# Go to jail, get a ban,



## Foxstar (Feb 13, 2010)

So what's FA policy if your convicted of a crime and go to jail? Seeing that we have a pair about to join Alan Panda and Gemback in D block, granted not for the same crime if the judge tosses the book at them?


----------



## indrora (Feb 13, 2010)

come again?
</clueless>
Logical conclusion: Criminal conviction = b& till you can prove you arent in the houscow any longer.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 13, 2010)

indrora said:


> come again?
> </clueless>
> Logical conclusion: Criminal conviction = b& till you can prove you arent in the houscow any longer.



I would also think that it would depend on what crime you did.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 13, 2010)

Foxstar said:


> I would also think that it would depend on what crime you did.


 If someone got negative press in a large case involving sexual deviancy or violent crime they  would be banned as they do not shine a good light on the website..


----------



## Aurali (Feb 13, 2010)

I had a friend recently go to jail for smoking pot. Also a furry  banhammer time?
but yes, I've seen this site care waaay too much on what the out side world thinks of them.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 13, 2010)

Aurali said:


> I had a friend recently go to jail for smoking pot. Also a furry  banhammer time?
> but yes, I've seen this site care waaay too much on what the out side world thinks of them.


god damn Virginia laws


----------



## Aurali (Feb 13, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> god damn Virginia laws



What? No buttsex even if it's between a man and a woman?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 13, 2010)

Aurali said:


> What? No buttsex even if it's between a man and a woman?


FA is subjected to them.

then again I see some sites I use to visit nearly get taken down due to someone there getting in trouble.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 13, 2010)

Foxstar said:


> So what's FA policy if your convicted of a crime and go to jail? Seeing that we have a pair about to join Alan Panda and Gemback in D block, granted not for the same crime if the judge tosses the book at them?


The FA policy is "We don't give a shit".

The only time we'll make an exception to that is when people have been convicted of murder, assault, or pedophilia, and generally only then because when we investigate it, we find that what they did on FA was also in violation of our own site policy (contacting minors, etc). People we may feel could be a direct threat to our community or our users.

I know the couple you're referring to, and I know what they did, and feel bad for them. It's not something we'd ban over. Or even ban them from FA: United as well. Would we be wary? Well, yeah, sure. You have reasonable suspicion at that point.

Any website or convention banning members solely for what they did outside of their rules and policies, or even sphere of influence, is... probably making one hell of a big mistake. I won't deny I've made my own mistakes on that in the past, but 9/10 I will stand by my actions in those events, and other times I'll honestly re-review the decision and action and make the appropriate choice.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 13, 2010)

who the fuck is this thread about and if it's not important enough to name names in the first place why is OP just intentionally starting shit?

just saying what a fuckload of people are already thinking, as usual.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 13, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> who the fuck is this thread about and if it's not important enough to name names in the first place why is OP just intentionally starting shit?
> 
> just saying what a fuckload of people are already thinking, as usual.



The answer is:  drama


----------



## Lobo Roo (Feb 13, 2010)

I just feel the urge to point out that during my (very short) stint in jail, I didn't once stop and think "Oh god! I could be banned from FA because of this!" 

...so, yeah, that question was pretty stupid. How, exactly, would FA moderators know that someone was incarcerated? Are we supposed to announce these things?


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 13, 2010)

It seems pretty obvious to me:

Use FA to solicit children in sexual topics: BANNED.
Use FA to host your art, and get caught with two DVDS chock full of movies of little kids getting torture raped: BANNED.
Use FA and threaten users and go to jail: BANNED.
Use FA as a babyfur and meet up with a kid from FA/Pounced: BANNED.

Noticing a pattern here?  FA is central to the crime , or your crime is so hideous that FA might be your happy horny child hunting grounds.  

I don't think the two involved in this case are a danger to FA users, so I don't expect them to be banned from FA.  

Idiots, though, yes, they are that


----------



## net-cat (Feb 13, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> I just feel the urge to point out that during my (very short) stint in jail, I didn't once stop and think "Oh god! I could be banned from FA because of this!"


Oh, damn it. You've gone and piqued my curiosity.



Lobo Roo said:


> ...so, yeah, that question was pretty stupid. How, exactly, would FA moderators know that someone was incarcerated? Are we supposed to announce these things?


