# SL/IMVU submission query



## Inflamed-Iron (Oct 29, 2007)

Recently my IMVU screenshots were deleted from my gallery, on the grounds of being illegal submissions.

Yet I see hundreds of users uploading Second Life screenshots every day.

Second Life and IMVU are essentially the same thing. A 3D-based chat, where users create their own avatars.

Now, somebody tell me the difference in legality of a Second Life screenshot to an IMVU screenshot.

Because, see, I must be missing something here.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 29, 2007)

The difference is, in Second Life users can actually create custom avatars _from scratch_.  In IMVU, you're merely combining pre-existing pieces.

Here's the relevant sections of the Acceptable Upload Policy; pay particular attention to the part I italicized myself:


> *Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia*
> Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. â€œUser created contentâ€ is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). _Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by â€œcharacter generatorsâ€ are not permitted._
> 
> Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. â€œpixel artâ€) using art directly from games.
> ...


----------



## Inflamed-Iron (Oct 30, 2007)

Incorrect. On IMVU you are more than capable of creating your own avatars from scratch, using 3D modelling software.
However, trying to explain this to FA's admins would be pointless as they would delete the submission without even paying attention to the explanation.

Granted, 99% of avatars there are pre-generated uses of custom makeup, but fully original avatars can be made.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 30, 2007)

Inflamed-Iron said:
			
		

> Incorrect. On IMVU you are more than capable of creating your own avatars from scratch, using 3D modelling software.



News to me.


----------



## Inflamed-Iron (Oct 30, 2007)

Try looking around IMVU's catalog and browse the developers.
Once you buy the rights, you can model and sell your own items/clothes/avatars.


----------



## Damaratus (Oct 30, 2007)

The big difference at this point is that SL avatars still focus primarily on the furry genre.  There is still a lot to cover in terms of who is using their own from scratch avatars and who is using something that is pre-generated.  So the excuse that "everyone else is doing it" doesn't fly in this case.

The next question for you is did you personally create these from scratch?  Program them yourself?  If so, can you prove that you did this?  It makes no sense in arguing the case just because someone could create them, you have to show that you personally did, and then it will be considered as to whether something like that should be allowed on the site.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 30, 2007)

> Once you buy the rights, you can model and sell your own items/clothes/avatars.


SL is also built around for-free user customization.


----------



## LimeyKat (Oct 30, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> The big difference at this point is that SL avatars still focus primarily on the furry genre.



Not debating the "personally created" thing, since that's as it should be, but the owners of this site have been toting from the very beginning that this site DOES NOT just cater to the furry side. There is a bias of the users "hence the name", but the rules of submission were not supposed to be siding heavier with furry.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 30, 2007)

There is a persisting misunderstanding of the term "not exclusively furry."

The site was made by a member of the furry community, for the furry community. The furry community is the target audience for this website. Despite that, we do not require all content to be furry-related. We do not have 'x percent of your gallery must be furry.' We do not exclude users who don't identify as furry. So the site is not _exclusively_ furry. Users and content that are not furry at all are still welcome here (within the bounds of the ToS and AUP).

However, the site does not allow anything and everything. There are subjects that are outside of the site's intended scope, and the rules reflect this.

It is not unreasonable that we may make exceptions to some things in specific cases where a considerable portion of the target community shows a great deal of interest. 

Second Life has become a prominent interest in the furry community, and that is reflected here as well. Because the website remains focused on the personal creative abilities of its members, we still do not allow SL avatars that do not meet the "By you/For you" requirements (we know enforcement on that has been lax, but we are tightening up there, and it is a slow process due to the sheer volume of SL submissions).

At present, IMVU does not appear to be a prominent interest of the community, and the method of character generation appears to be primarily 'pick-and-choose-the-pieces.' If Inflamed-Iron can demonstrate that his IMVU avatars were built by him, from scratch, then there is currently no rule that would make them any different from any other entirely user-created 3d model, and they would be allowed, provided he gets admin approval first.

