# In regard to the AUP Updates



## Devious Bane (Dec 8, 2012)

*I like them.*
The total reduction in size almost made it seem like it was unfinished, but upon review everything a lot of people hated about the AUP was either completely removed or revised (for the better).

Particular things that make them more acceptable than the former:
1. Uploading a piece of work in the wrong category would be considered violating the "Upload Process", ie. Still Images in the Flash category.
2. There is no mention of the "For You, By You" policy.
3. It's so short and simple a furry can read it.

Particular parts that need to be revised:
1. "Screenshots  of 3D models *(such as in Second Life)*, but only if the focus of the  screenshot is on the model AND *the model was made specifically by or for  the uploader.*"
My particular problem I have with this is that, as far as second life is concerned, avatars are made for all residents to purchase and use. "_For The Uploader_" shields people who buy an avatar and things to dress it with then screenshot and upload it. Say if "X Fox" is made by "X Resident", only the "X Resident" should be allowed to upload pictures of the avatar because it was made "_By The Uploade_r". See point #3 for (Such as in SecondLife)
2. There's no changelog.
Yes, these are still important.
3. "(Not Permitted) Screenshots of applications, *games*, movies"
Contradicts with point #1 in regards to "_Such as in SecondLife_".


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 8, 2012)

Published and unpublished folders- what will that involve? Will people not be able to see the unpublished folders? 

The 'only one copy of one version may appeare in published folders' means I have already moved close-ups of very big drawings into scraps, but there are others I am ambivilent about. 

I have a clean version of one image and a mature version of it too, does this mean I have to choose to present only one of these in my published gallery? 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9084737/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9084718/ [nsfw]

I desire greater clarity on the subject of close-up shots of a drawing otherwise too big to be shown all at once being displayed in published files as well as those of different maturity ratings.


[note that submissions versions of different ratings do not create a 'sifting through all the repeated images' scenario, because users can decide to omit results from a search based on their submission rating]


----------



## Taralack (Dec 8, 2012)

I was under the impression that anything in the scraps would not show up on the front page or in the search.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 8, 2012)

I also have to enquire about sequential imagery. I have seen some people's galleries which contain different versions of one image that are adapted to lead users through a narrative in successive submissions.

This isn't spam or flooding, which I suspect that the aup is trying to prevent, so do all but one of sequential images need to be diverted to scraps?

Edit: I also see inconsistancy in the 'sexually modified fursuits are allowed as long as there are no signs of them being worn or in use'. 

If someone's wearing a costume with a zip, but the image doesn't expose genitals, I think that should be acceptable, but the quotations aludes to any sign of such a costume even being worn being unacceptable. 'In use' by itself should cover any indecent shots, adding 'worn' is an ambiguous redundancy.


----------



## Kaluna (Dec 8, 2012)

i think some of the changes are great!
and concise is always better

however


"depicting humanoid minors in sexual situations"

humanoid = human appearing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanoid

this is an extremely loose term
our non-human ancestors were humanoid in form
apes are humanoid
raccoons and lemurs hands are humanoid
robots are humanoid

if feral porn is allowed, would chimp porn be allowed even though chimps are humanoid?
the character Unico comes to mind as for cartoons that are humanoid, feral, and minors, would Unico porn be allowed? (UGH, i dont even dare search rule34 for it i know, i know its there....)
it is way too loose a term in my opinion
in its loosest definition, it could even include characters like Simba and baby digimon/pokemon which, if im not mistaken, the AUP permits adult art of these characters

i think another word should be picked, or it should be defined in the AUP so that is has a clear meaning
also the term feral leaves room for interpretation as well, and since its a fandom-created term, with no definitive meaning, it should be clearly defined in the AUP what it means by "feral"


----------



## Zenia (Dec 8, 2012)

I like that people can't upload images of text anymore. That was making me nuts.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 8, 2012)

Zenia said:


> I like that people can't upload images of text anymore. That was making me nuts.



That's not new, actually.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 8, 2012)

Right, it was just never enforced.


----------



## Corto (Dec 8, 2012)

Kaluna said:


> "depicting humanoid *minors* in sexual situations"
> 
> (...)
> 
> in its loosest definition, it could even include characters like Simba and baby digimon/pokemon which, if im not mistaken, the AUP *permits adult art *of these characters



.