Well, it's all part of the public record. But we don't care enough to go dig it out. Honestly, what do we care that someone smoked a little weed or whatever. In fact, I have a friend who is in jail right now for being a moron, yet I have not banned his account.

Now, once you start involving the site in your crimes? That's a whole new ballgame.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't see why a user would be banned other than using FA in said crimes. Hey, would buying weed from a user using FA count?


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 13, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I don't see why a user would be banned other than using FA in said crimes. Hey, would buying weed from a user using FA count?


Only if he takes a hit and doesn't pass that shit.

. . .

Okay, bad joke.

<___<

(And yes, if you're using FA to sell drugs you will be banned. But if you're selling drugs and get busted, but not on FA, we probably won't do anything unless we can tie what you were doing outside of FA to your activities on FA)


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Only if he takes a hit and doesn't pass that shit.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


ah I see then.
Is it ISP ban or just account ban?


----------



## Aurali (Feb 13, 2010)

account.


----------



## TakeWalker (Feb 13, 2010)

It's also kind of silly to ban people for going to jail (on FA-unrelated charges, at least), because they kinda can't use FA for the duration of their stay. :V


----------



## Aleu (Feb 13, 2010)

Aurali said:


> account.



but then they can just start another account then.


----------



## RTDragon (Feb 13, 2010)

Foxstar said:


> So what's FA policy if your convicted of a crime and go to jail? Seeing that we have a pair about to join Alan Panda and Gemback in D block, granted not for the same crime if the judge tosses the book at them?



I must've missed something right here. What happened this time?


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 13, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> It's also kind of silly to ban people for going to jail (on FA-unrelated charges, at least), because they kinda can't use FA for the duration of their stay. :V



Not exactly true.  I know plenty of non-furs who are in prison or who have been who get 2 hours computer time a day.  That includes internet.  It's light security, but just because you're in the clink doesn't mean you can't use a computer nowadays.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Only if he takes a hit and doesn't pass that shit.


Woo, go 'neer. :3


----------



## Aurali (Feb 14, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> It's also kind of silly to ban people for going to jail (on FA-unrelated charges, at least), because they kinda can't use FA for the duration of their stay. :V


It honestly depends on a few things.. I've seen people be banned from FA for doing nothing involving the site whatsoever...



AleutheWolf said:


> but then they can just start another account then.


Banning an ISP is usually a bad move unless it is a proxy. Due to ISPs hosting millions of people, and more than one will probably use that site, don't wanna ban 10 people for one persons crimes... Banning an IP would be different, but temporary in solution, as most people have dynamic IPs and change every time they restart their modem


----------



## TakeWalker (Feb 14, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Not exactly true.  I know plenty of non-furs who are in prison or who have been who get 2 hours computer time a day.  That includes internet.  It's light security, but just because you're in the clink doesn't mean you can't use a computer nowadays.



What? D: That's bullshit. People in jail shouldn't fucking have internet access, what is this world coming to?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 14, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> What? D: That's bullshit. People in jail shouldn't fucking have internet access, what is this world coming to?



Wow, welcome to the 90's or something. You're just finding this out now? The idea is, maybe if you teach prisoners some of the skills they lack when they get out of jail, they might not be so quick to wind up back in. I know, ridiculous, isn't it? Everyone knows criminals are born, not made!


----------



## Aurali (Feb 14, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> What? D: That's bullshit. People in jail shouldn't fucking have internet access, what is this world coming to?



It's no longer considered a luxury.

hell depending on where you are, it could be considered a utility.. it's getting harder and harder to live in a world without it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 14, 2010)

What if one speaks of use of substances legal in the location used but not legal in the states. Is that at all against the site policies? For example my trip to Amsterdam etc


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What if one speaks of use of substances legal in the location used but not legal in the states. Is that at all against the site policies? For example my trip to Amsterdam etc


If you discussed going to a hash house in Amsterdam, we'd probably go "Well, lucky guy!". But if you posted pictures of yourself smoking, we'd remove that. I know that seems like hypocrisy on our part, but we want to keep images of drugs usage (that are illegal in the US) off of the site. Mainly because there's no way to verify location, etc.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What if one speaks of use of substances legal in the location used but not legal in the states. Is that at all against the site policies? For example my trip to Amsterdam etc



What happens in vegas...
If it's legal in a place and you claim you did it at legal-land, then... fine. If that place happens to be outside the laws that FA use (Virginia) then nothing can be done. I'm addressing the situation of you declaring it through text, not actual media depictions of yourself.

