# Changes to Terms of Service & the Acceptable Upload Policy (June 5th)



## Dragoneer (Jun 5, 2012)

Changes are effective now. We are not adding new policies, but severely relaxing existing ones as we go through and re-review all site policies.



			
				Terms of Service Change said:
			
		

> _*:Embed: Accounts* - Fur Affinity does not permit the creation of accounts solely for the use of avatar embedding (sometimes referred to as "plz" accounts). Any account created to abuse this privilege will be shut down without warning._



We will no longer being taking action against the above policy UNLESS users are doing it to create "account art" (e.g. creating 4 accounts, and using a piece of art across four different avatars to make a banner). Things like the "Tip" jar and others will not have action taken against them from this point out. 



			
				Acceptable Upload Policy said:
			
		

> _*Clothing *- All models featured in photography must be appropriately dressed, wearing both top and bottom garments. Underwear, bras or diapers are not considered acceptable articles of clothing. Clothing designed for explicit sexual themes are prohibited. Costumes, props, masks, jewellery and other worn items are permitted provided they meet the site's General rating (are work safe, rated for all users/ages)._



The new policy now reads:



			
				New Policy said:
			
		

> _*Clothing & Attire *- All persons featured in photography must be appropriately dressed with top and bottom garments. Exceptions are made for swimwear provided the models are at an appropriate location (pool, beach, waterpark) and are wearing proper attire for their gender (shorts for men, bikini/one piece for women). Underwear, bras, and diapers are NOT considered acceptable articles of clothing for individuals and costumers. Latex and leather clothing and costumes are permitted provided the attire does NOT feature modifications of sexual nature and are otherwise suitable for viewing by users of all ages._



The reason for this change is that costuming and suits (most notably rubber/latex suits) have been a point of contention on the site for some time. Because of that, and re-reviewing why the rule was in place, we have decided to allow the suits provided they are not used in mature/adult fashions.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 5, 2012)

*derp*


----------



## Summercat (Jun 5, 2012)

...ignore my derppost. @_@


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2012)

i guess that means you will have to un-ban some groups, right?

as for the clothing rule, i guess its a good idea to take the context of the photo into account.

edit:
also, does this mean that there wont be a proper groups feature implemented? i mean, you ARE essentially allowing all groups again as long as they arent about illegal stuff like drugs.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 5, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> i guess that means you will have to un-ban some groups, right?
> 
> as for the clothing rule, i guess its a good idea to take the context of the photo into account.


Correct. We will consider unbanning accounts of that nature if their owners notify us. We will also be opening up up some proper alternatives later for icons.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Correct. We will consider unbanning accounts of that nature if their owners notify us. We will also be opening up up some proper alternatives later for icons.



and about my edit? will you implement a feature for groups later on or is this not planned anymore?
never mind, i didnt catch the last part of your post^^


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 5, 2012)

Question, i designed my tattoo and considering it was designed BY me but actually tattooed on by another person does this still fall in teh for you by you policy I actually had to wear a swimsuit to show it off and I consider it tastefully done. 

this picture is actually in the changing room at the pool so could I get a good and specific answer as to if it is allowed


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 5, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> and about my edit? will you implement a feature for groups later on or is this not planned anymore?



I still want a proper solution for groups (members, announcements, calendar entries, etc). It's on the wish list.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 5, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Question, i designed my tattoo and considering it was designed BY me but actually tattooed on by another person does this still fall in teh for you by you policy I actually had to wear a swimsuit to show it off and I consider it tastefully done.
> 
> this picture is actually in the changing room at the pool so could I get a good and specific answer as to if it is allowed


I would update the description to be a bit more clear of where you are, but I don't see an issue with it.

Tattoos will be covered in a future AUP update, but so long as the art is original (By You, For You) it's fine.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 5, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> I would update the description to be a bit more clear of where you are, but I don't see an issue with it.
> 
> Tattoos will be covered in a future AUP update, but so long as the art is original (By You, For You) it's fine.



thank you for clarifying this, i didnt want to be ignorant and not understand the photo rules, i have two uploaded showing different angles but i assume this one is still ok as well? 8125991

i will not be uploading any more tattoo photos besides those two I hope that is acceptable if not i can remove them if needed just please notify me so im not in the dark, i hate that feeling


----------



## Zapydos2 (Jun 5, 2012)

Are there going to be more rule changes, or is this gonna be it for a while?


