Age Verification and more social stuff

[Gronthar]

Here is a list of my demands. :D Just kidding. They are suggestions to changes in how FA runs and what it is. If you don't think its a good idea, just say so. No need for the circular reasoning FA shouldn't becaome someting else because it's not something else or The red herring issue of adding bloat to the site. Just saying it isn't need wil do.


I really feel FA should have some sort of adult verification system. The site to me seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. -.-; At least think about allowing users to mark thier content and userpages as "members-only" with members having paid via credit card.

Also, I think it might be wise to add a "Flag for TOS Violation." Maybe even make it so if a submission gets Flagged enough times by enough unique users it will automatically get removed. Ths opens the door for griefing, but protects your arse.

And really look into RSS syndacation. No need to code lots of Journal features into the site if it can use something like magpie rss feeder to have people automatically post thier blogs/livejournals to FA. Plus the ability to get a feed for a user's submissins would be just awesome.

And groups and foulders. ^_^

[blackdragoon]

there are so many problems with that i am speachless...ok so i'm not speachless sue me.

this is a free site first and foremost. credit card payment has already been thrown out the window in general. and as far as that flag thing is concerened i'm pretty sure there would be alot of misuse on the site from trolls and such.

[Silverdragon00]

this is a free site first and foremost. credit card payment has already been thrown out the window in general.


Yeah, I doubt many would go for that. I'm not willing to spend my shiny just to see art.

[Arshes Nei]

What about people who are adult and don't own credit cards.

Also what about liability issues on FA's side for having credit card information? You need to look at both ends of it.

There should be some image verification system, and also the signup does say that the person is saying they're stating their correct age when they submit. So if they lie, the liability is on them. FA should do checks to make sure people are stating correct age information from time to time, and it would be a good idea if users silently reported those who are not of the age of consent.

[nrr]

the signup does say that the person is saying they're stating their correct age when they submit. So if they lie, the liability is on them.
"I certify, under penalty of purjuryperjury in my respective jurisdiction, that I am of legal age to consent to viewing of user-submitted mature materials posted here."

Or something to that effect. Make it clear that the liability is on the user upon signing up.

[uncia2000]

"I certify, under penalty of purjuryperjury in my respective jurisdiction, that I am of legal age to consent to viewing of user-submitted mature materials posted here."

Or something to that effect. Make it clear that the liability is on the user upon signing up.

We're not far off that text at present, but it could be tidied up a bit (e.g. the HPL-themed typo removed :cool:) and tightened to clarify further that the user is liable for their own actions (presuming them to be above the legal age of responsibility, of course) should they violate the age-related ToS.


http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/settings/
NOTE: By turning this on, you agree that you are at least 18 years or older. You must comply by laws which apply to your state, providence or country.
By changing this setting to "Yes" you acknowledge that you are solely responsible for your own actions and decisions.

[uncia2000]

And really look into RSS syndacation. No need to code lots of Journal features into the site if it can use something like magpie rss feeder to have people automatically post thier blogs/livejournals to FA.

Feasible, I'm sure, even if there might be a large amount of formatting that requires to be stripped out.
Not quite sure at present what community members' thoughts are, with regards to journal integration, since that covers a lot of ground. Almost easier to "try it and see"...?
(I suspect a lot of people will be happy to stick with the stand-alone FA system, but having such an option is a possible "plus").

And groups and foulders. ^_^

The old favorites. Understandable... :)

[Infinity]

This is the Internet, nothing can be perfectly secure, for there is a way around anything and everything. I used to work as a moderator on the Microsoft Gaming Zone. Needless to say, usually most troublemakers found a way around every single ban and continued to hack the site on too many counts. That made it really a pain when they bypassed my tools...

[Hanazawa]

Also, I think it might be wise to add a "Flag for TOS Violation." Maybe even make it so if a submission gets Flagged enough times by enough unique users it will automatically get removed. Ths opens the door for griefing, but protects your arse.