----------



## Saellyn (Dec 8, 2012)

Ehh... some of the new stuff is alright, but the parts about screenshots and photography are just encouraging even more shitposting than we already had. Obviously I'm not entirely happy with this.



> Photography
> + Permitted
> * Makeup/special FX (fake wounds, gore)
> * Sexually modified fursuits, sculptures, and toys, but only if there are no signs of them being worn or in use
> ...




Another thing that may cause some small concern:


> Submissions depicting mentally and physically feral characters in sexual situations, regardless of age


Does this include "human x feral" art? There has never been any really clear definition on this, especially whether or not it counts as beastiality.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 8, 2012)

The administrators are being very helpful on the discussion thread on FA for it. 
I asked about some concerns, they were efficient and understanding; they even came up with solutions or said they were planning on implementing them.


----------



## Zenia (Dec 8, 2012)

CerbrusNL said:


> That's not new, actually.


Hm. 'cause I think I've reported them before and nothing was done. It is nice that it is clear now though.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 8, 2012)

Kaluna said:


> i think some of the changes are great!
> and concise is always better
> 
> however
> ...


Oh god not this again.

The cub ban has been in effect for what a year now?  It's not going to change and all the new changes does is close a loophole.


----------



## Kaluna (Dec 8, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh god not this again.
> 
> The cub ban has been in effect for what a year now?  It's not going to change and all the new changes does is close a loophole.



Not what again? I don't think you understand, I think the terms "humanoid" and "feral" are so loose in definition as to include things that I'm fairly sure they wanted to dispermit. Unless these terms are specifically defined for the purpose of the AUP I think there is too much room for interpretation, thus creating a loophole.

Humanoid could mean "resembling a human in appearance" or it could simply mean "having human traits" which includes talking, opposable thumbs, bipedalism, complex emotions, etc... Wikipedia defines humanoid "More generally, the term can refer to anything with uniquely human  characteristics and/or adaptations, such as possessing opposable  appendage (thumbs) or the ability to walk in an upright position." That definition would include raccoons which have opposable thumbs, and all the species of primates which do as well, and also kangaroos, who are bipedal and plantigrade.
Feral has no official definition obviously, at least not in the sense that it's being used. There's the comman usage which is "A feral organism is one that has changed from being domesticated to being wild or untamed." But that's clearly not what is meant here. The wikifur pages on nonmorphic and zoomorphic shed light on the many uses of this terms. In my experience in the fandom, feral means that the character looks nearly identical in shape to the animal its supposed to be (or hybrid, or fantasy creature, whatever) in opposition to the common usage of 'anthro' meaning that the character walks upright and has mostly human limbs, or hybridized limbs, etc. However the terms humanoid and anthropomorphic (not "anthro") could include feral characters if they wear clothes, or speak and behave like humans do.

The issue I have with the AUP (even though the newest revision is a little better and fixes my original issue for the most part) is that they define neither humanoid nor feral, leaving all the room for moderator interpretation and the same issues with loopholes as there was in the previous AUP.

"What we don't permit: (.......) depictions of minors (humanoid or feral who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations"

"All Submissions: Permitted: Submissions depicting mentally and physically feral characters in sexual situations, regardless of age"

So the new additions of "feral who act/behave like humans" and "mentally and physically feral characters" are a lot better than the previous "depicting humanoid minors in sexual situations", I definitely think its an improvement, but I still don't think it's quite clear. What does "mentally feral" even mean? Are they only allowing porn of characters that never talk, don't have human emotions, and are in every way a natural animal? I can't think of any of the top of my head as cub art is not my thing, but I know there are tons of artists who would have to get rid of a considerable portion of their gallery if this is the case. 


links!
https://www.google.com/search?q=fer...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Nonmorphic
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoomorphic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid


----------



## Corto (Dec 9, 2012)

So do you have a suggestion on new wording that is not 3 paragraphs long to include every possible loophole in existence?


----------



## Kaluna (Dec 9, 2012)

Corto said:


> So do you have a suggestion on new wording that is not 3 paragraphs long to include every possible loophole in existence?



