a rule against this.

Though, "adult" content in journals and comments has been discussed previously, and Dragoneer said he "completely agrees" that there needs to be a rule about it. It was brought up a few years earlier and he expressed similar distaste for such content.

 It must have just been overlooked with the last update?


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 3, 2011)

Accountability said:


> It must have just been overlooked with the last update?


Added to the list of shit that will never get done.


----------



## timoran (Sep 6, 2011)

This is a good question.

Why aren't admins required to cite "Rule # xxx" violated when banning someone?

Is this in the code of conduct?


----------



## Corto (Sep 6, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> *Links to Dragoneer's FA Profile"
> *Gets banned for linking to (im)mature site*


Booooo


----------



## Browder (Sep 6, 2011)

You're correct that FA currently does not have a rule in the TOS about this. However since journals are currently not mature filter-able we've been operating on the police that it should be common sense not to post links to adult websites. Anyone can see your profile people, and we do not want to be contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 

Badragon is linked because it payed for advertising space, and a dildo is different than actual porn. 

But yes, Accountability is correct that something should be done about the current state of things, and Rilvor is correct that it says something awful that it should be there. If you absolutely must talk dirty at least put up a NSFW in the title. Linking to porn is never acceptable though.


----------



## OdinWolf (Sep 6, 2011)

If this is how you are operating, perhaps it would be FAR more wise to give warnings rather than suspensions with no warning.

If there are no actual written rule violation, suspensions should not be handed out unless someone disrespects the rules multiple times. 

I was given no warning. 

Also, if Bad Dragon can post to an adult site just because they have paid for an advertising space, there is something wrong. There shouldn't be exceptions like these.

I know that FA claims that they have re-evaluated the staff structure. However, I know the specific admin that suspended with no warning is still in power. 

Please take my advice; don't rule with an iron fist. Give warnings ESPECIALLY when someone DID NOT act against any written rules. Something may be "common sense" but that goes out the window when Bad Dragon is able to link another adult site. 

Did I mention that not only was the account that I posted the link on suspended, but my main account, as well? Both accounts were suspended for two weeks. I sincerely hope that mistakes like these won't be made in the future. 

Is what I am saying making sense?


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 6, 2011)

Linking to human pornography has always been frowned upon/against the rules
I dont understand why this shit aint in the rules though but meh,. no surprise there


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 6, 2011)

^Implying the administration ever does anything right when it comes to moderating the site.


----------



## Carta (Sep 6, 2011)

God dammit Bane, can you limit yourself to making actual critics instead of lame jokes? It only makes you appear as a whining bitch.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 7, 2011)

Browder said:


> Badragon is linked because it payed for advertising space, and a dildo is different than actual porn.


...They have porn pictures that go along with the descriptions...

Actually, here's a part of a description:


> The dragon in front of you rolls, his back to you first, then completes the motion, laying down with his belly exposed. You let your curious eyes drift lower, noticing the bulge of scales between his legs. Even as you watch, the dragon lifts his tail, curling it around to his maw.



I'm leaving it at that but you get the idea. BadDragon clearly states it is an adult site, has pornographic material, and requires you to say you're 18 just to look.

Kind of reminds me of xtube.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 7, 2011)

The difference is this:

BD does not host real life porn.
BD adds are only displayed when a user has access to adult material in the first place. As such, minors can't see it.

xTube -does- just real life porn, and a metric tonne of it, to boot.
a xTube link can not be filtered, and thus, can be viewed by minors.


Now, that should put an end to the BD vs XT debate.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 7, 2011)

Uh, xtube links should only be unfiltered if you already have an auto-login or visited in the same session. 


Look, they're both porn sites. At least give the users that link adult things a warning instead of a suspension if you're going to be picky about it. Otherwise it's just unfair, especially if not written in the rules. :T

Edit: Actually you guys should really just implement more warnings in general. There are way too many cases of people being suspended because of ambiguous rules or how ticked off the admin felt that day.

