# human art



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

is human art allowed here? i've seen more and more human only art(not human/fur art) here. After the anthro artists were kicked off y!gallery so it could be exclusively human art why would people start to post it here. I thought this was a place for exclusively anthro related art hence the name FURaffinity. I'm not trying to start a fight or get flamed but if the have a exclusive page for human art why shouldn't we?


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

While our website has a furry theme we are not discriminating between Furry and Human artwork.

Everything is art, and people deserve to have a place where they can post everything without fear or repercussions.


----------



## Wookiee (May 29, 2006)

Pinkuh said:
			
		

> While our website has a furry theme we are not discriminating between Furry and Human artwork.
> 
> Everything is art, and people deserve to have a place where they can post everything without fear or repercussions.



Then I think you should change the name to 'ART-Affinity'. 

We already have other art sited like Y-Gallery and Deviant for people who want to draw non-furry art.  If this is just another "art" board where I have to scroll through pages of non-furry art to find the FUR in FurAffinity, then what's teh point.

FurNation was going to set up a furry art site when FA went down months ago but we decided to not implamant it when we found out FA would ba back on-line.  If FA is truely just another art site catering to everyone's artistic talents then maybe we should be looking at FurNation once again to set up a furry only site.  Then furry artists will have a choice.


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

Wookiee said:
			
		

> Then I think you should change the name to 'ART-Affinity'.
> 
> We already have other art sited like Y-Gallery and Deviant for people who want to draw non-furry art.  If this is just another "art" board where I have to scroll through pages of non-furry art to find the FUR in FurAffinity, then what's teh point.
> 
> FurNation was going to set up a furry art site when FA went down months ago but we decided to not implamant it when we found out FA would ba back on-line.  If FA is truely just another art site catering to everyone's artistic talents then maybe we should be looking at FurNation once again to set up a furry only site.  Then furry artists will have a choice.



Do what you see "Fit" We are here to provide an outlet for furry's specifically to make sure they have a place where they can go where they will not be discriminated against as far as their art is concerned. By the same token we are also not going to be stooping to the lows other communities have stooped to by limiting the creativity of those included on this website.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (May 29, 2006)

FurAffinity is primarilly a furry site, however by allowing artists to post their other endavors we don't force them to have multiple accounts elsewhere. So for instance, when Dan who draws a very sexy black cat woman wants to show off some of his still lifes, he can without being punished for sharing.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:    human art*



			
				Pinkuh said:
			
		

> Do what you see "Fit" We are here to provide an outlet for furry's specifically to make sure they have a place where they can go where they will not be discriminated against as far as their art is concerned. By the same token we are also not going to be stooping to the lows other communities have stooped to by limiting the creativity of those included on this website.



i don't see it as "stooping"  or "discriminating" just providing a specialized service to a certain group of patrons. I don't hold any ill will towards Y!gallery for there decision to stop allowing furry art. their purpose is to provide a place for those that enjoy creating human art. Allowing only furry art is no different from a business carrying a specialized product, like a steak house and a vegetarian restaurant. While each sells two distinctly different products nobody stages protests saying that the vegetarian restaraunt should serve meat because refusing to serve it discriminates against meat eaters.


----------



## db1cub (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> FurAffinity is primarilly a furry site, however by allowing artists to post their other endavors we don't force them to have multiple accounts elsewhere. So for instance, when Dan who draws a very sexy black cat woman wants to show off some of his still lifes, he can without being punished for sharing.



Absolutely! I mostly draw people, but also do anthropomorphs like werewolves, apes with human characteristics, and might throw in something completely different. Some have posted personal pictures like -- their cars, themselves, and their pets. FurAffinity gives us a place where it's more a home and I think that's awesome. There's a huge amount of furry art here (since it is primarily for that type of art) and a variety of other things that gives us all a choice of what to view. 
And for me, there's all kinds of art here that I enjoy. There's furries, anthros, human, and a mix of all at times that is just so hot to look at!

db


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

> i don't see it as "stooping" or "discriminating" just providing a specialized service to a certain group of patrons. I don't hold any ill will towards Y!gallery for there decision to stop allowing furry art. their purpose is to provide a place for those that enjoy creating human art. Allowing only furry art is no different from a business carrying a specialized product, like a steak house and a vegetarian restaurant. While each sells two distinctly different products nobody stages protests saying that the vegetarian restaraunt should serve meat because refusing to serve it discriminates against meat eaters.