Short Version:

The site does not cater JUST to furries. That does not mean it doesn't cater to furries _at all._


----------



## LimeyKat (Oct 31, 2007)

Yes, I am highly aware of what community the creator belong/s/ed to, that does not in any way alter the fact it was stated the site was not going to bring bias toward submissions. This was during the sites first incarnation, and since then it was not stated this was to change.

There are a lot of things on the site that are not of prominent interest to the community as a whole, furry or otherwise, which are given no restriction. In fact, the majority was completely ignored in order to allow *one of them in particular...* (yeah.. it's a valid example to use even if it is a flogged dead horse.)

Regardless, I'm against the preferential treatment of one over the other. There is no true reason why both shouldn't be required to have the elements completely user created, if one is FORCED to be proven it is 100% user created. Unnecessary silliness.


----------



## Semi (Oct 31, 2007)

Came to the forum looking specifically for threads regarding the enforcement of the Acceptable Upload Policy regarding SL submissions. Browsing the site, I sometimes come upon galleries flooded with SL screenshots containing nothing but avatars which were not created for or by the poster. Sometimes I've dropped off a polite note with a link to/quote from the AUP - and more often than not gotten a "stfu, why don't you go pick of some of the gazillion other users who do the same thing", followed by a block or an angry forum post.

So I'm actually relieved to see that this is still the official policy of FA. 

My question to the admins is - how to go about it when encountering blatant breaches of the AUP? Is there something like a special team of breach-busters you can report to? (EDIT: Just noticed the Harassment/Site Violation forum.)


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 31, 2007)

> We do not have 'x percent of your gallery must be furry.'


Like Elfwood, which actually does have such a rule mandating fantasy/SF themed original art.  Has become another reason I have no plans for EW.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 31, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> Yes, I am highly aware of what community the creator belong/s/ed to, that does not in any way alter the fact it was stated the site was not going to bring bias toward submissions. This was during the sites first incarnation, and since then it was not stated this was to change.
> 
> There are a lot of things on the site that are not of prominent interest to the community as a whole, furry or otherwise, which are given no restriction. In fact, the majority was completely ignored in order to allow *one of them in particular...* (yeah.. it's a valid example to use even if it is a flogged dead horse.)
> 
> Regardless, I'm against the preferential treatment of one over the other. There is no true reason why both shouldn't be required to have the elements completely user created, if one is FORCED to be proven it is 100% user created. Unnecessary silliness.



Let me try explaining it another way.

Because the content we don't allow is significantly less than what we _do_ allow, the rules are geared towards defining what is _excluded_ from being acceptable content.

Dollmaker programs, character generators, and typical in-game avatar builders are _excluded_ because they are not content created by the users. They are user-arranged compilations of content created by someone else. 

Second Life is an _inclusionary_ exception to this rule for three basic reasons:

1. The character building program goes beyond simply picking and chooses pre-generated parts and arranging them together, and allows users to create their own unique building blocks with which to fashion their avatar.

2. The game is of significant interest to the site's target community particularly due to the ability to create anthropomorphic characters in the game.

3. Both of these points are met by Second Life to an extent matched by no other similar game or virtual chat-type program.

When a site has a specific intent, purpose, and focus, it is hardly fair to call it preferential treatment when they allow something within that focus, and don't allow something outside of it.

IMVU Avatars, by all appearances, seem to be just another character generator. They do not meet any of the three points that allow SL to be an exception to the rule. So we are not unfairly excluding them for any reason. They are excluded by default, and don't meet the reasons for exception that SL avatars do, so they would stay excluded.

If he can show us how his avatars were created by him, from scratch, to the extent that exempts SL from the rule, then (as I said), there would be no current rule excluding them.

Again, it is only preferential treatment or bias in the sense that we show preferential treatment to artwork the user made over artwork they just found online somewhere. It is simply the difference between what the site is here to host and what it is not.