Definitely worth considering once the new TOS is done. Flags would not be anonymous, and any users found abusing the system could be dealt with accordingly. Saying it's a bad idea to have a flag button because "someone might abuse it" is the same as saying it's bad to have a gallery site, because "someone might intentionally upload something that violates the TOS".

Even just changing the coding around so that you can open trouble tickets (the current recommended avenue for violation reports) from submission pages would probably be a step in the right direction.

[crabby_the_frog]

Heres an interesting idea...

You could leave an icon, or note, or message on a user's hompage stating if they are in violation of any of the rules. Having something like ***This user has broken the rules 7 times*** just beside their name/avatar will definately be cause for them to either stop, or for other people to mistrust/loose interest in them.

Or, maybe you can do a 3 strike system. They break a rule intentionally, they get a week lockout on their account. 2 times, a month. 3 times, a year? Something like that, just to discourage rule-breakage.

Or something. That's just my opinion.

[uncia2000]

Or, maybe you can do a 3 strike system. They break a rule intentionally, they get a week lockout on their account. 2 times, a month. 3 times, a year? Something like that, just to discourage rule-breakage.


Has anyone ever explained why an escalating series of "penalties" is deemed to "always" be better than a level - or flexible - one? :)

(aside: The suggestion has been made several times that it would be useful to have an admin notepad/logging/messaging system to note comments or actions for a given image/user/etc. Would definitely help to co-ordinate, if not semi-automate, matters somewhat were that available).

[ArrowTibbs]

I agree that punishments should be escalating, but I also think that they should 'fit the crime' so to speak.

Eventually warnings SHOULD be discarded seeing as, for example: a warning six months ago for some small rule breakage, combined with a warning a year ago for another thing, and a third warning recently can potentially equal a ban. That's not fair when they're so spaced out.

I also don't agree with action being taken without thorough research and understanding of the violation at hand. Hastiness only leads to an uneducated decision. Nor do I agree with different punishments for the same wrong; no one should get special treatment, be they popular or unpopular, admin or not an admin. Fairness can be equated with consistancy, and consistancy can only come with actually laying down what's probably wrong, what's probably right, and how gray those areas are.

But I'm getting completely OT, so I'll stop that now.

Credit cards is a bad, bad idea. I'm going to be 21 and I don't have a credit card nor do I want a credit card just to sign up for a site to post my art when I can go elsewhere. Not to mention I'd be nervous using it on the internet period.

[yak]

http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/settings/
NOTE: By turning this on, you agree that you are at least 18 years or older. You must comply by laws which apply to your state, providence or country.
By changing this setting to "Yes" you acknowledge that you are solely responsible for your own actions and decisions.

i can't see the reason why shouldn't that be done right now.

[dave hyena]

This user has broken the rules 7 times*** just beside their name/avatar will definately be cause for them to either stop, or for other people to mistrust/loose interest in them.


I'm sure some people would wear that as a badge of pride and make much fuss and bother over it.

Also, by it's visability, it would naturally tend towards creating a band of like minded trouble makers.

If someone were to have "user has broken the rules 7 times" beside their avatar, other people might feel empowered to treat them shabbily also.

IIRC, in a Greek play, someone complains about how when they're out on the streets of athens the slaves look just like everyone else. So he can't strike them with impunity when they bump into him or the like, In case he hits a citizen.

[Damaratus]

I'm sure some people would wear that as a badge of pride and make much fuss and bother over it.

Also, by it's visability, it would naturally tend towards creating a band of like minded trouble makers.

If someone were to have "user has broken the rules 7 times" beside their avatar, other people might feel empowered to treat them shabbily also.

IIRC, in a Greek play, someone complains about how when they're out on the streets of athens the slaves look just like everyone else. So he can't strike them with impunity when they bump into him or the like, In case he hits a citizen.


Exactly, if you start putting a number next to the name, more often than not there will be someone out there who wants to see just how big a number they can amass, or who wants to have a group who all keeps the same number of violations. No reason to create a "badge of honor".