I see your point. But we aren’t going to be stopping a service we have had from the get go. ^_^

The Admin has spoken


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

If FA were to ban posting anything but anthro art, they would be no better than the other sites who have restricted or outright banned anthro artists.  Just because a lot of the people here are furs or anthro artists doesn't mean that's ALL we draw, and we've been kicked off of or stepped on enough places like that already.  

It's Fur-AFFINITY; the people here have an affinity for furry art.  I see nothing exclusive in that title, only something that says "furs are welcome, everyone else be warned and don't bitch about it".  And I know that I for one will never again go to - visit or post my art on - an art site that restricts anything but legal issues.  After I've been part of what it can do to communities, I probably wouldn't support any artist who took part in it either, to be honest.


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

Tensik said:
			
		

> If FA were to ban posting anything but anthro art, they would be no better than the other sites who have restricted or outright banned anthro artists.  Just because a lot of the people here are furs or anthro artists doesn't mean that's ALL we draw, and we've been kicked off of or stepped on enough places like that already.
> 
> It's Fur-AFFINITY; the people here have an affinity for furry art.  I see nothing exclusive in that title, only something that says "furs are welcome, everyone else be warned and don't bitch about it".  And I know that I for one will never again go to - visit or post my art on - an art site that restricts anything but legal issues.  After I've been part of what it can do to communities, I probably wouldn't support any artist who took part in it either, to be honest.



<3


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 29, 2006)

I agree with what the administrators have said so far.

Furaffinity is primarily a furry art site and it should be considered a great thing that they're allowing other types of art to be allowed as well. (eg. human art, music).

When the filtering and browse systems get re-vamped and working at full functionality, the issues you've stated "I have to scroll through pages of non-furry art to find the FUR in FurAffinity", will be practically dissolved (aside from the occasional blunder or mislabel.)

In addition, for furaffinity to change it's creed now would be just as upsetting to some as the Y! gallery change was.  Furaffinity, to my knowledge, has been an all types art gallery for a very very long time, well before this itinerary.

To use the example of restaraunts, if one restaraunt that served both vegetarian and meat dishes and became popular while doing both, suddenly taking meat off the menu would definitely cause some form or protest from it's once loyal consumer base.

As a business, what FA has now is working just fine.  There is human art, sure, but in general the fur art far outnumbers it and with the addition of browsing filters it will be easy to avoid the type of art you don't want to see and spend more time looking at what you do.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> FurAffinity is primarilly a furry site, however by allowing artists to post their other endavors we don't force them to have multiple accounts elsewhere. So for instance, when Dan who draws a very sexy black cat woman wants to show off some of his still lifes, he can without being punished for sharing.



while that makes sense it's like saying someone poses for nude magazines and illustrate childrens books and then puts them all in one portfolio when applying for a position with pbs. Each is acceptable but only when in context. It's not limiting to ask an artist to draw a circle and refuse the submission when they turn in a square. A artist knows what the public wants and works accordingly. someone wouldn't paint for the blind or compose for the deaf so why would they post art where it would be rejected by the majority of the population? wouldn't they want to post where that paticular type of art is sought after?


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

But here, a person is only told that while a circle is generally what people come here to see, if you want to draw a square you are more than welcome to.  What's wrong with that?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 29, 2006)

Tensik said:
			
		

> But here, a person is only told that while a circle is generally what people come here to see, if you want to draw a square you are more than welcome to.  What's wrong with that?



And just because the majority of the people won't appreciate that square, doesn't mean that it should be a mandate that it's not allowed.


----------



## db1cub (May 29, 2006)

*puts on Jaws theme music*


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

*RE:   human art*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to mention you'd get into the whole "what qualifies as a furry" argument, and DO NOT get the old y! crowd started on that whatever you do!!!!!  :lol:


----------



## Myr (May 29, 2006)

Banning one form of artwork is a slippery slope. Why? Because let's say we ban human artwork because this is a furry site. Ok, then why do we allow photography? That's gotta be banned too. Wait, what about music? That's not furry. It's gotta go as well. Furry? That's not the same as scalie! We've got to ban scalie artwork too.....and so on. That line of thinking makes dragons like me very upset. *nuzzles scales and purrs quietly*

I just think it's a dangerous line of thought.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

both sides make valid points and like a stated in my first post I wasn't looking to start a fight, just a discussion. I was just reading through the FAQ and was a little confused by 2.3,i took this as meaning stuff like music,poetry and literature not just drawn art. but that's why this board is here though right? to pose a question and recieve feedback from the community and admin.


