# Furaffinity/Furocity Joining Forces, Discussion Thread



## Summercat (Jul 16, 2011)

Just to clarify so we don't hopefully have a thread that keeps chasing it's tail...

1) We are having a staff merger, not a full site merger. Furocity admins are joining us on FA.
2) We are not merging databases, so there is no need to worry about user account name collisions.
3) Being banned on Furocity will not autoban you on FA, and vice versa.
4) FA has no plans to ban human, human+antho, or anthro+feral artwork or pornography.
5) Adult and Mature artwork involving 'cubs' in underage situations will remain banned from FA.
6) Furocity is a smaller furry art community that has much of the features people have been asking for on FA. ...and we're getting their coder team.

As for AUP changes, the rest of the admin staff have been working on several AUP revisions for quite some time, to allow for clarification of pre-existing rules and to close some wording loopholes, and has nothing to do with Furaffinity and Furocity merging. I hope to see some of these out by the end of next week, but that's Next Week, Valve Time (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_law )


----------



## SpazzyHyena (Jul 16, 2011)

Just wondering, my friend said our accounts would be deleted because we're under 18. Is that true? We think it's not but we should get proof for her.


----------



## Summercat (Jul 17, 2011)

SpazzyHyena said:


> Just wondering, my friend said our accounts would be deleted because we're under 18. Is that true? We think it's not but we should get proof for her.


 
Um. Er. What? 

If we catch someone under 13 making an account, we ban it. If we catch someone under 18 looking at porn, we lock that out.

That's it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2011)

Summercat said:


> Just to clarify so we don't hopefully have a thread that keeps chasing it's tail...
> 
> 1) We are having a staff merger, not a full site merger. Furocity admins are joining us on FA.
> 2) We are not merging databases, so there is no need to worry about user account name collisions.
> ...


 As long as that new SL rule I helped on finally get posted, I can at least point folks to evidence that "Yes your submission is against the FA AUP on Second Life."


----------



## Kesteh (Jul 17, 2011)

SpazzyHyena said:


> Just wondering, my friend said our accounts  would be deleted because we're under 18. Is that true? We think it's not  but we should get proof for her.



Instead of listening to rumors you should probably glance at the site terms. 
Accounts are never deleted on FA... 
Except Allan's. Technically it's deleted but that's a story in itself.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Jul 17, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> As long as that new SL rule I helped on finally get posted, I can at least point folks to evidence that "Yes your submission is against the FA AUP on Second Life."


 Technically, those are considered screenshots at the moment.
But a explicit "no SL" shots rule'd be nice.


----------



## Summercat (Jul 17, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> As long as that new SL rule I helped on finally get posted, I can at least point folks to evidence that "Yes your submission is against the FA AUP on Second Life."


 


CerbrusNL said:


> Technically, those are considered screenshots at the moment.
> But a explicit "no SL" shots rule'd be nice.


 
This, fairly much.

But that's a discussion on the AUP :3


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 17, 2011)

Regarding 6, is this what we were supposed to expect when it was announced that "team" was going to be "hired" to make the new UI? 

Regarding 1, is this new team of admins going to understand the very terms they are going to be enforcing before they are given any administrative rights?

Regarding the last block of text, will these merged admins be allowed to discuss on matters such as the AUP despite having little to no experience working with FurAffinity's user-base?


----------



## Summercat (Jul 17, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> Regarding 6, is this what we were supposed to expect when it was announced that "team" was going to be "hired" to make the new UI?
> 
> Regarding 1, is this new team of admins going to understand the very terms they are going to be enforcing before they are given any administrative rights?
> 
> Regarding the last block of text, will these merged admins be allowed to discuss on matters such as the AUP despite having little to no experience working with FurAffinity's user-base?


 
Regarding your first point, I guess so. I got maybe a day or two extra notice than most users.

Regarding your second, we'll be putting them through the same training that Browder and Cerbrus are going through right now.

As for your last point, while I'd be very surprised if they didn't have an opinion on the AUP, I'd also be a bit surprised that they'd weigh in as an admin until they've been in the role as such for FA for a bit of time. 

In short, once they get settled in, they'll be as much an admin as myself, Surgat, or Xaerun.

...although probably more sober than Xaerun.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 17, 2011)

Summercat said:


> ...although probably more sober than Xaerun.


 Aww, where's the fun in that?


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 17, 2011)

All the new staff from FCTY should be made to read the current/revised TOS/AUP so there is no confusion about it.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 17, 2011)

I can't wait to see what kinda new things Furocity will bring to FA. I just hope our current team won't be all "hurrr no help please." like usual.