And could we please stop misrepresenting the dead horse issue? It doesn't matter which side brings it up, the facts are always skewed and incorrect. 1133 votes out of a userbase of over 20,000, with the decision split by a difference of only ONE vote, does not remotely present a majority in any reasonable sense, except for the _vast_ majority that completely abstained from voting on the matter at all. Nobody was "completely ignored." People on both sides voiced opinions, and a decision was reached. Had the decision gone the other way, it would not have been "completely ignoring" the other side either. 



			
				Semi said:
			
		

> Came to the forum looking specifically for threads regarding the enforcement of the Acceptable Upload Policy regarding SL submissions. Browsing the site, I sometimes come upon galleries flooded with SL screenshots containing nothing but avatars which were not created for or by the poster. Sometimes I've dropped off a polite note with a link to/quote from the AUP - and more often than not gotten a "stfu, why don't you go pick of some of the gazillion other users who do the same thing", followed by a block or an angry forum post.
> 
> So I'm actually relieved to see that this is still the official policy of FA.
> 
> My question to the admins is - how to go about it when encountering blatant breaches of the AUP? Is there something like a special team of breach-busters you can report to? (EDIT: Just noticed the Harassment/Site Violation forum.)



*nods* That's the best place to report them. And yes, users generally tend to respond poorly to other users pointing out the rules.

Part of the difficulty in removing the SL submissions in violation is due to the sheer volume of them - half the people who get their SL violations removed insist that it is unfair to remove theirs until we have removed everyone else's. Hardly logical, since why would it be fair to remove someone else's images first if it's unfair to remove theirs? >_< 

Another reason for the slowness of the process is just that it had already become such a problem, and such a prominent number of submissions, before the site deemed it to be too much a source of off-topic and needed to be limited a bit.

That is one inevitable problem with ignoring small instances of off-topic. If we allow something just on a basis of "eh, it's just one or two people" then it becomes unfair to do anything about it if a dozen, or two dozen, or more, people start uploading similar submissions. Either we don't allow the one violation, and get criticized with "omg too strict, jeeze it's just one guy," or we risk dealing with the "why can't I do this, you let all those other people do it" later if it becomes more than "just one guy" and does present an issue, as SL screenshots eventually did.




If anyone feels any of this to be unreasonable, there's likely just nothing to be done to satisfy that concern. At the end of the day, some things are allowed, and some things are not. We try to be as fair and as reasonable as we can be with determining which is which, but ultimately, someone is going to want to post something we say "no" to, and sometimes they will feel it to be unfair regardless of whether it is or not.


----------



## LimeyKat (Oct 31, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> When a site has a specific intent, purpose, and focus, it is hardly fair to call it preferential treatment when they allow something within that focus, and don't allow something outside of it.


When comparing this to the original comments stated about the site by those who created it, it *is* fair to call it preferential treatment. Your personal view isn't going to trump official statements that were once made by those above you. It's just not. Sorry.

It seems to me though you're trying to defend SL submissions by saying they allow 100% creator made content. I'm not disputing this part of it. I'm disputing slackening up on things that are not 100% user made on SL because it's "furry", but cracking down hard on the other, because of it not being "furry". And that's what the mod responses seem to convey.  As long as that is the sentiment, my view on the issue remains the same.


----------



## Wolfblade (Oct 31, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> When comparing this to the original comments stated about the site by those who created it, it *is* fair to call it preferential treatment. Your personal view isn't going to trump official statements that were once made by those above you. It's just not. Sorry.
> 
> It seems to me though you're trying to defend SL submissions by saying they allow 100% creator made content. I'm not disputing this part of it. I'm disputing slackening up on things that are not 100% user made on SL because it's "furry", but cracking down hard on the other, because of it not being "furry". And that's what the mod responses seem to convey.  As long as that is the sentiment, my view on the issue remains the same.



Okay, I admit it's a tricky position to be taking. On the one hand, the site has drifted well off-course of its original intent and purpose, and we're trying to get some focus back (ToS revamp, the AUP putting a lot of unwritten rules in writing, cracking down on MySpace/Photobucket behavior, trying to trim back the SL spam that got out of control, etc etc). At the same time though, many of the original statements and policies simply proved unworkable with a community as large as this one has gotten. There are things that at one time the site certainly wanted to do, that have simply proven implausible.