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> both sides make valid points and like a stated in my first post I wasn't looking to start a fight, just a discussion. I was just reading through the FAQ and was a little confused by 2.3,i took this as meaning stuff like music,poetry and literature not just drawn art. but that's why this board is here though right? to pose a question and recieve feedback from the community and admin.



Indeed ^_^


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

Though I will say this raises a pertinant question, when will full filtering capabilities be back?  They are still currently disabled, right?  Because then I would think people could filter out anything that is properly marked and not furry . . . .


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				Tensik said:
			
		

> But here, a person is only told that while a circle is generally what people come here to see, if you want to draw a square you are more than welcome to.  What's wrong with that?



nothing, but the way the FAQ is worded doesn't specifiy whether this is a place for circles or squares instead it just kinda stays blurry and gray. I never said one has to be banned, I just wanted to know whether this was a circle specific place like other sites on the net or if it's a shapeshifting blob where anything goes. 

What were we talking about again?:???: screw metaphors and analogies.
If you read the very first sentence in my first post i was simply asking if human art was allowed under the rules. It's already been answered so enough said on my part.


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

Well, I think people also read the REST of everything else you said, so it clearly was not the entirety of what you were getting at.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				db1cub said:
			
		

> *puts on Jaws theme music*



what is that supposed to mean? should i look out?


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				Tensik said:
			
		

> Well, I think people also read the REST of everything else you said, so it clearly was not the entirety of what you were getting at.



I don't think human art should be allowed here. that's not my decision to make though. My posts reflect how I feel. Just as you said anybody should be allowed to draw and post what they want, then so should I be allowed to talk how I feel. Regardless of how my post were biased I still asked a simple question.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 29, 2006)

No one is saying that you can't ask your question or state your feelings.

However you did ask this question as well...



> I thought this was a place for exclusively anthro related art hence the name FURaffinity. I'm not trying to start a fight or get flamed but if the have a exclusive page for human art why shouldn't we?



And so we've been doing our best to try and answer it.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> And so we've been doing our best to try and answer it.



and like I said 


			
				chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> It's already been answered *so enough said on my part*.



I can see that I'm just digging a hole here, I've already got _myself_ caught up in argument I didn't want to start. I know i'm hot tempered so i'll just shut up, sleep and come back tomorrow ready to listen. I do stand by what I said but also understand what everybody else is saying. I guess next time I ask a question I should use a little less opinion and a little more inquisition:|


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> And so we've been doing our best to try and answer it.



and like I said 


			
				chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> It's already been answered *so enough said on my part*.



I can see that I'm just digging a hole here, I've already got _myself_ caught up in argument I didn't want to start. I know i'm hot tempered so i'll just shut up, sleep and come back tomorrow ready to listen. I do stand by what I said but also understand what everybody else is saying. I guess next time I ask a question I should use a little less opinion and a little more inquisition:|


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 29, 2006)

chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not it at all.  Opinion is fine, that's what we're all answering with, but when you pose a question that asks for someone else's opinion, expect to get lots of debates and discussion concerning it.


----------



## chubbyhusky (May 29, 2006)

btw this is why I started this post to begin with. I'm not the only one who was unclear on the subject of human art.
here
and silverwolfe i wanted to drop it because I felt others(not all) and myself were getting too upset with each other. I wanted to stop it from escalating further, let myself calm down, then continue discussing in a adult manner. I do enjoy the site and don't want to piss people off no matter how much of an ass I come across as. I really wasn't looking to start this spirited of a discussion I just let me mouth and temper get a few steps ahead of my brain sometimes.


----------



## Vitae (May 29, 2006)

You know, ya'll are a bunch of hypocrits.
You whine and complain about letting human art here, yet you scream and moan when furry art is taken down from another site.
Hypocritical :/


----------



## Dragoneer (May 29, 2006)

chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> btw this is why I started this post to begin with. I'm not the only one who was unclear on the subject of human art.