----------



## Browder (Jul 17, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I can't wait to see what kinda new things Furocity will bring to FA. I just hope our current team won't be all "hurrr no help please." like usual.


 
Trust me, we won't. There are a _lot_ of TTs. 

And here's a question that has nothing to do with the site directly. Are FA sponsored events (such as FA:U) now co-sponsored with Furocity? We still calling it FA:U?


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Technically, those are considered screenshots at the moment.
> But a explicit "no SL" shots rule'd be nice.


 I worked to hard to show that Folks that do MODS have every right to post as long as they follow a guideline like builders do to seperate us from "heres me getting fucked by random fur #183"
but thats fine, a no SL shot would also kill builders as they wont be allowed to show their work either.


----------



## Summercat (Jul 17, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> I worked to hard to show that Folks that do MODS have every right to post as long as they follow a guideline like builders do to seperate us from "heres me getting fucked by random fur #183"
> but thats fine, a no SL shot would also kill builders as they wont be allowed to show their work either.


 
If you'll look at the screenshots rule, you'll find that if you are showing off your own content (skins/mods, majority your own work), you'll be fine.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2011)

Summercat said:


> If you'll look at the screenshots rule, you'll find that if you are showing off your own content (skins/mods, majority your own work), you'll be fine.


 problem is I worked with Warmock to give the basics on what is needed to done to make it allowed as in the past I have met folks who would use the current rule to claim it was a mod when it wasnt (adding a store bought dick and adding it to a female avatar doesnt make it a modded avatar when all of it is still stock)


----------



## Summercat (Jul 17, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> problem is I worked with Warmock to give the basics on what is needed to done to make it allowed as in the past I have met folks who would use the current rule to claim it was a mod when it wasnt (adding a store bought dick and adding it to a female avatar doesnt make it a modded avatar when all of it is still stock)


 
Kinda sucks when we have to define lines ever and ever further to square loopholes :|


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2011)

Summercat said:


> Kinda sucks when we have to define lines ever and ever further to square loopholes :|


 tis why we added the rule or a bulletin of showing what the avatar looked store bought or at least name off the avatars.
I even had one person doing the "here's me fucking random fur on SL" claiming there were allowed to due to both avatars were modded.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 17, 2011)

Browder said:


> Are FA sponsored events (such as FA:U) now co-sponsored with Furocity? We still calling it FA:U?


 Pretty sure FA will be paying the bill on those, so most likely it's still going to be called FA:U until the site burns down.


----------



## Hardcover (Jul 22, 2011)

This doesn't mention human/feral stories, which would wipe out a good deal of my TF stories from the site.


----------



## Accountability (Jul 22, 2011)

Any progress being made on this? I mean, the staff page hasn't even been updated to remove people that resigned recently. Has anyone even come over from Furocity yet? Or is this going to end up like the countless other announcements from FA that fail to ever happen?


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 23, 2011)

At this point, we're just going to assume that A)They'll take their good ol' time while TTs and other issues with the site pile up before telling us anything or B)Screw up the whole thing like usual then report back to us that "due to something we didn't do" and we'll be right back where we started last month - Where we are right now.


----------



## Summercat (Jul 24, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> At this point, we're just going to assume that A)They'll take their good ol' time while TTs and other issues with the site pile up before telling us anything or B)Screw up the whole thing like usual then report back to us that "due to something we didn't do" and we'll be right back where we started last month - Where we are right now.



TT backlog is going down, actually :3


----------



## Grandpriest (Jul 24, 2011)

How about we get done what was told would get done a long time ago first, such as the popular "Summer" site update? If the things that are already on the list still can't be completed after prolonged periods of time, why are new things being added?



CerbrusNL said:


> Technically, those are considered screenshots at the moment.
> But a explicit "no SL" shots rule'd be nice.


Why isn't there one?  I hardly think they are counted as photography.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 24, 2011)

Grandpriest said:


> Why isn't there one?  I hardly think they are counted as photography.



'They're working on it'


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 25, 2011)

Grandpriest said:


> How about we get done what was told would get done a long time ago first, such as the popular "Summer" site update? If the things that are already on the list still can't be completed after prolonged periods of time, why are new things being added?
> 
> Why isn't there one?  I hardly think they are counted as photography.


Because of me and Warmock :V
Was tasked last year to prove that those that do mods for their avatars should be allowed to show off their work like builders. But a no SL rule would be nice, would also kill off builders too.


----------



## Summercat (Jul 25, 2011)

We're wo-



Xenke said:


> 'They're working on it'



...damnit, Xenke! >:|


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 25, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> But a no SL rule would be nice, would also kill off builders too.