Basically, not every statement ever made was made with full clairvoyance, and even the most valiant attempt at foresight can still result in saying something that has to be accepted as impractical later.

As for your other statement, it's still not quite right. Yes, we may slack up on something if it presents a significant community interest AND does not pose a direct conflict with the basic purpose and intent of the site. SL satisfies both of those: many, many, MANY users participate in SL AND it allows creation from scratch as opposed to merely arranging pre-rendered bits.

IMVU satisfies neither of those concerns as presently there does not appear to be a significant community interest, and we have not been shown evidence that users can create their own models to the extent SL allows.

I know this is just arguing semantics, but we aren't slacking up on SL just because it is furry. And we aren't cracking down on IMVU because it is not furry. We make exception to SL because of significant community interest, and we, at this point, are not making exception to IMVU (unless he meets the already stated criteria) because of lack of significant community interest. The factor "furry vs not furry" plays is only an element because, again, furry is the primary audience of the site, and has always been, and always will be, the prominent portion of the community.


----------



## codewolf (Oct 31, 2007)

the short, short, short version ---> that was the time that was then. this is the time that is now


----------



## Eevee (Oct 31, 2007)

Whoa hey what.

Easy solution: If you make a furry model in modeling software, *render it there* and upload _that_ first.


----------



## LimeyKat (Oct 31, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> I know this is just arguing semantics, but we aren't slacking up on SL just because it is furry. And we aren't cracking down on IMVU because it is not furry.
> 
> The factor "furry vs not furry" plays is only an element because, again, furry is the primary audience of the site, and has always been, and always will be, the prominent portion of the community.


Heh. So, "no we aren't" but "yes we are".  Bottom line remains, and so does my opinion.

Seriously. You're taking my complaint MUCH farther than it needs to be taken. By now it should be something along the lines of "noted" and waved off if there is no intention to change, and yet it seems more like you're making it a personal mission to CHANGE my view in general. That's not going to happen.


----------



## codewolf (Oct 31, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> Seriously. You're taking my complaint MUCH farther than it needs to be taken. By now it should be something along the lines of "noted" and waved off if there is no intention to change, and yet it seems more like you're making it a personal mission to CHANGE my view in general.



actually i believe that wolfbalde is just replying to you in a way that needed to be replied to as i personally got the impression you wanted to carry on the conversation.


----------



## LimeyKat (Oct 31, 2007)

codewolf said:
			
		

> i personally got the impression you wanted to carry on the conversation.


I'm not sure sticking to my views despite attempts to sway them, and keeping things as short as I have been (in comparison) would indicate that.


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 1, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> ...
> There are a lot of things on the site that are not of prominent interest to the community as a whole, furry or otherwise, which are given no restriction. In fact, the majority was completely ignored in order to allow *one of them in particular...* (yeah.. it's a valid example to use even if it is a flogged dead horse.)
> 
> Regardless, I'm against the preferential treatment of one over the other. There is no true reason why both shouldn't be required to have the elements completely user created, if one is FORCED to be proven it is 100% user created. Unnecessary silliness.



If you are referring to cub art, it is undeniably furry, though of very limited interest.  I think that the owners did the right thing by allowing it with a warning thumbnail.  

I certainly hope that Dragoneer tries to make the rules more uniform for all types of furry art.  For example, my gallery has many pieces of art that I have commissioned.  My artistic contribution to these are truly minor - my character, and only sometimes set, setting, and pose.  

Photomorphs - a small minority furry genre - are treated very differently than other furry art.  I can not use a commissioned photo of an Afghan Hound to provide the head for my mate, BeastInShow.  I am not allowed to license a Afghan Hound, fox, or coyote picture from Dreamstime.com for $1, even though my use of the head only (and a few tails) is permitted by the license.  Furthermore, I usually modify the heads rather extensively.  Why are commissioned or licensed animal head photos (amounting to less than 5% of the image that I create) forbidden by the AUP, while other commissioned art is permitted?  