Editedit: And I am well aware that FA does not allow real-life stuff _in submissions. _But what about links? Links in mature submissions? At any rate, BD is _not _a general site and should not be posted in non-filtered journals just because it's furry porn. It still requires 18+ to view. It is the same as linking a porn site that asks you to validate your age.
A lot of revisions need to be made here, and I'm not saying this because I have an admin hateboner, but because it's unfair to suspend someone on something that is not mentioned in the rules, nor the little loopholes to it. That's low and unprofessional.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 7, 2011)

Carta said:


> God dammit Bane, can you limit yourself to making actual critics instead of lame jokes? It only makes you appear as a whining bitch.


As tempting as it is, repeating myself over and over and expecting a different result would seem rather out of in place. Since I'm not going to contribute anything, I think I may as well mop around the problem like everyone else.

It's "_critique_" by the way.


----------



## Carta (Sep 7, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> It's "_critique_" by the way.


Maybe to you, FranÃ§ois, but here in FAF we don't speak French, we speak AMERICAN.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 7, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> Since I'm not going to contribute anything, I think I may as well *stop posting*.


 
here I fixed that for you


----------



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

Carta said:


> Maybe to you, FranÃ§ois, but here in FAF we don't speak French, we speak AMERICAN.



No...he's right. It's critiques. A "critique" is the statement being given. The person that GIVES the critique is a critic.


----------



## OdinWolf (Sep 7, 2011)

By the way, what you are saying is incorrect. Look at Bad Dragon's userpage. They post a website link on their user page. Right there. No maturity filter is in place. 
I will quote it:

"*Hello! I am Duke THE â€œBad Dragonâ€ from [website link omitted because I don't want to break the rules] and I make toys- particularly of the naughty kind!"
**They also link themselves in their "website link". I linked to my own xtube in this exact section of the site and received a suspension for doing so.*


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 7, 2011)

OdinWolf said:


> By the way, what you are saying is incorrect. Look at Bad Dragon's userpage. They post a website link on their user page. Right there. No maturity filter is in place.
> I will quote it:
> 
> "*Hello! I am Duke THE â€œBad Dragonâ€ from [website link omitted because I don't want to break the rules] and I make toys- particularly of the naughty kind!"
> **They also link themselves in their "website link". I linked to my own xtube in this exact section of the site and received a suspension for doing so.*


hot damn, what dont you understand?
DILDO =/= A WOMAN BEING FUCKED ON A KITCHEN COUNTER


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

OdinWolf said:


> By the way, what you are saying is incorrect. Look at Bad Dragon's userpage. They post a website link on their user page. Right there. No maturity filter is in place.
> I will quote it:
> 
> "*Hello! I am Duke THE â€œBad Dragonâ€ from [website link omitted because I don't want to break the rules] and I make toys- particularly of the naughty kind!"
> **They also link themselves in their "website link". I linked to my own xtube in this exact section of the site and received a suspension for doing so.*





CerbrusNL said:


> The difference is this:
> 
> BD does not host real life porn.
> BD adds are only displayed when a user has access to adult material in the first place. As such, minors can't see it.
> ...



No use repeating what's already been said.

Might as well drop the whole thing, y'know. Should you have received a warning? Probably, though in my experience it's difficult for the staff to follow up on stuff like that.

Really, what should have been done is you should have been stripped of your alt account. What's it even for anyway?


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 7, 2011)

There's still porn on that site. Point is, regardless of content, it's still 18+.


The other point is that it's not in the rules.

The other _other _point is that you can have all the alts you want as long as they're not for embedding or trolling or spamming or w/e and you keep them up.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

Gavrill said:


> There's still porn on that site. Point is, regardless of content, it's still 18+



Money buys exceptions.

Besides, if BD was ever revealed to be a liability to the site, their links would be removed.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 7, 2011)

at least BD give a warning before allowing access to their main page anyway


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 7, 2011)

It also should be safe to assume that links that may lead to a 18+ site must be tagged with "NSFW". 

Many mature ads that pop up on FA are mostly behind the mature filter, and only those who have their filter off can see them. Sometimes and ad may slip through the cracks, but it is bound to happen.