For better or for worse, I heavily doubt true _builders_ on SL would show off their work on an infamous furry website when the only real focus on the community is that of its porn and smut. However, for people like "furry avatar" builders _makers_, it's a different story, so let's look at it this way:
As far as I can recall, there are about 4 major furry avatar_ brands_ on SL. I've found that at least 2 have an actual account here, on FA, they use to broadcast/host displays of their work. *This meager size makes them expendable because the amount of issues without there being such a rule far outweighs their contributions.*

That is all.


----------



## timoran (Jul 25, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> For better or for worse, I heavily doubt true _builders_ on SL would show off their work on an infamous furry website when the only real focus on the community is that of its porn and smut. However, for people like "furry avatar" builders _makers_, it's a different story, so let's look at it this way:
> As far as I can recall, there are about 4 major furry avatar_ brands_ on SL. I've found that at least 2 have an actual account here, on FA, they use to broadcast/host displays of their work. *This meager size makes them expendable because the amount of issues without there being such a rule far outweighs their contributions.*
> 
> That is all.



What type of issues, exactly, do people who post SL content pose, and who creates those issues?


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 26, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> For better or for worse, I heavily doubt true _builders_ on SL would show off their work on an infamous furry website when the only real focus on the community is that of its porn and smut. However, for people like "furry avatar" builders _makers_, it's a different story, so let's look at it this way:
> As far as I can recall, there are about 4 major furry avatar_ brands_ on SL. I've found that at least 2 have an actual account here, on FA, they use to broadcast/host displays of their work. *This meager size makes them expendable because the amount of issues without there being such a rule far outweighs their contributions.*
> 
> That is all.


 General beats out porn and smut even combining with Mature cant keep up with it. So please toss that out the window on stuff to use as examples.

Note not only Avatar Builders exist on FA but folks who make a few dosh on the side on Modifying avatars who once before was allowed to show off their completed works till the current SL rule made it to ONLY avatar builders was allowed to post their works (the new one isnt in effect quite yet).

Only reason it caused so much problems is the very fact was the flooding of SL Screen shots(10+ different angles wtf?), mainly ones that didnt show off any real work but the usual "Heres me fucking a random furry" or "heres the new prim cawk I bought". The new rule CUT those folks out, the ones folks disliked and had issues with while allowing folks who make items towards furs who are also on SL to post.

Actually if I didnt do anything to prove modders should be allowed to post their work, i'm sure the next version of the rules would be Nothing Second Life should be posted. After all I'm a complete asshole over by SoFurry due to reporting folks who break SF's SL rules.


----------



## Foxenawolf (Jul 26, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> I heavily doubt true _builders_ on SL would show off their work on an infamous furry website when the only real focus on the community is that of its porn and smut.



Do I really have to be the one to point out that scarcely a third of this site is actually porn so i wouldnt call it a focus, more an attempt by a minority to be portrayed as the majority. Truth of the matter is, 2/3s if not more of FA is clean work.

That said this is an ART site, not a PORN or FETISH site, I really wish people would get that through thier thick skulls. Furthermore SL mods are and should continue to be considered art. Screenshots for the sake of mentioning your virtual sex life...... not so much. 

 Posters of SL mods that builders make should continue to be allowed on the site where as cheap screenshot porn should not. I don't really mind SL screenshots so long as I'm seeing something moderately creative. (I saw a fairly cool taur one awhile back) but there should be limits on what can and can't be shown if its an SL screencap, a sweeping ban is unfair. Ruling out explicit material should make it easier to judge them on a case-by-case basis which is really what the mods (I'm assuming anyway) do on a regular basis when they police artwork in general.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxenawolf said:


> A) That said this is an ART site, not a PORN or FETISH site,* I really wish people would get that through thier thick skulls.*
> 
> B) Furthermore *SL mods* are and should continue to be considered art. Screenshots for the sake of mentioning your virtual sex life...... not so much.


A) Chances of the _general public_ acknowledging FA for what is it as opposed to the typical generic will only be as great as the everyone dying before the end of 2012. You expect too much with the reputation FA has earned itself. FA may as well be only 1/3 smut but more than 2/3s majority will not acknowledge that nor will they take the time to listen or waste their time to prove to themselves otherwise. For that reason, 





> I heavily doubt true _builders_ on SL would show off their work on  an infamous furry website when *ALL THEY SEE IN* the community is its porn and smut.



B) It depends on your definition of "_Modding_". If you mean modding as in ripping the skins/textures off an avatar, plaster them with pretty colors and tinting, and then reuploading them to show off your "skillz", we may as well be a host site for sprite recolors - it's practically the same thing(Rip, Recolor, Reupload). Most _true_ mods deviate so far from the original it gives off the appearance that it is of its own piece. I myself have only seen 5 of these, 1 which was commercial.