Damaratus, with cooperation from the photomorph/photorealistic furry artist community developed a good set of rules to replace the current inconsistent AUP photomorph rules.  But I know of no further steps to adoption.  Is our artistic community to small to bear consideration?


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 1, 2007)

> Not debating the "personally created" thing, since that's as it should be, but the owners of this site have been toting from the very beginning that this site DOES NOT just cater to the furry side. There is a bias of the users "hence the name", but the rules of submission were not supposed to be siding heavier with furry.


If this was your original point...

There are no rules requiring that user-made SL avatar characters must be furry.  It is just that most of the SL avatar submissions are of furry avatars (this being a furry-specialty site and all).


----------



## LimeyKat (Nov 1, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> I certainly hope that Dragoneer tries to make the rules more uniform for all types of furry art.


Heh. Fixed.


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 1, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good fix!


----------



## LimeyKat (Nov 1, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> Good fix!


If you mean that, then thanks. How I adjusted that quote is pretty much what I mean by the complaint I lodged in the beginning.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 1, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> Heh. So, "no we aren't" but "yes we are".  Bottom line remains, and so does my opinion.
> 
> Seriously. You're taking my complaint MUCH farther than it needs to be taken. By now it should be something along the lines of "noted" and waved off if there is no intention to change, and yet it seems more like you're making it a personal mission to CHANGE my view in general. That's not going to happen.





			
				LimeyKat said:
			
		

> I'm not sure sticking to my views despite attempts to sway them, and keeping things as short as I have been (in comparison) would indicate that.



You expressed a complaint, I attempted to explain how what you are complaining about is not happening in the manner you seem to think it is.

I am not trying to change your views or opinions other than to correct where you are simply drawing an incorrect conclusion from the evidence at hand. If further discussion on the topic bothers you in the least though, then as you say; "noted," and moving on...



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> I certainly hope that Dragoneer tries to make the rules more uniform for all types of furry art.  For example, my gallery has many pieces of art that I have commissioned.  My artistic contribution to these are truly minor - my character, and only sometimes set, setting, and pose.
> 
> Photomorphs - a small minority furry genre - are treated very differently than other furry art.  I can not use a commissioned photo of an Afghan Hound to provide the head for my mate, BeastInShow.  I am not allowed to license a Afghan Hound, fox, or coyote picture from Dreamstime.com for $1, even though my use of the head only (and a few tails) is permitted by the license.  Furthermore, I usually modify the heads rather extensively.  Why are commissioned or licensed animal head photos (amounting to less than 5% of the image that I create) forbidden by the AUP, while other commissioned art is permitted?
> 
> Damaratus, with cooperation from the photomorph/photorealistic furry artist community developed a good set of rules to replace the current inconsistent AUP photomorph rules.  But I know of no further steps to adoption.  Is our artistic community to small to bear consideration?



Photomorphs are treated differently than entirely drawn images simply because they have to be. As you point out, there are laws regarding ownership of the original photos, proper use, as well as concerns of consent and proof of age of the models in the photos, etc. Put simply, we can be more lax about drawings, even subjects like cub art, because at present there is no remote legal concern regarding entirely drawn images. Photos need to be considered a bit more carefully.

We are, in fact, still working on the matter of having the rules address the subject of photomorphs more appropriately than they do at the moment. I'm sure you can understand how after frustrations over the subject that have happened already, we want to be certain that the final outcome regarding photomorphs is as thorough as we can manage before incorporating it into the rules.


----------



## LimeyKat (Nov 1, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> I am not trying to change your views or opinions other than to correct where you are simply drawing an incorrect conclusion from the evidence at hand.


I'm wrong to you because I wont accept a slant that caters to XX% of the site population instead of 100% of it. That's where this comes to a stalemate. Period.