Well, it's listed in the FAQ (which needs a revision). We allow all sorts of art, but we're a primarily furry site. I don't want to impose rules like "You can have 1 human per 5 furries" because I think think are just silly.

Compare the sheer amount of furry art next to human. There's next to no fleshie stuff, and we started getting a bit of anime/fanart after Y! destroyed half of its community, but I see no reason not to allow it.

This is FUR affinity, but we're also tolerant.

The way I see it, so many people have been claiming intolerance and anti-fur bias on other sites against Furries tha I should see no reason we should perform that same level of hate back.

Once filters are revamped using them will save the day.


----------



## Wookiee (May 29, 2006)

Wookiee said:
			
		

> Then I think you should change the name to 'ART-Affinity'.



I wrote this at 2AM and clearly was not thinking at the time and apologize for my rant.

I would like to give my opinion about the Y-Gallery issue.  Many people are coming down hard on them for 'discriminiating' against furry art.  Personally (and this is just my opinion) I have no problem with their decision.

Y-Gallery started a chess club for people who enjoy chess only. Suddenly the poker players started coming in and then the PS2 gamers. They assessed the purpose of their club and decided that they wanted to keep it a chess club so they asked the other players to leave. It's a chess club. It's what they wanted when they created it. 

FA started a gaming club. Bring your chess boards, poker tables and PS2 consoles. It is what this club was meant to be.

So I am not really sure why some people are being so hard on Y-Gallery for their decision. They are not discriminating against furry art. They are just enforcing what the gallery was created for in the first place.  Who are we to tell them 'Chess is a game therefore we should be allowed to bring Poker to your club'.

I'm done.


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

There is a few major differences, Wookiee.  In your scenario, the poker and PS2 gamers moved in on the chess club uninvited, where the furs were invited and welcomed.  And then not asked to leave, they were kicked out.  Also, y!gallery had an INCREDIBLE filtering system.  One click, and you never had to see anthro art again, as long as it was properly labled.  It's like your chess club again . . . if they said to the PS2 players "hey, we play games, come play here, just play on the second floor and don't be surprised if some of us come up and visit!"  And the last one is what it did to the community . . . we made friends there, lots of them, because their communication system was really a lot more user friendly than any other art gallery I've seen.  And lots of those friends originally had NOTHING to do with the fur community at all, we became friends from proximity and through art or writing.  To log in one day and be told that you're no longer welcome in that art community was a shock to not just us, but all those friends we made.

And Wook, if you weren't there, then you don't know their real reasons behind it.  It had nothing to do with maintaining the integrity of what their gallery was all about because that was completely maintainable from the user end.  It was because of the mods own admission that they hated furs, so they pressured the site owner (who had made the original invitation).  All you had to do was read their livejournals where they plainly said it, or watch the admins laughing hysterically in chat as they banned furs left and right who finished up a piece of art and posted it without looking for buried announcements.

That's why people are coming down on them.  Because they did exactly what some people think should be done here and with the same venom.


----------



## Hauke (May 29, 2006)

When I see "Should this type of artwork be banned?" I stop and think of this:

Is the gallery here for the sake of the artwork, or for the sake of the people who made it?  

If the art comes first, then hurting people's feelings by banning certain sorts of expressions is going to be a fact of life that you'll just have to accept.

If the people--the artists, the viewers, the community as a whole--come first, then be careful about asking for things to be banned.

Maybe the Fur in FurAffinity is about us..the furry fandom, and not about the artwork.

Woohoo, three cups of coffee and I'm frickin' pretentious as all get out.


----------



## Ethan (May 29, 2006)

*OH NO EWWWWMANS >: (*

I think the artists complaining about this are just mad because _they_ can't draw a human to save their lives. WOW HOW ABOUT THAT?


----------



## Marthaen (May 29, 2006)

While human art is allowed here it shows that we do allow freedom of expression of artistic works. We want to be able to serve a good portion of the populace and yet we do want to be able to serve the fur community first and formost of course. I think that in allowing human artwork it shows that we have tolerance for other artists and it widens the scope of the artwork here on FA. We don't want to slam the door shut on talented artist and artwork like some galleries do.