You cannot use FA as a buffer or frontend to criminal acts. Also, you have to have sympathy toward the dominant laws of FA---Virginia.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 14, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Banning an ISP is usually a bad move unless it is a proxy. Due to ISPs hosting millions of people, and more than one will probably use that site, don't wanna ban 10 people for one persons crimes... Banning an IP would be different, but temporary in solution, as most people have dynamic IPs and change every time they restart their modem



...I'm just gonna pretend I know exactly what you're talking about and agree.
I mean, I kinda get it but these new-fangled contraptions always get the best of me


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> If you discussed going to a hash house in Amsterdam, we'd probably go "Well, lucky guy!". But if you posted pictures of yourself smoking, we'd remove that. I know that seems like hypocrisy on our part, but we want to keep images of drugs usage (that are illegal in the US) off of the site. Mainly because there's no way to verify location, etc.


 Aye thanks, just like to know where the line is.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> ...I'm just gonna pretend I know exactly what you're talking about and agree.
> I mean, I kinda get it but these new-fangled contraptions always get the best of me



Think of it as closing off a highway. Some people will give up on trying to take that route, others will take the long way around. 
Of course, on the technical level, the "other way around" is called a 'proxy'.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 14, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> ...I'm just gonna pretend I know exactly what you're talking about and agree.
> I mean, I kinda get it but these new-fangled contraptions always get the best of me



Trust me, it gets complicated.


----------



## Armaetus (Feb 14, 2010)

Are we talking about that couple who got busted down in Florida who was caught with a huge pot cultivation and intent to distribute in their own home, the user being the younger of the two (19)? Said user was smacked with 4 felonies and a misdemeanor.


----------



## Azure (Feb 14, 2010)

At what point does it become the admins responsibility to keep tabs on the personal lives of users in that fashion? Why is this even up for any discussion? They're going to PRISON, do you really think they(or we) give two fucks about a ban or a probation?


----------



## Jude Prudence (Feb 15, 2010)

I'm in agreement with Azure Phoenix. If the user was convicted of illegal activity that took place on Fur Affinity itself, then they should've already been banned. A charge or conviction shouldn't have anything to do with a ban.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 15, 2010)

Jude Prudence said:


> I'm in agreement with Azure Phoenix. If the user was convicted of illegal activity that took place on Fur Affinity itself, then they should've already been banned. A charge or conviction shouldn't have anything to do with a ban.


For 99.99% of the things that happen off site it's not our concern or care. Furries shouldn't be playing Big Brother, and we're not about to start.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> For 99.99% of the things that happen off site it's not our concern or care. Furries shouldn't be playing Big Brother, and we're not about to start.



As he goes through all your personal records and matches them with results on google


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> What? D: That's bullshit. People in jail shouldn't fucking have internet access, what is this world coming to?



If that makes you angry, here's a kicker. 

Some jails have outsourced their prisoners as call center employees.  That guy who called you selling magazines or wanting to know your opinion on the President?  Yeah, he might be doing 5 - 10 for embezzling.

It's a mad world


----------



## Firehazard (Feb 16, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> If that makes you angry, here's a kicker.
> 
> Some jails have outsourced their prisoners as call center employees.  That guy who called you selling magazines or wanting to know your opinion on the President?  Yeah, he might be doing 5 - 10 for embezzling.
> 
> It's a mad world



Makes sense. We have too many people in prison now to put them all to work pressing license plates. When you can't cut your workforce, the only solution is to diversify.

(Plus, where else are you going to find people shameless enough to get jobs in telemarketing? )


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 16, 2010)

Firehazard said:


> (Plus, where else are you going to find people shameless enough to get jobs in telemarketing? )



um, the entire east coast of Canada?


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 17, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> The FA policy is "We don't give a shit".
> 
> The only time we'll make an exception to that is when people have been convicted of murder, assault, or pedophilia, and generally only then because when we investigate it, we find that what they did on FA was also in violation of our own site policy (contacting minors, etc). People we may feel could be a direct threat to our community or our users.
> 
> ...



What about convicted animal rapists, oh mighty purple one?


----------