But something like this should be clarified in the rules just in case if people "Forget" to put a NSFW tag beside the link in question that leads to either a site like x-tube, or a site meant to shock others.


----------



## OdinWolf (Sep 7, 2011)

Yes, it seems things are only being reiterated at this point.
I have made my point and I have made my suggestions for the site.
I can only hope that administration keeps these in mind before implying harsh punishments for things not directly outlined in the rules. 
Clarify, don't assume. Treat users of the site with respect, don't always rush to persecute. Append rules if needed (as such is the case here). Don't allow exceptions to site rules and not expect users to notice and either become confused, mimic said violations, or become irate. 

That is all, thanks.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It also should be safe to assume that links that may lead to a 18+ site must be tagged with "NSFW".
> 
> Many mature ads that pop up on FA are mostly behind the mature filter, and only those who have their filter off can see them. Sometimes and ad may slip through the cracks, but it is bound to happen.
> 
> But something like this should be clarified in the rules just in case if people "Forget" to put a NSFW tag beside the link in question that leads to either a site like x-tube, or a site meant to shock others.



I wonder how hard it would be to code NSFW tags into the site, where the only way to actually see what's in them is have an account that's 18+?


----------



## timoran (Sep 7, 2011)

You know what's missing from this thread?

An apology from the owners of the site for this mistake.

Will the OP ever get one? I doubt it.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

timoran said:


> You know what's missing from this thread?
> 
> An apology from the owners of the site for this mistake.
> 
> Will the OP ever get one? I doubt it.



I like your posts. I can replace all of them with "*insert quip about how the FA staff suck*" without any loss of content.


----------



## timoran (Sep 7, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I like your posts. I can replace all of them with "*insert quip about how the FA staff suck*" without any loss of content.



It doesn't appear that you're saying I'm wrong, though.


----------



## Accountability (Sep 7, 2011)

They could always code a "Warning! You are leaving FA! Links may"... Pffffffffffthahahaha I crack myself up! They won't.


----------



## Corto (Sep 7, 2011)

Tiger In A Tie said:


> No...he's right. It's critiques. A "critique" is the statement being given. The person that GIVES the critique is a critic.



God dammit, second time this happens today. I'll only start using forums that have [JOKE] tags.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 7, 2011)

timoran said:


> It doesn't appear that you're saying I'm wrong, though.



You have nothing to wrong about. You have no stance. You have no point. You just pop in at every opportunity to say "admins suck" and leave it at that.

I hardly think that your opinion is something to argue about.


----------



## timoran (Sep 7, 2011)

When the admins stop sucking, my opinion will change.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 7, 2011)

timoran said:


> When the admins stop sucking, my opinion will change.


So never is what you are saying? I mean it has to be never due to everything in life is subjective subjective


Xenke said:


> I wonder how hard it would be to code NSFW tags  into the site, where the only way to actually see what's in them is have  an account that's 18+?


heck even SoFurry give folks warning that something they are going to  see is adult/extreme if you direct link folks to the submission.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Sep 7, 2011)

So what about linking to other adult furry sites... like furriesxtreme? Since it's directly furry related, would that be ok to link in profiles?


----------



## timoran (Sep 7, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> So what about linking to other adult furry sites... like furriesxtreme? Since it's directly furry related, would that be ok to link in profiles?



I don't think FurriesXtreme is giving FA any money so it's probably out


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 7, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> So what about linking to other adult furry sites... like furriesxtreme? Since it's directly furry related, would that be ok to link in profiles?


do they have a warning before accessing the site :V


----------



## timoran (Sep 25, 2011)

The OP never received the rule clarification he asked for nor an apology for the ban without warning.


----------



## Waffles (Sep 25, 2011)

timoran said:


> The OP never received the rule clarification he asked for nor an apology for the ban without warning.



OP did in fact get his rule clarification
OP did not need an apology.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 25, 2011)

What waffles said.

This thread's dead any way, now let's bury it under a massive tombstone-like lock.


----------