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

*RE: OH NO EWWWWMANS >: (*



			
				Ethan said:
			
		

> I think the artists complaining about this are just mad because _they_ can't draw a human to save their lives. WOW HOW ABOUT THAT?



:?  Have you seen them try?


----------



## Ethan (May 29, 2006)

Sure, I've seen some try and it doesn't look too good. Humans are pretty hard to draw, I really can't blame a furry artist for not trying to draw them, but if one is complaining about it they either a. can't draw it as well as some of the people who do, b. have some sort of crazy elitist misanthrope thing going on or c. have a bias preference for furry art.


----------



## Pinkuh (May 29, 2006)

Tensik said:
			
		

> Though I will say this raises a pertinant question, when will full filtering capabilities be back?  They are still currently disabled, right?  Because then I would think people could filter out anything that is properly marked and not furry . . . .



OMG AND BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE!!!!!!!!

Yes, we are working on getting the filtering system up and running again that way folks don't have to surf through 8 million things they don't want to see ^_^


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

*RE:   human art*



			
				Pinkuh said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hahahaha!!!

Well there folks go then, it's still on the horizon and it should all be a moot point, right?


----------



## uncia2000 (May 29, 2006)

Tensik said:
			
		

> It's Fur-AFFINITY; the people here have an affinity for furry art.  I see nothing exclusive in that title, only something that says "furs are welcome, everyone else be warned and don't bitch about it".


Well, from day one I've read that in a similar, if slightly less tetchy manner. 

"An art community for people who have an affinity for things fur(ry). And freedom of expression as far as possible within that".

=
Within that framework...

<clip from resp. in your journal; http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/14693/ > (as has been posted before, in broadbrush terms)


> _IMHO, it /might/ be nice have a section under general etiquette requesting that people do not flood the system with non-fur artworks (e.g. on the "latest 36, please try to keep below a max of, say, 24 non-fur pics / 18 non-graphic submissions / 12 graphic submissions with no animate objects / 10 RL animal photos / 6 RL general photos / etc., and space-out uploads as required would you exceed such maxima") to maintain general goodwill, especially at present when our filtering is rudimentary.
> *
> Does that sound half-way sensible, anyhow?_


===

@ Wookiee: yup, the more reliable communities with positive attitudes there are around, the better. "We" don't really want to have to rely on just one option, and a choice allows people to have a foot (or feet) in as many or as few camps as they desire.
Had discussed some time ago possible progress re. things off the back of furnation.com. Sounded good then; still sounds good, now. 

All comment jm-02kitty-c, anyhow, and thanks for the thread/discussion.

*reads/listens*


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

The only problem with percentage uploads is that you'd be in a position where it would be a lot of monitoring for the mods, and some people work in waves of whatever they are inspired to draw at the time.  Or as another example there is an artist here who a few months ago suddenly decided to take down all his furry art because he was not feeling very good about it, and thus he had up mostly photos.  He's since replaced them, but people's moods and galleries fluctuate all the time.


----------



## uncia2000 (May 29, 2006)

I'm *not* suggesting a percentage upload system... Those are nightmarish, both to maintain and in terms of negative user impact!

I'm simply meaning common-courtesy etiquette guidelines surrounding community members not totally flooding the most recent uploads page(s) with many dozen photographs or user-content screenshots or 3-d models of buildings "right this second", rather than uploading at a more gentle rate (if they should feel the need to have that many uploads of that nature).

The submission admins already monitor every upload and it's better to have a pre-written courtesy/etiquette _guideline_ that most people who value the community could appreciate the common sense in.
A degree of automation might even be possible in this, so long as a user knows that their submission has been "queued" (using the same process as might be developed for queueing submissions that a user voluntarily flags for admin "approval" if they're uncertain on rules re. pics of humans, etc.).

Having said all that, only rarely has such a "flood" situation been /close/ to occurring and that's without a more sophisticated filtering system which would render such inconveniences even less.

Does that make more sense, now? (ymmv, of course ^^)


=
(p.s. Anyhow, uploading more sedately rather than en-bulk is almost invariably better with regards to pulling in comments, etc., from other users in the community).