Well, I don't know what they intend the meaning to be, but all that really needs to be added is definitions for humanoid and feral that are relevant and specific to the AUP. I'm assuming they want to allow porn of any age characters, as long as they dont have any human qualities whatsoever, which could exclude raccoons, chimps, etc. for the reasons I've mentioned. Honestly, I don't understand what they mean which is the whole problem I'm pointing out. Are they saying art of baby animals having sex is fine as long as those characters do not talk, think, or behave like humans? And if those characters do talk, think, or behave like humans then if you draw it in an "aged-up" way and make no reference to age it's fine? Would they have to "age-up" feral art as well? What about sexual situations with feral, underaged, human-behaving characters like Simba?
Also it was asked up above but what of feral x anthro or feral x human art? The way its worded currently, none of these questions have clear answers. I'm just really confused honestly. On one hand it seems like they are trying to cover the bare minimum and leave room for every exception you could think of. On the other hand it seems like they are banning tons of things that were previously okay.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 9, 2012)

Corto said:


> So do you have a suggestion on new wording that is not 3 paragraphs long to include every possible loophole in existence?


"Anything/Anyone that can be viewed upon as under the age of 18 is not permitted in pornographic situations. This applies to all races and physiques of a character."

Basically, if it looks cub, it is cub.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 9, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> "Anything/Anyone that can be viewed upon as under the age of 18 is not permitted in pornographic situations. This applies to all races and physiques of a character."
> 
> Basically, if it looks cub, it is cub.



'not permitted: human or anthropomorphic minors in sexual scenarios'
Clarification 'the staff consider a b and c to be anthropomorphic, but not x y and z,'

'viewed upon as under the age of 18' is worded too clumsily and 'can' implies an element of subjectivity, which is what I think you're intending to eliminate.


----------



## Corto (Dec 9, 2012)

Yeah, if they go that way they may as well just keep the current rule with a "borderline cases will be left up to the admin's discretion" clause which solves a bunch of problems but is generally a terrible rule to have when your intent is objectivity and easily understandable rules. 

But I do agree with the general spirit of your suggestion. While both users and staff twist their heads about every possible loophole to the ban (one year after it was imposed, you'd think people would just give up and move to kiddiefurryporn.net or whatever), what everyone should remember is that the ban is born out of necessity and legal reasons, not because Dragoneer wanted it. Even if you fool the FA staff because of how the rule was worded, it won't fool FA's advertisers or a particularly bored lawyer/judge. That's what must be kept in mind.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 9, 2012)

Kaluna said:


> Well, I don't know what they intend the meaning to be, but all that really needs to be added is definitions for humanoid and feral that are relevant and specific to the AUP. I'm assuming they want to allow porn of any age characters, as long as they dont have any human qualities whatsoever, which could exclude raccoons, chimps, etc. for the reasons I've mentioned. Honestly, I don't understand what they mean which is the whole problem I'm pointing out. Are they saying art of baby animals having sex is fine as long as those characters do not talk, think, or behave like humans? And if those characters do talk, think, or behave like humans then if you draw it in an "aged-up" way and make no reference to age it's fine? Would they have to "age-up" feral art as well? What about sexual situations with feral, underaged, human-behaving characters like Simba?
> Also it was asked up above but what of feral x anthro or feral x human art? The way its worded currently, none of these questions have clear answers. I'm just really confused honestly. On one hand it seems like they are trying to cover the bare minimum and leave room for every exception you could think of. On the other hand it seems like they are banning tons of things that were previously okay.



Baby animals that are entirely 100% feral with no degree of anthropomorphism added into their character are okay in sexual situations. So basically you can draw two feral lion cubs in a sexual situation. Situations like Simba are what fall out of the above. Simba is not feral. Simba is an anthropomorphic lion. He has human level attributes such as human intelligence, speech, ability to sing, dance...etc. In this kind of situation you can only draw Simba in sexual situations when you are dealing with Adult Simba. Child Simba/Cub Simba is disallowed in porn.

MLP is another great example of this. They are all feral looking to some degree but they are definitely anthropomorphic. As such the main characters such as Rarity, and Rainbow Dash are acceptable in sexual situations. However the Cutie Mark Crusaders and Spike as they are in the series are not. Not unless you go through the trouble of aging them up/making them adults on part with the other main characters. Hopefully this helps answers some of your questions.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 9, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Baby animals that are entirely 100% feral with no degree of anthropomorphism added into their character are okay in sexual situations. So basically you can draw two feral lion cubs in a sexual situation. Situations like Simba are what fall out of the above. Simba is not feral. Simba is an anthropomorphic lion. He has human level attributes such as human intelligence, speech, ability to sing, dance...etc. In this kind of situation you can only draw Simba in sexual situations when you are dealing with Adult Simba. Child Simba/Cub Simba is disallowed in porn.