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Jun 5, 2012)

So a topless male falls under the rules as something unacceptable? Even if the image isn't anything suggestive, just a portrait of themselves.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 5, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> So a topless male falls under the rules as something unacceptable? Even if the image isn't anything suggestive, just a portrait of themselves.



I dunno about you but when I see a guy with a shirtless photo, they're trying to be suggestive. Though I guess it depends on where the camera cuts off.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 5, 2012)

Zapydos2 said:


> Are there going to be more rule changes, or is this gonna be it for a while?


We are reviewing every single policy and rule. The Terms of Service, Code of Conduct and Acceptable Upload Policy have already been near completely re-written, and will go up some time after Anthrocon. We're not really adding rules, mostly relaxing some, changing others, and fixing wording which was, in some instances, confusing or poor. 



RadioCatastrophe said:


> So a topless male falls under the rules as something unacceptable? Even if the image isn't anything suggestive, just a portrait of themselves.


Yes. It does for two reasons. A) This is an art site first and foremost and B) it's keep things equal across the board.


----------



## STrRedWolf (Jun 5, 2012)

Um... you do realize a good heavy chunk of latex suits sold normally have a crotch zipper for one rather non-sexual reason: You gotta go to the bathroom. (I only know of two vendors who will take the crotch out of a latex catsuit; one is completely zipperless).

I do agree, though, in keeping it as a general rating.  If you have doubts about it being general, then it's not and you shouldn't post it to FA. Don't ask for a mod to preview it, because another mod's going to strike it down.


----------



## kamunt (Jun 5, 2012)

Seems pretty fair to me. So accounts like the "I <3 Critique" will be unbanned now? And will accounts basically made just for the icon (i.e. an account with the trollface avatar) will be allowed? I just want to make things clear here so that there's no confusion on anything.


----------



## Accountability (Jun 5, 2012)

kamunt said:


> And will accounts basically made just for the icon (i.e. an account with the trollface avatar) will be allowed? I just want to make things clear here so that there's no confusion on anything.



please no

Whatever happened to replacing/expanding the emoticons? I know it's come up multiple times (and I seem to remember a contest revolving around it once).


----------



## Onnes (Jun 5, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes. It does for two reasons. A) This is an art site first and foremost and B) it's keep things equal across the board.



So if you took a photo from a pool party you'd have to go through and edit out all the men only before it would be acceptable to upload?


----------



## Aleu (Jun 5, 2012)

Onnes said:


> So if you took a photo from a pool party you'd have to go through and edit out all the men only before it would be acceptable to upload?



:|

Did you just not bother to read the first post or are you intentionally being difficult?


----------



## smash (Jun 5, 2012)

I was permenantly banned by one moderator after the official photography moderator told me my rubber images were not in violation of the AUP as he saw it, and I re-uploadex my images.  Does this mean my permaban no longer stands?


----------



## Devious Bane (Jun 5, 2012)

You need to take that up in PMs with a staff member.


----------



## Mizuhiro Neko (Jun 6, 2012)

I have a question... I saw some topless men in artists' pages who specialize in photo manipulation, namely taking people and converting them into anthro characters, sometimes with a TF story in the description. Now, as you said this is an art site, I'm curious as to the argument that such well done and beautiful manipulations would not count as art. Care to explain?


----------



## Aden (Jun 6, 2012)

smash said:


> I was permenantly banned by one moderator after the official photography moderator told me my rubber images were not in violation of the AUP as he saw it, and I re-uploadex my images.  Does this mean my permaban no longer stands?



Don't air your dirty laundry in public when you should be emailing or PMing a site admin


----------



## spottacus (Jun 6, 2012)

*Changes to AUP (June 5th): What if someone was previously banned?*



Aden said:


> Don't air your dirty laundry in public when you should be emailing or PMing a site admin



With all due respect, the question was a reasonable one. Namely, if someone was banned (by some mods and not by others) for posting items no longer banned, can they be unbanned?  Didn't see any dirty laundry there... no one involved in the banning process was identified or named.

There had been a previous post about this, but it was not clear from the AUP how this would be handled in the setting of revision of the rules.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Changes to AUP (June 5th): What if someone was previously banned?*



spottacus said:


> With all due respect, the question was a reasonable one. Namely, if someone was banned (by some mods and not by others) for posting items no longer banned, can they be unbanned?