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 29, 2006)

I just don't do image upload floods in general, it is bad etiquitte to upload more than 5 a day. It is because people need to realize that they're not the only person on someone's watch list when you do massive uploads.


----------



## Tensik (May 29, 2006)

*RE:  human art*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> I'm *not* suggesting a percentage upload system... Those are nightmarish, both to maintain and in terms of negative user impact!
> 
> I'm simply meaning common-courtesy etiquette guidelines surrounding community members not totally flooding the most recent uploads page(s) with many dozen photographs or user-content screenshots or 3-d models of buildings "right this second", rather than uploading at a more gentle rate (if they should feel the need to have that many uploads of that nature).
> 
> ...



Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at there.    Yeah, I could definitely get behind a flood control system.  Or at the very least a shut-off so that if you ARE putting up a lot of art at once (say, a completed comic would probably be a fine example) you could flag it as not showing up in watches, and people then being able to put ONE piece through as a watch and just write in the description to check a gallery or scraps for all the rest in that batch.  *shrugs*


----------



## Tilt (May 30, 2006)

Flood control would be awesome. 

Also, what about a feature in the future for paying members to get priority longevity on the front page when they submit pieces?


----------



## Strawkitty (May 30, 2006)

Tilt said:
			
		

> Flood control would be awesome.


Indeed.


			
				Tilt said:
			
		

> Also, what about a feature in the future for paying members to get priority longevity on the front page when they submit pieces?


Umm... subscriptions and exclusive membership with money in artsites always personally strikes me as a bad idea. I guess it could work but there are so many ways it could go awry. (I think there has been rather lengthy threads about this subject)


----------



## Ashkihyena (May 30, 2006)

Personally, I'm glad that FA allows all sorts of art, and I just hope that the admins here never pull a Y!G, that was, very, very dissapointing, quite much.


----------



## Pinkuh (May 30, 2006)

Ashkihyena said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm glad that FA allows all sorts of art, and I just hope that the admins here never pull a Y!G, that was, very, very dissapointing, quite much.



Belive me we never will...

All this talk about a flood controle valve would be good though...

Kinda like VCL a maximum of 15 uploaded images a day would work furry or non, to just prevent flooding


----------



## Ashkihyena (May 30, 2006)

Pinkuh said:
			
		

> Ashkihyena said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most defently glad to hear it, like I said, that would be a major, major dissapointment if FA ever did pull what Y!G did, which though, luckly, like you mentioned probably will never happen.

And yeah, a flood option would be a good idea.


----------



## uncia2000 (May 30, 2006)

Hrmm... not sure whether we actually need any hard "x uploads per day" quota, either on a general etiquette basis or possible upload "flood control" system. :?
Anyhow, that would rather kill dead any hopes that people *would* upload as large a fraction of their archives onto FA as they wish to share; for others to enjoy/comment to, rather than leaving those solely on a non-comment site or another site the user had chosen to leave.

"Flooding out" multiple consecutive upload "pages" with pictures of one's computer/stereo setup - or _exclusively_ human art, say - was a somewhat different question of "good etiquette", IMHO.


----------



## Tilt (May 30, 2006)

Strawkitty said:
			
		

> Tilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I differ in opinion. If you were to pay for a part of the main page, like a showcase, where paying members pieces,one of each type, were in a rotation, it would allow the site to be in a better operational situation, and by contributing to the site, you would get the premium option.

If someone is paying into the site, like a monthy fee of some sort, they should get a little extra over the other users.

I can see why people wouldn't like this. It would allow people with money to present their ideas with more control over who sees it and for how long.
If you don't have the cash, someone has an advantage over you. Buts thats how society today works for the most part. You have the cash, you get the better seat.
But it would also give the site working cash to keep it online, and thats what is most important anyway.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 30, 2006)

From what I understand, Dragoneer never wants FA to be a site that someone should pay for.


----------



## db1cub (May 30, 2006)

*RE:   human art*



			
				chubbyhusky said:
			
		

> db1cub said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not at all chubbyhusky. (like your nick by the way) I just have a warped sense of humor. 
After reading more posts, I'll strive to post more furries (apes, werewolves, and bears) as well as my men. 

db


----------



## furry (May 30, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> From what I understand, Dragoneer never wants FA to be a site that someone should pay for.