So in that case this would be against the rules now: Seriously NSFW?

Because last time this picture was brought up, one of the admin answering the TT said that it was perfectly acceptable and there was no evidence either of the characters involved were underage.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 9, 2012)

Smelge said:


> So in that case this would be against the rules now: Seriously NSFW?
> 
> Because last time this picture was brought up, one of the admin answering the TT said that it was perfectly acceptable and there was no evidence either of the characters involved were underage.



There isn't. You don't see his trainer fully so you can't tell if he's aged up or not - only referred to by name. Digimon and Pokemon don't really have determinable ages. They can breed at any time. The exception is baby Pokemon which cannot breed because they're babies.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 9, 2012)

It talks like a baby. Or a mentally retarded thing.


----------



## Rinz (Dec 9, 2012)

Smelge said:


> It talks like a baby. Or a mentally retarded thing.


nobody said porn of the mentally challenged would be banned...


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 9, 2012)

Porn of the mentally challenged should be banned. 
Oh god I can't stop laughing.


----------



## Dasaki (Dec 9, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Baby animals that are entirely 100% feral with no degree of anthropomorphism added into their character are okay in sexual situations. So basically you can draw two feral lion cubs in a sexual situation. Situations like Simba are what fall out of the above. Simba is not feral. Simba is an anthropomorphic lion. He has human level attributes such as human intelligence, speech, ability to sing, dance...etc. In this kind of situation you can only draw Simba in sexual situations when you are dealing with Adult Simba. Child Simba/Cub Simba is disallowed in porn.
> 
> MLP is another great example of this. They are all feral looking to some degree but they are definitely anthropomorphic. As such the main characters such as Rarity, and Rainbow Dash are acceptable in sexual situations. However the Cutie Mark Crusaders and Spike as they are in the series are not. Not unless you go through the trouble of aging them up/making them adults on part with the other main characters. Hopefully this helps answers some of your questions.



I would love if people, ESPECIALLY mods, would do their research before posting things. By this ruling, almost every pony is now underaged, with express proof of this in the case of the main six. 

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...s_explanation_about_main_6_maturity_level.png

So what a mod says is an 'of age' character for porn, the show's creator herself says is only between 12 and 17 and therefore underage.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 9, 2012)

I do not disagree so much with that ruling. I do disagree with the fact that MLP is visually anthropomorphic, however.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 9, 2012)

Dasaki said:


> I would love if people, ESPECIALLY mods, would do their research before posting things. By this ruling, almost every pony is now underaged, with express proof of this in the case of the main six.
> 
> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...s_explanation_about_main_6_maturity_level.png
> 
> So what a mod says is an 'of age' character for porn, the show's creator herself says is only between 12 and 17 and therefore underage.



When I did some digging around I also found this so take it as you will. The age isn't exactly explicitly given as per the main cast. Suggestions and hints have been given scattered about.

"Q: How old are the ponies?A: The ponies' ages were left intentionally undefined. I like to think of them as having maturity levels anywhere between 12 and 18, (but remember that maturity is different than age. You can be a 10-year-old with the maturity of a 15-year-old, and you can be a 35-year-old with the maturity of a 15-year-old.) For story telling purposes, they needed to be able to live independent of parents, but innocent enough for the type of lessons they learn at the end of the episodes. Since horses are full grown around 5-ish, I guess I sort of justified it in my head that they could be childlike young adults. I know this answer is frustrating for some people, but it happens often in cartoons. How old is Bugs Bunny? Mickey Mouse? Sponge Bob? I don't know either."

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6699/pony-ages-in-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 9, 2012)

My pony senses are tingling.


Dasaki said:


> I would love if people, ESPECIALLY mods, would do their research before posting things. By this ruling, almost every pony is now underaged, with express proof of this in the case of the main six.
> 
> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...s_explanation_about_main_6_maturity_level.png
> 
> So what a mod says is an 'of age' character for porn, the show's creator herself says is only between 12 and 17 and therefore underage.


Why is it every last discussion about cub as of late is turning into "well you have to ban mlp also"?


----------



## Dasaki (Dec 9, 2012)

I'm not anti-pony, in fact I love ponies. What I'm against, is the  entire line of bull**** with the AUP, it should be clearly defined, not  left as ambiguous as this while underaged feral stuff. What's so bad a  difference between consenting sex with one of the CMCs and, say, a fully  feral lion raping a newborn feral cub to death that makes the latter  still acceptable under this AUP? Just the fact that one has a more human mind? Then wouldn't all it would take be a disclaimer saying something like it's an alternate universe pony with a fully feral mind to magically make it acceptable?