[Arshes Nei]

Exactly, if you start putting a number next to the name, more often than not there will be someone out there who wants to see just how big a number they can amass, or who wants to have a group who all keeps the same number of violations. No reason to create a "badge of honor".


You don't necessarily have to make everything public you know?

[Damaratus]

You don't necessarily have to make everything public you know?


I was simply responding to the current topic. The flagging system that was suggested was described as if it was something in the public eye, not invisible, thus I didn't apply the idea of an invisible system solely for administrative purposes. I did consider mentioning such a thing, but I felt that it really wouldn't serve a purpose based on the initial concept.

[Arshes Nei]

Understood, because from my understanding one could implement a system that would leave a mark for administrator and user end. Meaning the user can know the submissions were flagged in private, but it wouldn't be on display for public.

I noticed several ideas being passed some of which suggested it public, but as far as I know a note is also private.

[Silverdragon00]

[quote=Dave Hyena]
I'm sure some people would wear that as a badge of pride and make much fuss and bother over it.

Exactly, if you start putting a number next to the name, more often than not there will be someone out there who wants to see just how big a number they can amass, or who wants to have a group who all keeps the same number of violations. No reason to create a "badge of honor".


Yeah, it's seems like that's a fad now everywhere these days.....

[ArrowTibbs]

Understood, because from my understanding one could implement a system that would leave a mark for administrator and user end. Meaning the user can know the submissions were flagged in private, but it wouldn't be on display for public.


Yes, that has been suggested previously a few times. It was one of mine too, iirc. It'd just make things easier in the long run, and with an administrator note system directly on the page one could even note why and what kind of warning was issued, and how long it should last.

[Gronthar]

Well, I understand that this is the Internet and security is not really possible at the moment, but it's my understanding that credit-card verification is the only system that US courts are legally accepting as a solid defense against prosecution. I'd rather prefer like you guys said just the user checking off that they are aware that they are breaking a law by accessing adult material if they are under-age.

I guess a more balanced and easier to read article on adult stuff is this one by webmonkey (pardon the excessive quotation here):

Q: I've recently become the webmistress for an "adult store" and am not up to par on age-verification standards. I understand there are currently no laws on how I inform a user of content and how users attest to their age, but what are the standards?
- Babs

A: Your question is a good, interesting, and timely one. As you probably know, the onerous Communications Decency Act (CDA), which sneaked its way into US law this February, was overturned in June by a Philadelphia federal court that deemed parts of the act unconstitutional. Had the CDA not been overturned, anyone in the United States who posted adult material to the Internet could have faced minimum fines of US$250,000 and two years in prison per occurrence - unless they could prove that only those over 18 could access their materials.

Unfortunately, fans of Internet censorship have not given up. The Department of Justice has appealed the Philadelphia court's decision by bringing it to the Supreme Court. The Court has agreed to hear the case and is expected to make a decision soon. In addition, New York state took matters into its own hands, and in early November passed the New York State Internet Censorship bill, which reads almost exactly like the CDA. Other states are expected to follow suit.

All this means that webmistresses and masters have to be careful about who sees their adult content. Unfortunately, there are no clear standards for age verification. Most adult sites do nothing more than add a gateway page that forces people to click on a link that says something like "I swear on my papa's panties that I'm 18 or over." However, the government may not consider this anti-minor measure to be adequate defense against litigation.

The best way to ensure the adulthood of your visitors is to sign up with an age-verification service. These services require visitors to purchase a password using a credit card, the ownership of which constitutes proof of adulthood. It usually costs visitors between $5 and $10 for a year.

Once a visitor has bought a password, he or she can use it to get into your site, or any other site that uses the service. Some people will already have bought a password from the service, but others will have to sign up. For each person who signs up through you, you get a certain amount of money, usually about half of what the visitor pays for their password. There are several different companies that do this, and many sites are signed up with several different services. Yahoo! has a pretty good list of these systems.