Does that means he doesn't want to pay anymore? :B



			
				Tilt said:
			
		

> If someone is paying into the site, like a monthy fee of some sort, they should get a little extra over the other users.



They already do.


			
				Tilt said:
			
		

> If you don't have the cash, someone has an advantage over you. Buts thats how society today works for the most part.


Can we also have paying users seperated from non-paying ones, like two seperate sites on the same server? If you're not of the same class, you don't frequent each other. That's how society today works from the most part.
And that means that's how it /should/ work.
Right?


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 30, 2006)

*RE:   human art*



			
				furry said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, let me rephrase.  Pay to use.

I think that seperating the site into two different groups would be silly.  I like how things are, we don't need a caste system based on wealth. :3


----------



## Tilt (May 30, 2006)

furry said:
			
		

> > Can we also have paying users seperated from non-paying ones, like two seperate sites on the same server? If you're not of the same class, you don't frequent each other. That's how society today works from the most part.
> > And that means that's how it /should/ work.
> > Right?
> 
> ...


----------



## Vgm22 (May 30, 2006)

Time for me to throw my 2 cents in here. I like the way FA is diverse in letting you up load almost anything that doesn't break the TOS. I've been reading this thread and there have been good discusions about this subject. People draw what they like, not what is demanded. If they want to draw human or furry art, let them be. They one day might try out one or the other, find out that they like it and do both. Now talking about submitting circles and squares, some people like the circle and some like the square, some like both, but one day you might be looking at the site and come acrossed that square that you didn't like, if you loved the circle and vise versa and be like damn thats a nice looking square, now that I've really look at it. I guess what I'm getting at is that we all have hidden likings in us that suface and surpise us, when they do. Also, the filtering idea is a good idea that, would make a lot of people happy. I don't know if I'm rambling or what. You decide, but I just had to say something, so that's my two cents.


----------



## InvaderPichu (May 30, 2006)

Tensik said:
			
		

> Also, y!gallery had an INCREDIBLE filtering system.  One click, and you never had to see anthro art again, as long as it was properly labled.



But those very few mislabled submissions set a lot of people off. And you know, we must subcome to people who aren't mature enough to handle coming across a furry picture or two by accident.:roll:



> It was because of the mods own admission that they hated furs, so they pressured the site owner (who had made the original invitation).  All you had to do was read their livejournals where they plainly said it, or watch the admins laughing hysterically in chat as they banned furs left and right who finished up a piece of art and posted it without looking for buried announcements.



Show me the livejournals, please. o.o You DO know that at least 2 members of the staff are furries themselves, right? And I don't get what you mean by buried announcements. ^^; The whole furry ban thing is right on the front page still.

Honestly, I think the real reason they did the ban was because they were too stupid to understand what an anthropomorphic animal really is, and got tired of getting bitched at because of their own mistakes. Shit, they deleted this, saying it wasn't anthro enough. :lol:


----------



## uncia2000 (May 30, 2006)

Hehe... _*wonders whether anyone bothered to check first where the nipples were on their pet canines?*_ 

=
Yeah, good point; the more comprehensive any categorisation system is, the less tolerant some people appear to be of any "errors". 
And the more touchy some other people are of their work getting moved from one category to another.

Needs a fairly open, relaxed approach without community members (including admins) getting too up-tight, IMO.

But I digress.


=
_(Good to have you over here, btw, I_P)._


----------



## Tensik (May 31, 2006)

*RE:   human art*



			
				InvaderPichu said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By buried I mean that a.) if you entered the site to your own userpage you never saw the announcement - I know that happened to a lot of people, they found out after getting something removed or reading it in journals, not from the admins, as well as things getting removed even before the official announcement was made since they put it in the TOS before they did their post, and b.) if you hit the site without logging in, you couldn't see the announcement.  A lot of folks also used to go to the main page, browse around, and then log in when they needed to do something, so they missed it as well.

There was one furry mod there, spug.  If there were two they sure bitched about there being only one enough . . . as for the LJ's I want to say it was the thems (who were having a field day for a while posting things and then editing them in replies, which might be why I'm thinking of them), but I don't really remember, after all the BS I just walked off and proceeded to forget the whos of it all. 

