# Members Only tag?



## Torvus (Feb 13, 2009)

Hi there.

I would like to see a member's only option for uploaded content.  It would work the same way as Adult and Mature tags (preventing guests from viewing an image), but it won't block under-age members from viewing the content.

My reasoning is that there are people I know in the real world who are also online who know about furries.  As a career artist hopeful, there are times when I post non furry specific art on my account.  Not all of my art is specifically furry because my career demands that I do more than that.  At the same time, when I finish something I want to show it here.

The fear is that someone I know might be browsing and come across my artwork and realize that Torvus is me.  Then the only explanation would be either, I stole the work, "he" stole the work, or that their career associate is a furry with a fat fetish.

This tag would be used on art that I post in multiple places, and on art that might be a bit weird for casual viewing, but not mature enough to block under-age members.

Surely I'm not the only one who could use this.


----------



## Kangamutt (Feb 13, 2009)

Label the work you don't want prying eyes too look at as "mature". You need an account to view mature/adult rated work.


----------



## Torvus (Feb 13, 2009)

Yes, I'm doing that now, but I have upset some of the under-age people watching me as a result.  This would allow them to view my work, while serving the same purpose.

Another idea would be to have the ability set to your account to Members Only.  The only people I care about here are members.  I don't care if people outside of the fandom or non-members see them or not.  If I did, I'd post the work elsewhere.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 13, 2009)

if someone in the real/professional world is viewing FurAffinity in the first place, they don't really have a lot of room to make comments about you.

I understand your sentiment since I don't want my furry account and my RL personage to be publicly linked. At the same time, I don't think it's FA's job to shoulder the burden of our personal paranoias, and as such I simply refrain from posting a lot of my non-furry work here (or at very least I minimize crossposting).

Further more, and sort of as a backup to my first point, FA already tends to discourage people from viewing FA without an account by showing additional ads to people who are logged out, things like the age-block etc, and also it takes about five seconds to create an account here. a "members only" viewing option would change very little in the grander scheme of things.


----------



## Range (Feb 13, 2009)

*I like this, especially considering that the alternative would the mature tag which would make them unviewable to the under age people.*​


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 13, 2009)

So... You want the Admins of this site to limit access even more than they do now, which is something they have stated many times that they do not want to do, simply because you are not open about yourself with those you know in real life?

Learn the power of a Pen Name.


----------



## Aden (Feb 13, 2009)

As long as you don't have anything on your FA that can be linked with you or accounts you have elsewhere, you've nothing to worry about.


----------



## Stratelier (Feb 13, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> So... You want the Admins of this site...


Stop that thought!  Don't involve the site admins unless you really *need* them.

This is a suggestion for giving each user the ability to decide and dictate _for themselves_ whether they want their _individual_ submissions to be accessible to guests or not.

As stated, occasionally some submissions are classified as 'Mature' not because of the content, but simply because the _submitter_ didn't want it to be guest-visible.  Given, this is a small portion of Mature submissions, so the inclusion of a 'block guest viewing' option for the submitter to use would probably have little effect overall, but this isn't a matter of admins-dictating-stuff-regardless-of-the-userbase.

It's in some ways similar to deviantART's "deviantMobile" feature.


----------



## yak (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't know... maybe. It's definitely possible.

Discussion welcomed. Bring more opinions to the table.


----------



## yak (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't know... maybe. It's definitely possible.

Discussion welcomed. Bring more opinions to the table.


----------



## jayhusky (Feb 13, 2009)

I think that would be a good idea..


----------



## Aurali (Feb 13, 2009)

It would be alright IMO, Google can be a horrible horrible thing for the interviewee


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 13, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Stop that thought!  Don't involve the site admins unless you really *need* them.
> 
> This is a suggestion for giving each user the ability to decide and dictate _for themselves_ whether they want their _individual_ submissions to be accessible to guests or not.
> 
> ...


It would require tech time, and the admins time to review the request and make a decision on it. Dragoneer himself has already stated on multiple threads he does not want to limit the viewing of submissions any further than he is legally obligated to. His stance (from what I have read) is quite clearly "If you do not want it seen do not post it".


----------



## Torvus (Feb 13, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> It would require tech time, and the admins time to review the request and make a decision on it. Dragoneer himself has already stated on multiple threads he does not want to limit the viewing of submissions any further than he is legally obligated to. His stance (from what I have read) is quite clearly "If you do not want it seen do not post it".



Understood, but I believe it is possible we can change his mind if we as members believe it is important.  While I don't program websites, I'm a former Computer Science major.  I understand how difficult it can be to make changes to a program (especially if it is poorly written - no offense intended or assumptions made).

However, the admins continually update the website's code anyway.  They add features, they fix bugs.  They won't let the program stagnate.  If their customers want something in large enough numbers, then they will probably comply.