The upside of this method is that you'll be guaranteed your visitors are over 18, and you might even make a little cash. You'll also be acting in compliance with the CDA, which suggested that access systems requiring the use of a verified credit card, debit account, or adult personal-identification number would be in the clear. The downside is that your traffic will be reduced, because not everyone is going to want to shell out the $10 to get a password.

If a verification service is too draconian for you, but a simple gateway page leaves you fearing prosecution, there are a number of halfway measures you can take. For instance, you might register your site with some of the software companies that block and filter Web content for people. These companies sell software that blocks specific Web pages from being presented in a browser. Registering your site is free, and it further reduces the likelihood that minors will see your risqué materials. Again, Yahoo has a good list of these companies.

Another halfway (and half-baked) measure is the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS). PICS was developed by the World Wide Web Consortium to give content providers a way to self-rate the content of their sites. When you take the survey from the Recreational Software Advisory Council, you'll get a special code to stick on your pages. If a browser that supports PICS codes - such as Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 - visits your site, it will check your rating before displaying it. Unfortunately, if you have the PICS filtering turned on in MSIE 3.0, you can't see any sites that haven't put a code on their page, which is just about all of the sites on the Web. This little problem renders PICS almost useless. Since nobody turns their PICS option on, there's not much reason for a webmistress to use it.

As you can see, there's a thin spectrum of steps you can take to keep minors out of your site. Which method you embrace depends mostly on how paranoid you are about litigation. Right now, the Web is still openly smutty. If that changes, we here at Bianca's Smut Shack will most likely pick a random age-verification service, and hope we don't lose too many friends because of the fee. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Thanks for the question, and remember ... Bianca loves you!

I'm less worried about the courts than I am about soccer moms in the midwest find out that their children are looking at "smut" on their Xbox online. I've already had a thirteen year old girl contact me through FA after lying about their age. AS you said, children are very intelligent, she used her Xbox to surf the web so her parents wouldn't know. It got to the point where I called her cell phone via skype to chat before I realized her real age and found out that she probably hasn't even started menstruating yet.

And I've had frends whose family members went to jail for a very long time because of minors doing stupid things. The courts are still very prejudice when it comes to sexual deviants. And furries to anyone outside of the fandom are sexual deviants.

The CDA hasn't been passed so the courts can't come down on you or fine you yet.

But like I said, I'm less worried about he courts and more worried about individuals suing on behalf of their children. MySpace is getting the bejesus sued out of them for not having adequate forms of protection (they just had users say they were of age). It doesn't matter if they win or not... people like us without corporate backers can't afford the legal representation to be sued. One lawsuit could be enough to shut FA down, win or loose.

Please, just use *something* other than just users agreeing that they are legal. I'd prefer some form of credit card verification (it could be 5 bucks for five years, just enough to cover the cost of running the credit card through a merchant account), but like he article said there are less effective means. But still better than nothing. The fact that children can circumvent almost any type of protection is a red herring in the debate. Adult Verification is not for a child's protection, but for your own. Mine too.

[nrr]

drek drek drek drek and more drek

tl;dr

[Hanazawa]

Most parents these days are not going to bat an eyelash if their kid asks for the credit card so they can spend $5 on some website. And then there are people who (as mentioned before) are adults but don't have credit cards.

I agree that some kind of age-verification is good, don't get me wrong; I just think some non-credit-card alternative needs to be explored.

[Arshes Nei]

Umm I wonder if the person knows about the process of getting a model release, which ironically uses no credit card information.

Again, you also go through another legality for the use of credit cards to begin with and other liability issues, you're not solving one problem, you're actually creating more. FA is not an adult store while the works are adult in nature, they are not selling anything, and in fact when they do, and have credit cards they are more likely to be audited and that would mean more costs such as accounting fees and so forth.

The credit card verification is for an adult store which has to report profits anyways so this isn't an additional burden to a business owner

[WHPellic]

Switching to credit card verification would kill FA. Not everyone has credit cards. Even those that do have them might not be willing to use them on FA.