I honestly think that the mislabled things were actually a pretty minor factor . . . I saw just as much mislabled shota and such, if not more, than anthro.  Most of the things I heard of being removed were exactly like you showed, things that were appropriately labled but people decided to count eyebrows.  mature pic: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/96465/ got removed because it didn't follow their anthro rules enough, and I was also told I couldn't post it under fantasy as a minotaur because he had fur on his shoulders, it just wasn't allowed period.  I think they fully understood what anthro was, but the majority of the staff didn't like it and wanted rid of it by any excuse.  The few bad apples that were there would have been no problem for a proper staff who really had any interest in allowing the artists to stay, you just get rid of the troublemakers.


----------



## Ashkihyena (May 31, 2006)

> I honestly think that the mislabled things were actually a pretty minor factor . . . I saw just as much mislabled shota and such, if not more, than anthro. Most of the things I heard of being removed were exactly like you showed, things that were appropriately labled but people decided to count eyebrows. mature pic: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/96465/ got removed because it didn't follow their anthro rules enough, and I was also told I couldn't post it under fantasy as a minotaur because he had fur on his shoulders, it just wasn't allowed period. I think they fully understood what anthro was, but the majority of the staff didn't like it and wanted rid of it by any excuse. The few bad apples that were there would have been no problem for a proper staff who really had any interest in allowing the artists to stay, you just get rid of the troublemakers.



Yeah, to bad from the looks of it, they didn't want to just get rid of the trouble makers, they also wanted to get rid of the entire fandom along with it.  *Takes a bite out of an apple and spits in the face of the Y!G admins and mods* Not cool.


----------



## ethancormack (Jun 3, 2006)

Y'know, I'm glad that this thread came up. Now I know better what flies and what doesn't as far as submissions go, cause I tend to do a LOT of stuff with both humans and anthros together. Now I feel better about wanting to submit. A little. I still feel unskilled and dorkish, but that's just a character flaw, I suppose.


----------



## SliverLynx (Jun 5, 2006)

I like that this site is cool with everything, and seeing things like Orca's(?) weird little petree dishes adds some spice to the piles and piles of spooge that generally make me a happy kitty, but as I am used to using multiple galleries to show my work, I had never considered uploading human or other art - mostly out of respect to the people who come here likely wanting to see FURRY art.

But upon seeing the responses the admins have posted I might put some mixed couples up. Or at least my weres in their human forms.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jun 5, 2006)

*purrs encouragement to y'both*


----------



## kimahri45k (Jun 5, 2006)

One of the main problems has come from Y! Gallery banning all furry artists from there site. In doing so, I'm sure FurAffinity has seen a huge influx of artists coming on board. A lot of furry artists do mostly draw furs, I do... but a lot do like to do different work too like human art. If Y! hadn't been so seperatist in regard to furries, we'd all still be posting both human and furry art... so Y! has lost a load of great artists because of this suppressive viewpoint.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jun 7, 2006)

I agree completely.

But, if they ban furs on their site, why should we have to suffer for it?

I agree that furaffinity is a FUR based system, but a few small exceptions never hurt anyone.

And, those fools at Y!G made their mistakes and so, i LOL at them.


----------



## SliverLynx (Jun 8, 2006)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> I agree completely.
> 
> But, if they ban furs on their site, why should we have to suffer for it?
> 
> ...



lol - I don't see it as suffering...really I think we lucked out, since MANY great artists who had left FA have now returned to find it working even better than before!

And I just noticed my post above has terrible grammar. Run-on sentances FTL.


----------



## Hanzo (Aug 7, 2008)

race should have no Separation in anything, especially art.


----------



## Hanzo (Aug 7, 2008)

kimahri45k said:


> One of the main problems has come from Y! Gallery banning all furry artists from there site. In doing so, I'm sure FurAffinity has seen a huge influx of artists coming on board. A lot of furry artists do mostly draw furs, I do... but a lot do like to do different work too like human art. If Y! hadn't been so seperatist in regard to furries, we'd all still be posting both human and furry art... so Y! has lost a load of great artists because of this suppressive viewpoint.



Y gallery is owned by a bunch of assholes who can not appritiate any form of art, furries was one of them. I aint a fur and I though it was total bullshit. Talk about hypocritical eh? I dont go there or post art there anymore


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 7, 2008)

It is better to make a new thread than bump a two year old one.


----------