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 9, 2012)

There's 2 ways to not make it "ambiguous", at least as far as I'm willing to weigh in on the matter of "Final Solutions":
1. Ban anything that can even be subjectively "cub" or "underage", feral or not
2. Allow anything that can even be subjectively "cub" or "underage"

I personally believe the "feral" rule is just a bunch of garbage used to safeguard the autistic and annoy any slightly educated person left on this horrid site.


----------



## Corto (Dec 9, 2012)

Dasaki said:


> What's so bad a  difference between consenting sex with one of the CMCs and, say, a fully  feral lion raping a newborn feral cub to death that makes the latter  still acceptable under this AUP? Just the fact that one has a more human mind?



Well, yes. 



Dasaki said:


> Then wouldn't all it would take be a disclaimer saying something like it's an alternate universe pony with a fully feral mind to magically make it acceptable?




Yes I'm sure that will fool not only the site staff, but the lawyers and advertisers that forced the ban in the first place. That is, if you assume they're all retarded. 



Ok I should paint these in big ass red letters but whatever:

REMEMBER THE CUB BAN IS BECAUSE OF LEGAL AND ECONOMICAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE THE SITE STAFF SUDDENLY GREW GOOD TASTE. 

So whenever people argue about making sure there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the rules, remember that it'll boil down to the two choices Devious Bane just described, and there is literally no way whatsoever that the administration will go for option two because otherwise they wouldn't have banned cub porn in the first place. 

So whenever cub porn advocates argue that "hey they allowed pokemon, so why won't they allow Simba?" or "they allow feral porn rape so why not the obviously underage and anthropomorphized characters from X cartoon?" they should remember that a) Chances of they getting the site to restrict the ban are extremely unlikely, if not unexistent, and b) if they keep forcing the issue, the site will be forced to go for one of the "no ambiguity rules", and they won't go for the one you people would like.


----------



## Dasaki (Dec 9, 2012)

Corto said:


> Yes I'm sure that will fool not only the site staff, but the lawyers and advertisers that forced the ban in the first place. That is, if you assume they're all retarded.



With the level of intelligence these days, I seriously wonder.



Corto said:


> REMEMBER THE CUB BAN IS BECAUSE OF LEGAL AND ECONOMICAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE THE SITE STAFF SUDDENLY GREW GOOD TASTE.



Then shouldn't this entire thing have been set FROM THE F***ING START, not left for however long it's been to get stuffed into yet another AUP?


----------



## Corto (Dec 9, 2012)

What? The cub ban?
You do realize it's been around for, what, a year or something like that? It just keeps getting modified into more easily understood verions because that's how improving/changing the rules work. 

Or do you mean it should have been completely ironed out back when it was first implemented? Because if so, you're giving the staff too much credit (hey nothing against them, the very fact we're having this discussion proves how hard it is to write such a rule) and implying you're supporting the "ban anything that can be even subjectively considered cub porn" clause Devious mentioned (because of what I just posted), in which case I'm totally on board with you.


----------



## Dasaki (Dec 9, 2012)

As someone that likes both ponies, and cub porn.. Yes, I support a flat out ban on anything that can even be subjectively considered cub porn. My entire issue here is the fact that, as per my example, you could get away with posting the most absolutely disturbed things you want involving fully feral cubs, while (subjectively) more tasteful and tamer pictures are flat out banned just because of something having a mind.

And what about Land Before Time? If I remember right, didn't some of the younger characters have more feral minds in that? Would that make them allowed or banned? It's all subjective (So much usage of that word today)


----------



## Corto (Dec 9, 2012)

Hey, barking at the wrong tree, mate. I already said I'm in favour of a flat out ban, and my particular job thankfully allows me to ignore this particular problem unless it becomes a problem here in the forums.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 9, 2012)

Corto said:


> What? The cub ban?
> You do realize it's been around for, what, a year or something like that?