If that were the only reason a user is banned, Then they probably could.
The problem is, I don't recall ever having to permban someone for -only- reuploading some aup violations. It's usually more, going on.
(One gets a temp ban on a first violation, then a slightly longer temp ban, that usually makes it clear to them they shouldn't do whatever they were doing)


----------



## Accountability (Jun 6, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> We will no longer being taking action against the above policy UNLESS users are doing it to create "account art" (e.g. creating 4 accounts, and using a piece of art across four different avatars to make a banner).



Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't actually _in_ the ToS.

We've gone over this before. If you're going to make exceptions, they_ need to be in the document_.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 6, 2012)

Accountability said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't actually _in_ the ToS.
> 
> We've gone over this before. If you're going to make exceptions, they_ need to be in the document_.



IIRC, it's part of the prior "No Plz/Icon account" rules.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 6, 2012)

ok, one definite gripe i have about this is that the fetishy gimp latex suits are back .__.
can you at least give us a proper content filter as well so that those who dont want to see it can block it? 

edit: id also like to request that you look after adult/mature rated photos more properly. OR implement a feature that wont let photos be rated higher than general. 
since guests can be blocked from seeing your account now there is no excuse to rate photos higher than mature anymore. this also automatically means that photos of latex suits that ARE rated higher than general are in fact fetish related photography which means they are not allowed.


----------



## kamunt (Jun 6, 2012)

Accountability said:


> please no
> 
> Whatever happened to replacing/expanding the emoticons? I know it's come up multiple times (and I seem to remember a contest revolving around it once).


I'm just trying to clarify, I'm not saying I'm going to make "plz" accounts. And emoticons are pretty low on the priority list as far as I'm concerned, honestly.


----------



## Accountability (Jun 6, 2012)

Summercat said:


> IIRC, it's part of the prior "No Plz/Icon account" rules.



Yes, but the Account Art thing is not in the _current_ version of the ToS. Just in Dragoneer's post.


----------



## Summercat (Jun 7, 2012)

Accountability said:


> Yes, but the Account Art thing is not in the _current_ version of the ToS. Just in Dragoneer's post.



Ah. I misunderstood, then. My apologies.


----------



## rwpikul (Jun 7, 2012)

Dragoneer said:


> We will also be opening up up some proper alternatives later for icons.



Something like the ability to make 'plz' files that you could then reference that has recently been suggested over at dA?

If so, might I suggest the code format be something like plzUserFile so that people can share them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 7, 2012)

Accountability said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't actually _in_ the ToS.
> 
> We've gone over this before. If you're going to make exceptions, they_ need to be in the document_.


You are correct, and it will be better stated. That has always been viewed as account abuse, similar, but not related to :embed: accounts. I'll get that updated later today.


----------



## RTDragon (Jun 7, 2012)

rwpikul said:


> Something like the ability to make 'plz' files that you could then reference that has recently been suggested over at dA?
> 
> If so, might I suggest the code format be something like plzUserFile so that people can share them.



That might not be a good idea considering quite a bit of the plz accounts on DA are also seizure icons. Considering those get abused a lot in posts.


----------



## rwpikul (Jun 7, 2012)

RTDragon said:


> That might not be a good idea considering quite a bit of the plz accounts on DA are also seizure icons. Considering those get abused a lot in posts.



I would assume that there would be rules regarding uploading 'plz' files.

The three obvious rules would be:

Not having sexual/offensive content.
No seizure icons.
Setting the 'plz' flag locks the submission so that it can't be changed.

The last of the three is needed if we are going to allow the use of other users' plz files, it isn't so important if they have to be uploaded per account and/or to a central repository.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't know if this is something that is  worth asking here, or even if this is the correct place to post it, but since the topic has sort of swayed tot hat of accounts being used solely for their avatar. I was wondering if the Avatar Guidelines could be updated to clarify a bit more? The No "Bouncing, Swaying, Shaking" *Animated* icon rule isn't very clear to me, like, what if the avatars were fully clothed? Or if no genitals were shown? I'll edit and move this if this is the incorrect place for this but I'm just wondering if that will or can be updated to add some clarifications.


----------