Aden said:


> As long as you don't have anything on your FA that can be linked with you or accounts you have elsewhere, you've nothing to worry about.



I don't know about you, but I like showing the people here most of my artwork.  My non furry creatures are nearly furry anyway, and they seem to enjoy it.  Removing the artwork could make them upset, and put undue strain on me to censor myself.  I would rather they be able to view it without any complication.  That's all I want.



Quiet269 said:


> So... You want the Admins of this site to limit access even more than they do now, which is something they have stated many times that they do not want to do, simply because you are not open about yourself with those you know in real life?
> 
> Learn the power of a Pen Name.



Limit access to whom?  Do you really care about the guests who visit the website without registering?  Granted, having art viewable to the public will bring in more members - but since the idea is to have a *choice*, there will always be art viewable to the public.

As for a pen name, I'm already using one.  The issue comes from cross-posting art, which I'm and plenty of others are not willing to stop doing.



Hanazawa said:


> if someone in the real/professional world is viewing FurAffinity in the first place, they don't really have a lot of room to make comments about you.
> 
> I understand your sentiment since I don't want my furry account and my RL personage to be publicly linked. At the same time, I don't think it's FA's job to shoulder the burden of our personal paranoias, and as such I simply refrain from posting a lot of my non-furry work here (or at very least I minimize crossposting).
> 
> Further more, and sort of as a backup to my first point, FA already tends to discourage people from viewing FA without an account by showing additional ads to people who are logged out, things like the age-block etc, and also it takes about five seconds to create an account here. a "members only" viewing option would change very little in the grander scheme of things.



I know it's easy to make an account.  The idea is not to stop griefers from making fun of a member's strange art.  They'll do that anyway.  The goal is to prevent discovery in the first place, and to give members broader freedom to express themselves without fear of reproach from associates, friends, and family members.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 13, 2009)

Torvus said:


> I know it's easy to make an account.  The idea is not to stop griefers from making fun of a member's strange art.  They'll do that anyway.  The goal is to prevent discovery in the first place, and to give members broader freedom to express themselves without fear of reproach from associates, friends, and family members.



Sorry, but it kinda makes me sad that it's expressed in this manner. It's like it's not even art when you put it that way.

It would just create more useless accounts in my opinion...hogging up more usernames and eventually making it more difficult to register with anything decent. It will eventually become that way, but I wouldn't want the rate to increase.

Also this thread just makes me think of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_Only


----------



## Torvus (Feb 13, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Sorry, but it kinda makes me sad that it's expressed in this manner. It's like it's not even art when you put it that way.
> 
> It would just create more useless accounts in my opinion...hogging up more usernames and eventually making it more difficult to register with anything decent. It will eventually become that way, but I wouldn't want the rate to increase.
> 
> ...



Art is defined as "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art".  With utmost respect, I must say that under this definition, it remains art despite your opinion (again, I mean no dis-respect to you).

I fail to understand how it would create useless accounts and more usernames.  If you can explain what constitutes a useless account, maybe we can reason with each other.

I'm also not sure how it would make registration more difficult.  It would simply be an option for image submissions.  In fact, you could replace the redundant Mature tag with it and allow underage viewers to view the images (provided a warning was given to artists who use 'mature' on 'adult' images.  More on that here: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=36241


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 13, 2009)

Torvus said:


> I fail to understand how it would create useless accounts and more usernames.  If you can explain what constitutes a useless account, maybe we can reason with each other.



People will register an account to see what the fuss is about regardless. You're encouraging MORE people to register for that reason rather than to actually sign up and well...use it as a gallery or communicate. When someone takes up X username, it means another person who may actually want to upload work will not be able to use that name.


----------



## Torvus (Feb 13, 2009)

I see, would it be possible to counteract that?  That's common already, so I really see your point.

Oh well, guess the kids will just have to grow up.  When I first did the mature-block thing, I didn't expect any trouble, but there was this one kid who was pretty passionate about being against it.  I mean, it's my art - why should I feel a responsibility to them?  I don't cater to children anyway, neither does the rest of the site.

I figured that if I at least tried then I'd have something final to say to the guy when/if he brings it up again.  If he still doesn't understand my reasoning, then oh well.  I'm not about to put myself at risk for his sake.


----------



## Eevee (Feb 14, 2009)

I'm opposed to even requiring an account to see mature art, so.  :|


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 14, 2009)

Torvus said:


> As for a pen name, I'm already using one.  The issue comes from cross-posting art, which I'm and plenty of others are not willing to stop doing


 You create 2 accounts. One that you're OK with people viewing and one that you are not OK with people viewing.

There are many people that do this because they do cub art...


----------



## uncia (Feb 14, 2009)

I'll reply to your initial response, Eevee.