I like to think the users have a memory span of a goldfish when it comes to how long the cub ban has been in place.
"Swim swimming swim. OH MY GOD! I'm in a fish tank!  Swim Swimmy swimming time. OH MY GOD! I'm in a fish tank! Swimming all the day long.  OH MY GOD! I'm in a fish tank!"
It would explain why we can't seem to go two weeks without a thread or a discussion on the topic of cub porn.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 10, 2012)

I never really cared about the cub ban, simply because I don't fancy porn. And let's face it, the ban's not going away, at least as long as the law has anything to say. Isn't that what cost FA its PayPal account?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 10, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> I never really cared about the cub ban, simply because I don't fancy porn. And let's face it, the ban's not going away, at least as long as the law has anything to say. Isn't that what cost FA its PayPal account?


Pretty much.
People seem to think that FA can operate without money for some reason.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Pretty much.
> People seem to think that FA can operate without money for some reason.


Correction:
People seem to thing FA is a profitable site for some reason.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 10, 2012)

Putting the terms "think" and "FA" in the same sentence is an unforgivable sin.

Additionally FA does generate revenue, but it's nothing great. It's enough to fund some poorly maintained hardware and a few a Big Macs.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> Putting the terms "think" and "FA" in the same sentence is an unforgivable sin.
> 
> Additionally FA does generate revenue, but it's nothing great. It's enough to fund some poorly maintained hardware and a few a Big Macs.



FA's not profitable. Not even a few Big Macs.


----------



## Corto (Dec 10, 2012)

*FUN TRIVIA*: Furaffinity was born as a money laundering scheme because who on their right mind would ever want to investigate this place?
It just backfired horribly, and now Neer owes a lot of blood money to a lot of bad people.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 10, 2012)

Corto said:


> *FUN TRIVIA*: Furaffinity was born as a money laundering scheme because who on their right mind would ever want to investigate this place?
> It just backfired horribly, and now Neer owes a lot of blood money to a lot of bad people.



Perhaps you mean "invest in this place"? That would make more sense...I would like proof that you believe FA was a money laundering scheme, though. According to Wikifur, FA was started in 2005 as an alternative to SheezyArt.

...I sort of think you may be joking though lol...unfortunately sarcasm is hard to transmit over the internet.


----------



## Corto (Dec 10, 2012)

*FUN TRIVIA: *Being a staff member let's you learn some pretty messed up insider info about this site, but if I disclose any more information I'll wake up dead.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 10, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> SheezyArt



*HAHAHA

*I'm honestly not surprised given the similarities between the 2 sites however.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Dec 11, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> And let's face it, the ban's not going away, at least as long as the law has anything to say. Isn't that what cost FA its PayPal account?


FA lost its AlertPay account and so did SoFurry and Inkbunny but they didn't banned cub porn because of it. Now tell me why SoFurry and Inkbunny can still allow cub porn if FA banned it for legal reasons.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 11, 2012)

Mewtwolover said:


> FA lost its AlertPay account and so did SoFurry and Inkbunny but they didn't banned cub porn because of it. Now tell me why SoFurry and Inkbunny can still allow cub porn if FA banned it for legal reasons.



I think their servers are in a different region. The servers in Virginia are required to conform to the laws of that state. I also think that IB has their own publication production thing on the side to to help pay for their servers, something FA doesn't have. 



hg3300 said:


> Perhaps you mean "invest in this place"? That would make more sense...I would like proof that you believe FA was a money laundering scheme, though. According to Wikifur, FA was started in 2005 as an alternative to SheezyArt.
> 
> ...I sort of think you may be joking though lol...unfortunately sarcasm is hard to transmit over the internet.



He is joking.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 11, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> He is joking.


Would explain a few things, though.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 11, 2012)

Mewtwolover said:


> Now tell me why SoFurry and Inkbunny can still allow cub porn if FA banned it for legal reasons.



Because they like to touch themselves while imagining naked children.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 11, 2012)

Mewtwolover said:


> Now tell me why SoFurry and Inkbunny can still allow cub porn if FA banned it for legal reasons.


They just don't care about prosecution because they think the FBI only looks out for pics of actual human children and not cartoon animals (what might be accurate).


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 11, 2012)

Mewtwolover said:


> Now tell me why SoFurry and Inkbunny can still allow cub porn if FA banned it for legal reasons.


SoFurry only cost 400-600 to run their servers (about a third of FA's cost apparently) and all donations are given to the site owner and they rely on ads...which again to the site owner.