If you want to address these issues(and more) altogether, I would suggest - instead of making a simple "No SL" rule - to make a whole separate section to address what is/isn't allowed. Otherwise, we can still look at it in _Black and White_ and continue to make no progress at all - Like we always do.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 26, 2011)

Well, since we're talking about site policy:

In the future, will there be written standards for what qualifies as General/Mature/Adult? Right now it pretty much varies person-to-person / mod-to-mod.

It would be nice to see guidelines put into place broken up by submission type: Art, Photography (requires stricter standards), Music, and Story/Poetry.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 26, 2011)

Actually the standards on what is Mature/Adult isn't as bad as the fact that well we have no difference between them in the filters. You are over 18 and have mature enabled, you get the boobies to the WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF factor.

Without an actual reason for this difference it just does encourage a "discretion by moderator" standard moreso than if there was a physical difference in your filters.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 26, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> B) It depends on your definition of "_Modding_". If you mean modding as in ripping the skins/textures off an avatar, plaster them with pretty colors and tinting, and then reuploading them to show off your "skillz", we may as well be a host site for sprite recolors - it's practically the same thing(Rip, Recolor, Reupload). Most _true_ mods deviate so far from the original it gives off the appearance that it is of its own piece. I myself have only seen 5 of these, 1 which was commercial.
> 
> If you want to address these issues(and more) altogether, I would suggest - instead of making a simple "No SL" rule - to make a whole separate section to address what is/isn't allowed. Otherwise, we can still look at it in _Black and White_ and continue to make no progress at all - Like we always do.


....
*facepalms*
I did not...spend fucking months helping warmock without him also voicing what he wishes to add to further address the separations of random screenshot to Moddified works. Last we spoke the rules he told me that could work was these
The minimum requirements
- At least 2 images of the same model, from different angles and in different poses
- A background that is not the original background of the screenshot, nor even related to it
- The model itself may not be shown in it's standard animation pose, but must be shown in a lively and dynamic pose
- The submission image needs to point out what is to be showcased. For example, adding parts of the skin texture to the image.
I then requested the adding of this rule
-The naming of all items used in said modification job

I'm sure the rules then further progressed from there to prevent folks who was flooding FA with Second life Screenshots (the source of why folks disliked SL so much on FA) with random stuff.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 26, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> ....
> *facepalms*
> I did not...spend fucking months helping warmock without him also voicing what he wishes to add to further address the separations of random screenshot to Moddified works. Last we spoke the rules he told me that could work was these*(WHAT IS SAID)*
> The minimum requirements
> *(WHAT IS WRITTEN)*


There are two things called "_What is Said_" and "_What is Written_". "What is Said" means it's nothing more than meaningless garble. If it's taking "_fucking months_" to generate guidelines that others can generate in "_fucking minutes_", then it's no surprise that it hasn't reach a written format so it can actually be enforced.
Aside from that being the case, this is the probably the first time you've hinted the general public on what such regulations would detail once they've reached a written format. Sorry if you're feeling under-appreciated, but not keeping the public update on what plans may detail will lead to such manners. Don't feel too bad though, you two aren't the only ones in that position. 
Now that we've separated _"What is Written"_, we can progress with your(&Warmock's) proposals there


> At least 2 images of the same model, from different angles and in different poses


Should be written as "_At least 2 different angles, but no more than #, must be visible_". 
Why: In the event were someone to post a different pose and angle for multiple images, this would defeat the purpose of flood prevention. Multiple poses should only be required in the event much of the anatomy isn't visible with said poses plus it's # of angles.



> A background that is not the original background of the screenshot, nor even related to it


Should be written as "Backgrounds(original or not) should not include inappropriate material"
Why: The hell should we require people to replace the background of the original piece if said background is nothing but muck and trees to begin with?



> The model itself may not be shown in it's standard animation pose, but must be shown in a lively and dynamic pose


Should not be considered.
Why: Multiple poses should only be required in the event much of the anatomy isn't visible with the displayed pose plus it's # of angles.



> The submission image needs to point out what is to be showcased. For example, adding parts of the skin texture to the image.


No objections



> The naming of all items used in said modification job


Either in the description, title, or the actual image itself. Otherwise, no objections.

I do hope the past "_fucking minutes_" of reading this post have contributed more than those "_fucking months_" you felt the need to complain about. If you don't like the job, quit and let someone better suited take over. Ohwait, you did.


----------