----------



## codewolf (Nov 2, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> I'm wrong to you because I wont accept a slant that caters to XX% of the site population instead of 100% of it. That's where this comes to a stalemate. Period.


good to see you both agreed to diasagree on this one


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 2, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> LimeyKat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for your response.  My comments above re the new AUP restrictions were specifically directed to the use of commercial photos of animal heads, not humans, so proof of age and identity are of no concern.  Dreamstime has their standard web use license published for all to see, and it allows modifications. While there are certainly legitimate issues with photomorphs concerning photos of humans other than the artist, promptly allowing use of properly licensed commercial animal photos and parts thereof should not be delayed by a search for solutions to a different problem.


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 2, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I mean it.  You are right; there is discrimination against non-furry art at FA in much the same way as deviantART discriminates against furry art.  For example, FA admin Pinkuh removed this image for "excessive sexuality":
http://foxystallion.deviantart.com/art/Foxystallion-s-First-Photo-A-43595587

Really!  Apparently G-rated cowboy and Indian movies are "excessive sexuality" by her standards.

This was the first in a series of pictures in a photomorph tutorial.  In violation of the TOS, she also removed the story and the viewers' comments, even though neither violated any FA rule.  I was told that I would receive an apology from her for her wrongful removal of the story and comments, but that never happened.  Apparently she has impunity and can engage in wrongful acts that violate the FA TOS without consequences.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 2, 2007)

> Really! Apparently G-rated cowboy and Indian movies are "excessive sexuality" by her standards.


PG for the convenient location of the pistol?


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 3, 2007)

Long and informative explanation is for those who might appreciate it.

People who want the short and sweet response can skip to the bottom.



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> Yes, I mean it.  You are right; there is discrimination against non-furry art at FA in much the same way as deviantART discriminates against furry art.



The negative connotation given to the word "discrimination" usually far exceeds the actual basic definition of the word, which, minus that negative connotation, does apply here.

FA was created, in part, because of discrimination against furry art shown by other sites. Not because those sites are evil and bad and wrong and persecuting us simply by preferring to focus on other things, no. Simply because if other places are not wishing to be open to the content we wish to share, the natural and proper response is to find or create a place that IS open to it.

A website has the right to discriminate against content they do not wish to host, and reserving this right should not be seen by default as some sort of unfairness or crime.

Youtube discriminates against videos with distinctly adult or pornographic content, because that is not something the people running the site wish their service to be used for. Does this make them bad or wrong? Should they be criticized for trying to offer a service for a purpose, but not also offering their service to be used for every other purpose every single member of their service may wish to use it for? No. Youtube gave people a service, but did not meet the requirements of all of its users. So people who wanted to share the content youtube did not wish to host created xtube.

DeviantArt was one of the first 'community'-style sites for sharing artwork. It gave people a service they enjoyed, but the people running the site did not want to host adult content, even though many of their users would have enjoyed that privelege. DeviantArt discriminated against adult content, and to an extent _much _smaller than is usually credited to them, they discriminated against furry artwork.

So somebody made Sheezyart.

Sheezy had to lose the adult content because their service provider discriminated against adult content and minors running a service that hosted such. so FurAffinity was created for the people who felt displaced by that.

When it comes right down to it, the simple problem is that people want a single service where they are free to post whatever they may feel like posting. 

Such a service does not yet (to my knowledge) exist. 

So people, unfortunately, have to decide where to post which content based on which service is provided for the purpose of posting that content.

Fur Affinity operated for a LONG time under the general desire to be that service that everybody wanted. Anything people wanted FA to be, it strove to be for them wherever and whenever possible. Because FA was more allowing and tolerant than any other service available at the time, it kept growing and growing. The larger the community got, and the farther that community grew beyond the original intent and focus, the more people there were who wanted to use the service for things farther and farther away from what the site was ever meant to be used for.

People started getting upset. There was a significant lack of definition as to what the site did and did not allow. One person would be free to post something that the next person was told they could not. Ultimately, the Administration finally acknowledged that it was impractical, implausible, and very near impossible to continue being just the random image free-for-all that people were increasingly believing this site to be.