InkBunny I have no clue...I do find it interesting that they do push if not promote "hey donate to the mods/admins"


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 11, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> InkBunny I have no clue...I do find it interesting that they do push if not promote "hey donate to the mods/admins"



http://www.flayrah.com/2952/inkbunny-art-community-launches-offers-prints-downloads



> Inkbunny hopes to fund itself through sales fees â€“ 20% of profits â€“ and AlertPay referrals. Print base prices range from US$2.10 for 5.5"x8.5" to $18.00 for 24"x36" (plus $6+ shipping). The payout minimum is $10.



Or that's what's said. There's also rumor that it's run by softpaw magazine.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 11, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> http://www.flayrah.com/2952/inkbunny-art-community-launches-offers-prints-downloads
> 
> 
> 
> Or that's what's said. There's also rumor that it's run by softpaw magazine.


no the truth was that the people who worked on Softpaw made the website...apparently currently ONE who did work for Soft Paw is serving jail time...


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 11, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> no the truth was that the people who worked on Softpaw made the website...apparently currently ONE who did work for Soft Paw is serving jail time...



Let me guess...It rhymes with "Hid Corn".


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 11, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Let me guess...It rhymes with "Hid Corn".


yes it does rhyme with Mild Scorn

funny thing is they live in Canada...you know that one place that will gladly arrest your ass for having Lolicon


----------



## Corto (Dec 11, 2012)

So Smelge's suggestion on why they allow child cub porn turned out to be right I guess.


----------



## Devious Bane (Dec 11, 2012)

Smelge is usually right when it comes to things like this.


----------



## GreenReaper (Dec 12, 2012)

Inkbunny costs less than SoFurry per month, and we have a number of donors.

We intended to fund the site from transactions, and were actually doing so just before AlertPay pulled the rug. A sales system is still being tinkered with, but it's no longer intended to fund the site.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 12, 2012)

GreenReaper said:


> Inkbunny costs less than SoFurry per month, and we have a number of donors.
> 
> We intended to fund the site from transactions, and were actually doing so just before AlertPay pulled the rug. A sales system is still being tinkered with, but it's no longer intended to fund the site.



...I forgot about that damn curse we have on here.
"Speak of any site they work on, and for some weird reason they will appear"
then again you guys dont have that info out in the open like SF does so I'll take your word for it (apparently cost less than 550)


Which also makes a sad point...
"Two sites that advance quicker than FA...cost less than FA"


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 12, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> ...I forgot about that damn curse we have on here.
> "Speak of any site they work on, and for some weird reason they will appear"
> then again you guys dont have that info out in the open like SF does so I'll take your word for it (apparently cost less than 550)
> 
> ...



There was point there? Obviously a site that starts up fresh with smaller group of members is going to cost less and be able to advance more quickly. When you have an already existing large community which has a lot of data on your site, and your original coding isn't really great...it's a lot harder to advance quickly. It's the way things are. It's a bit like taking an existing community of older homes and trying to move it to a new location and renovate at the same time while people still live there and have their possessions there. Obviously it will be a lot more tedious versus taking an open plot of land, and then building a housing complex and then inviting people to come in. You gain little by comparing the two.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 12, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> There was point there? Obviously a site that starts up fresh with smaller group of members is going to cost less and be able to advance more quickly. When you have an already existing large community which has a lot of data on your site, and your original coding isn't really great...it's a lot harder to advance quickly. It's the way things are. It's a bit like taking an existing community of older homes and trying to move it to a new location and renovate at the same time while people still live there and have their possessions there. Obviously it will be a lot more tedious versus taking an open plot of land, and then building a housing complex and then inviting people to come in. You gain little by comparing the two.


Then I shall use Sofurry being YIffstar years before, which they did a whole coding OVERHAUL for when they changed from yiffstar to SoFurry...to which they did another one when they went from SoFurry 1.0 to 2.0. You know Similar to that one thing FA was doing with Ferrox before it kept on dying (and still dying over and over and over again it seems...it should stop playing Dark SoulsTDE)

The Truth is what you said is true, its hard to do that, and SoFurry when it was yiffstar had a small community thus could go offline for a while to bring up the new code to then change over to SoFurry. FA cant do that, FA going down for a week cause folks to flip their collective shits, and I know what happen when we went down for long period of time (was it 1 or 2 months FA was down completely?) Though I have to assume that FA IS doing such a thing behind Vault doors as they do know that they cant just forever constantly rely on this old code that is always said to be very unreliable by even their own admins.