Eevee said:


> Hey, it's working out great so far.


So I'd noticed.

(btw please don't change your reply retrospectively when you know it'll be caught; just like your changing of member's ages behind the scenes elsewhere. Your immaturity is showing again).



Quiet269 said:


> You create 2 accounts. One that you're OK with people viewing and one that you are not OK with people viewing.
> 
> There are many people that do this because they do cub art...


*nodnods* A few people including high profile artists with a second account for various reasons such as that, or to separate adult from non-adult art. Ain't quite the same as what the OP had in mind but there are various workaround for most people.
Cannot recall a large number of people with a precise requirement for a "members only" tag above-and-beyond that.


----------



## Stratelier (Feb 14, 2009)

uncia said:


> (In this context, the fact that FA is not a chan is highly relevant as the community has far more to lose if legal action does end up being taken because of a blasÃ© attitude to letting everyone see adult content without restriction).



My understanding of the OP suggestion is simply an option, at the _submitter's_ discretion, to allow or block guest viewing.  Maybe have it as a fourth rating (e.g., "General Login" for lack of a better phrase) which is essentially G but with guest-viewing blocked, or as a separate option entirely (given the understanding that Mature/Adult submissions already block guest-viewing anyway).  By default, it would not affect any pre-existing submissions (regardless of rating).  And, if someone forgets to apply a Mature and/or Adult label to a submission, even if it has guest-viewing blocked we still report it to site staff as a violation.

It's an interesting and largely harmless suggestion, but at the same time it would only have use for a very small percentage of total submission volume, so its effect would be limited to say the least.


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 15, 2009)

Eli said:


> It would be alright IMO, Google can be a horrible horrible thing for the interviewee



I dont think Google is allowed to search through FA much. That's why we needed the Search in the first place.

http://www.furaffinity.net/robots.txt

I think member's-only tag is a good idea btw, mostly for journals that get personal and such because let's face it, some people use the place as a blog. But it's a thin protection given that signing up solves the problem. "Friend's list only"... well meh.


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 15, 2009)

I think it would be a good idea to put a 'member only' tag on things, especially if it is something very special you just want to share with FA.  The mature tag does have the con of not allowing younger folks view something that is in that general audience area.

I also agree with Kris on the journal thing too.  I think I might have said 'no' to that idea in the past, but the personal journals really should just be kept out of public view.  Then again, that's what a paper journal, phone calls, and IMs are for.


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 15, 2009)

Yes, and sites like Livejournal which has more advanced security systems for who gets to see what anyway. I don't think FA should go there  clique forming and whatnot.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 15, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I dont think Google is allowed to search through FA much. That's why we needed the Search in the first place.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/robots.txt


Hrm. That's Very interesting to know about FA. Doesn't stop google giving links to links though.



> I think member's-only tag is a good idea btw, mostly for journals that get personal and such because let's face it, some people use the place as a blog. But it's a thin protection given that signing up solves the problem. "Friend's list only"... well meh.


 Exactly, and a bit of simple research gives you a plethora of information.


----------



## AndyFox (Feb 18, 2009)

I also say YES to the Members Only tag, and I do not think it will precipitate a flood of people making new FA accounts to view the art as some have suggested. It might cause a few, but the casual passer-by is not going to go through the effort of making an account unless they are specifically looking for something. As has been said, it is a convenient way to keep "normals" like family members who may find out you have an FA page from seeing things they might not understand. To paraphrase, "What they don't know won't confuse them."


----------



## Eevee (Feb 18, 2009)

a false sense of security is worse than no security.


----------



## Valerion (Feb 18, 2009)

Eevee said:


> a false sense of security is worse than no security.



Agreed with this.

I've personally always been frustrated by forums and other sites where you have to register (for free!) to read certain interesting things.  Especially if it's something you need once and would be unlikely to return to the forum.  Even for places I visit frequently and have accounts with I prefer to browse anonymously.  

Some people will simply put everything behind a members-only tag.  Sometimes I find some particularly good non-adult images and send it on to a non-fur friend of mine that likes to look at good artwork.  Since she won't register here, she won't be able to view such images any more.  A loss all around.

And to circumvent this for information gathering/trolling/etc takes only a few seconds, in order to create an account.  Such a user won't care about being banned, but simply register again, so you don't actually gain any security.  And the guy doing it for information - you won't even know he's looking at your protected stuff.

If you post things on the net, consider it publicly viewable.  Because it most likely is.  Dummy accounts exist for many registration-required sites.  FA most likely has some public logins out there anyway, if you search hard enough.  I've never bothered to, though.


----------



## Firehazard (Feb 19, 2009)

Eevee said:


> a false sense of security is worse than no security.



*cough*DRM*cough*


----------