The AUP was made to address the matter of giving the users a clearer definition of what this site is and is not meant to host. Naturally, getting it flawlessly on the first try is not likely. We are still working on clarifying some parts that are fuzzy to users, as well as incorporating things that need to be there which were not anticipated with the first writing of it.

No matter what, there are going to be people unhappy because SOMEONE is going to want to be able to post something that is deemed to not be what this site is here for, and they are going to feel discriminated against.

And there is simply nothing we can do about that.



			
				LimeyKat said:
			
		

> I'm wrong to you because I wont accept a slant that caters to XX% of the site population instead of 100% of it. That's where this comes to a stalemate. Period.



No. You are wrong because you make statements that are incorrect. We come to a stalemate because you refuse to acknowledge that and accept the factual corrections to the incorrect assumptions you have made.

You said we allow SL because it is furry, and won't allow IMVU because it is not. That is incorrect. We allow SL because a significant portion of our community wants us to AND because it is not outside of the most basic definitions of what this service is here to host. IMVU is not actively being asked for by a significant portion of our community, and unless someone shows us clear evidence to counter the impression given by the service's website that it is just a very fancy character generator, it IS outside of the most basic definitions of what this service is here to host.

"I wont accept a slant that caters to XX% of the site population instead of 100% of it"

Then you are not going to be given an answer you will accept. Catering to 100% of the site population is, first and foremost, not possible due the the fact that some people want to post content that we can not legally allow. So catering to 100% of the population is an irrational, impossible, and completely unreasonable expectation for you to have.

This site caters to the percentage of the site population that are here to use this site for what its creators, owners, and operators wish it to be used for. Anyone included in that definition is a welcome member of this community. 

If you feel yourself to be excluded from the percentage that are here for what this site is meant to be for, then there is an inescapable probability that your needs will not be met by this service to your full satisfaction. 



_*SHORT VERSION: *_

Complaining that a website does not allow content you wish to post because the operators of the website do not wish their service to be used to host that content is like someone who wants to post porn to youtube complaining that youtube does not wish to be used to host porn.

Complaining that a furry site caters unfairly to furries is like complaining that youtube caters unfairly to people with digital video recording devices.

Complaining that a furry site is somehow unfairly catering to furries when it has NO _requirements_ for content to be furry, has no restrictions _against_ content just for being _non_-furry, and has been to this day _ridiculously_ tolerant and accepting of actively _ANTI_-furry content, is even more irrational, baseless, and just plain silly.


----------



## LimeyKat (Nov 4, 2007)

My previous comments and opinions remain exactly the same as before. We done now?


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 4, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> My previous comments and opinions remain exactly the same as before. We done now?



Geez...and people call _me_ stubborn...


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 4, 2007)

Et tu?


> My previous comments and opinions remain exactly the same as before. We done now?


I think so, since Wolfblade already pointed out why catering to 100.0000000% of the population is not possible.  FA is not going to cater to things like tracing over screencaps, sprite comics, or generator submissions, and IMVU has yet to prove itself anything beyond just a fancy generator/dollmaker.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 4, 2007)

LimeyKat said:
			
		

> My previous comments and opinions remain exactly the same as before. We done now?



Clearly.


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 5, 2007)

Stratadrake said:
			
		

> > Really! Apparently G-rated cowboy and Indian movies are "excessive sexuality" by her standards.
> 
> 
> PG for the convenient location of the pistol?



???  No, for the loincloth. Its that big blue thing behind the revolver.
http://foxystallion.deviantart.com/art/Foxystallion-s-First-Photo-A-43595587


----------



## foxystallion (Nov 5, 2007)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> LimeyKat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have been assured by reliable sources that the cake is *NOT* a lie, though you may to use a cheat code to see it. Thanks for the comic relief.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 6, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> I have been assured by reliable sources that the cake is *NOT* a lie, though you may to use a cheat code to see it. Thanks for the comic relief.



Well, yeah, technically there *is* a cake (you see it during the lead-up to the end credits, cheat codes or no), but you don't *get* any of it.


----------