Anyway this doesnt involve how the AUP got updated, to which I do wish to ask

-Towards Livestreaming, can it make it that the person do have to (if not request them to) delete the submission after they are done, Its not much of a problem to those that happily nuke but it does get annoying if you leave FA for a week and come back to have a week worth of "I'm Livestreaming" from a single artist being somewhat in the range of 7-10 of those submissions. I often wonder why they leave em up but it could be to comply with FA rules of only being able to submit a submission of "Im livestreaming" twice a day..just the majority of folks delete them to show that they arent streaming.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Dec 12, 2012)

Maybe, just maybe, the leaderships of IB, Weasyl, FurFapHub, etc. are just better at handling money.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 12, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Maybe, just maybe, the leaderships of IB, Weasyl, FurFapHub, etc. are just better at handling money.


or have smaller communities thus they have more room to do things...unlike FA which doing anything pisses off the user base and not doing anything pisses us uff


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 12, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> or have smaller communities thus they have more room to do things...unlike FA which doing anything pisses off the user base and not doing anything pisses us uff



Like dropping a crumb on the FA's lobby carpet sets the users into "lynch mode".


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 12, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Like dropping a crumb on the FA's lobby carpet sets the users into "lynch mode".


ripping a fart gets you executed on sight


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 12, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> or have smaller communities thus they have more room to do things...unlike FA which doing anything pisses off the user base and not doing anything pisses us uff


Which is why I think FA should not care about whether or not updating the site upsets the userbase and think more about trying to make the site better.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Which is why I think FA should not care about whether or not updating the site upsets the userbase and think more about trying to make the site better.


one thing some folks keep on saying

"if it benefit us in the end, DO IT" if the site has to go offline for a while to make it better...gawd damn it do it, furries can live without this site for a while, and no you wont lose everyone to those other sites


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 12, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> one thing some folks keep on saying
> 
> "if it benefit us in the end, DO IT" if the site has to go offline for a while to make it better...gawd damn it do it, furries can live without this site for a while, and no you wont lose everyone to those other sites


Whereas 95% of the userbase is screaming, "How dare you make me unable to use the site for 5 minutes to update it?  I may not pay for the site, but it's not worth the money.  We're all going to inkbunny or sofurry if you keep this up".

Personally I would find it annoying if the website went offline for a month to upgrade, BUT I would find it understandable and continue to use it.

As for what I think about all the people who threaten to leave the site if anything is changed, I say FA should not worry about it because FA is constantly having people ragequit the site and more new people coming in.  If FA were to upgrade the site to something you would see in 2012 and not 2008 the number of new users would offset the number of people leaving.  FA should not worry in the least whenever a massive number of people threaten to ragequit cause they'll either come back or new users will offset them.

As for if any popufurs ragequit the site with new changes keep in mind that most people in the fandom are only members of the fandom for a couple of years and very very very few furries are "fur4life".  Meaning regardless of whatever changes are made to the site and that you shouldn't worry about whenever someone does leave, because someone new will replace him.


Tl:dr; FA userbase is a revolving door, so no one should be upset when someone does leave, cause someone else will replace them.


----------



## kayfox (Dec 12, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> The Truth is what you said is true, its hard to do that, and SoFurry when it was yiffstar had a small community thus could go offline for a while to bring up the new code to then change over to SoFurry. FA cant do that, FA going down for a week cause folks to flip their collective shits, and I know what happen when we went down for long period of time (was it 1 or 2 months FA was down completely?) Though I have to assume that FA IS doing such a thing behind Vault doors as they do know that they cant just forever constantly rely on this old code that is always said to be very unreliable by even their own admins.



They don't have to take the site down for long to do updates, they just haven't set themselves up to do any real testing except to deploy the changes and see what happens.  This should be changing, but I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 13, 2012)

kayfox said:


> They don't have to take the site down for long to do updates, they just haven't set themselves up to do any real testing except to deploy the changes and see what happens.  This should be changing, but I will believe it when I see it.


True but when YiffStar went to SoFurry they had to, but when they werent from SoFurry 1.0 to 2.0 they did it while keeping the 1.0 still active. FA by even by some admins and mods require a overhaul on the code work. Its getting old, its breaking more and more often with every new thing it seems. 
"the outside could look as pretty as you want it to be...it doesnt mean shit if the inside is old and broken down"

but again this isnt about the AUP so shall we drop this subject if not create a new thread on it...I'm too lazy to do it


----------