I remember Toumal saying on Yiffstar that he once was part of a website that switched to being a paysite. He said it was assumed that they'd probably lose 50% of users. However, he thinks it was probably closer to a loss of 90% of users.

He also brought up another valid point. If FA switched to CC verification, odds are likely some users would pull their artwork and other files from the site.

[Dragoneer]

I really feel FA should have some sort of adult verification system. The site to me seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. -.-; At least think about allowing users to mark thier content and userpages as "members-only" with members having paid via credit card.

I agree with you, and we've discussed this... but ultimately, it comes down to a little thing called "trust".

Fur Affinity relies on the honor system in regards to adult art. You have to, by law and by bounding documentation of the TOS, be 18 years of age to view mature artwork. We can not be responsible for members who lie about their age to view mature artwork, and when we discover people who have, in fact, lied, we both temporarily ban them and disable their ability to view mature work.

In my view? That's enough. Sure, we could do credit card verification... but what's to stop a horny 14 year old from stealing his parent's credit card to use on the site? I'm not in the mood to deal with credit card fraud and identity theft for stolen cards.

People need to be able to police themselves and we implement what limitations we can to stop that. We can not stop people from lying. We can not stop people from stealing. We can, however, legally bind them to a contract barring us from any responsibility for falsifying their information.

[Dragoneer]

FA is not an adult store while the works are adult in nature, they are not selling anything, and in fact when they do, and have credit cards they are more likely to be audited and that would mean more costs such as accounting fees and so forth.

And this is why we will be working hand in hand with Rabbit Valley to sell and distribute the items we do cobble together to sell.

FA is, first and foremost, and art site. That is and always will be our primary goal -- to to be an online gallery. I don't mind coming up with items to sell to generate money for the site, but we're not a business, nor ever will be.

Credit card debt/fraud/theft is something I don't want to touch with a 1,000ft pole.

[Dragoneer]

...she probably hasn't even started menstruating yet.

Let's... uh, let's... not discuss 13 year old menstrating, mmm'kay?

Just... just no. Eww.

[Alchera]

I really feel FA should have some sort of adult verification system. The site to me seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. -.-; At least think about allowing users to mark thier content and userpages as "members-only" with members having paid via credit card.




Okay, first off...I don't mean to sound hard but the "members only" idea with a credit card is really for money-desperate twits. And, I personally, and probably a lot of other people don't want to become like Bernal. If FA became a pay site, most of its users would probably leave, and FA would crash into the ground because it is, as Dragoneer said, first and foremost an art site and not an adult store. No matter how many precautions are taken, security is never foolproof on the internet, and never will be. (To even think there will ever be a time when no one can get past security online is very foolish.)

If we started to require CC information, would not FA have to legally file as a business organization, be taxed as a business, reconstruct its mainframe in order to provide secure data verification and storage, and launch a massive advertisement and promotional campaign to draw back in the people it would have lost after switching to such a thing?

Second, doing that would also open FA up for liability to be pulled into numerous identity theft investigations when the staff here runs this place on donations and**limited budget already. (I'm speculating on the limited, as I am unaware of how much the budget is for FA). It would increase the costs of running the site, increase the effort to draw people in, and likewise increase the determination of minors to try breaking through a security measure. When things are prohibited and security is strengthened, people only become more determined and it often leads to new problems.

Of course there should be methods, alternative to requiring CC.
We have a filter for people who are not signed up. This is one precaution. We have a requirement for people to enter their birthdates. This is another precaution. So, it isn't like we're not trying at all to prevent things. But, nothing in the end will definately guarantee no minors.

I am with ArrowTibbs...CC is very bad idea and I am wary of where I use my own debit card after my information was stolen last year. With the measures FA already takes, the only lawsuit I see waiting to happen is against the person who is dishonest, as FA is making honest attempts to prevent such behavior.**Lying about one's age is a crime last time I checked.