AUP Discussion

[Dragoneer]

Greetings!

It's time once again for our biannual AUP discussion. The last time we met, we had completely rewritten the AUP from the ground up. A new format and style to try to condense the information in the hope of making it more readable and less wordy. It's been a few months, so we're soliciting feedback. How's it working for you?

Do you feel something isn't covered properly?
Do you feel something could be worded better?
Is there anything in the AUP that just isn't clear to you?

We're looking for input from the community on how to better our rules and make them clearer, so let's hear what you have to say!

Please keep feedback civil. We want to make the site rules work for you, and we're willing to hear you out.

Thanks,
Neer

NOTE: We may not be able to respond to all inquiries/suggestions, but we will be reading and considering all feedback.

 

[Fallowfox]

Last time there was an AUP discussion on the mainsite I put forward two ideas, which recieved positive comments from staff but to my knowledge did not become included inthe AUP.

-That posting two different versions of an image in your gallery is acceptable in circumstances such as one being clean and one being adult.
-That modelling sexually adapted fursuits should be okay as long as they are not evidently explicit, such as featuring nudity that other parts of the AUP banned or sexual intercourse.
If the only difference between a photo of one fursuit and the other is a zip that may not even be visible then I don't think this is a meritable reason to remove it.

What do you think?

 

[Kalmor]

Last time there was an AUP discussion on the mainsite I put forward two ideas, which recieved positive comments from staff but to my knowledge did not become included inthe AUP.

-That posting two different versions of an image in your gallery is acceptable in circumstances such as one being clean and one being adult.
-That modelling sexually adapted fursuits should be okay as long as they are not evidently explicit, such as featuring nudity that other parts of the AUP banned or sexual intercourse.
If the only difference between a photo of one fursuit and the other is a zip that may not even be visible then I don't think this is a meritable reason to remove it.

What do you think?

I agree on the first point, but not so much on the second though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used. As much as I hate sexually modified fursuits with a passion, I think the current rule is ok but needs to be cleared up.

 

[Fallowfox]

I agree on the first point, but not so much on the second though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used. As much as I hate sexually modified fursuits with a passion, I think the current rule is ok but needs to be cleared up.

As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.

'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.

 

[Verin Asper]

Clarifying maybe rules for Groups
I had to deal with the Starcraft Group when I reported them for posting art that wasnt donated to the group or for them. A person I had a debate with stated that since the art posted WAS about starcraft it would fall within the aup as long as they show who owned the art. I countered back just cause the group was about StarCraft the owner of said group didnt have the right to just upload the art to their account, they still had to go out of their way to ask if they could post said art to their account. I then used the Renamon Group on FA as they request that folks donate art to the group to be posted on that group account, they cant just go around posting anyones art around Renamon as they did know.

I suggest maybe a small section for Group accounts stating the Do's and Don'ts specifically for groups

As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.

'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.

Hmm well to me its just mean "If its mature dont wear it, just display it" as I know photos can never reach past mature

 

[Jango The Blue Fox]

I think the Adult fursuit policy is confusing, according to admins nipples on a fursuit are considered adult even though they serve no sexual function at all but that isn't mentioned at all in the AUP

 

[DarkShadowFoxx]

As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.

'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.

I would say not worrying about SL uploads as ive got lots of pictures of my 'sona I built in SL. Thats my input, as for the fursuit thing, I dunno I fear someone might abuse it somewhere. But hey people abuse things all the time here..

 

[Jango The Blue Fox]

I agree with this, Adult fursuits being worn should be allowed so long as there isn't and real human genitalia exposed or sexual activity.

 

[Verin Asper]

I would say not worrying about SL uploads as ive got lots of pictures of my 'sona I built in SL. Thats my input, as for the fursuit thing, I dunno I fear someone might abuse it somewhere. But hey people abuse things all the time here..

I think the SL uploads actually should get more work put towards it
We still have folks confusing "Displaying the work you did to an avatar" and "heres a story me and a few folks did using Second Life as our medium" to "heres me at the club"

 

[Dragoneer]

I think the Adult fursuit policy is confusing, according to admins nipples on a fursuit are considered adult even though they serve no sexual function at all but that isn't mentioned at all in the AUP

That's a fair enough criticism, but the problem comes it involves women's breasts. There's a double-standard in American society regarding nipples/breasts, so it's kept as a "no nipples" for more of an equality standpoint.

Also, totally random, but how many fursuits actually have nipples?

 

[Deleted member 3615]

I think there should be emphasis that this isn't FACEBOOK. (I smashed my car, look at this cheeseburger, etc).
FA also isn't EBAY. I get if you are actually selling something you've crafted, but if you are just trying to peddle random crap you own, then this isn't the place.

 

[Thaily]

Last time they removed the limit on "personal photography", referring them to scraps instead. As a result people are just uploading more with the "oh I'll scrap it later" comments, but the idea (presumably) was that we wouldn't see an endless slough of Facebook photos and unmodified mass manufactured in the new uploads, but we do. More so than before. And while many people use FA to network socially, I don't see why we wouldn't just ban that stuff (or portrait photos in excess of 1) and refer these people to Facebook for sharing the rest of their snapshots.

Last time they tried to redefine the rules on spamming YCH, saying people could only upload 1 and any additional images used to sell artwork to the scraps folder, but I'm still seeing the same YCH auctions being posted over and over and over in a single day. If you file a ticket because someone has uploaded the same images 6 times in an hour, mods take days to respond and don't accept screenshots as evidence, so it's completely unenforceable and it shows in the new uploads. You can browse the new uploads at any time and roughly 18% of uploads are auction/YCH/etc. spam.
I'm not yet sure how to effectively curtail this obnoxious behavior, other than offering advertising space for people to use instead, but we already have the forums and any additional effort would possibly undermine the advantage of paid banners and affect sales (although honestly they're not that expensive, if people are so desperate for sales they'd repost the same YCH image 5 times an hour maybe they should just shell out 20 bucks for a banner). You could banish it to scraps completely and take administrative action against every non-scrapped spam upload, I know a lot of people will complain (OMG popufurs have an advantage!) because they don't understand that more good uploads = more watchers = more sales and spamming is not a great foundation for a decent customer base. Quite on the contrary, I know I've unwatched several otherwise keen artists because I got sick and tired of seeing the same sketch come by again and again.

But right now, I know I browse new uploads a lot less because ugh, Facebook selfshots and the same YCH sketches. It gets really fucking tedious, and it's just plain out of place for what professes to be an art site.

Edit:

I think there should be emphasis that this isn't FACEBOOK. (I smashed my car, look at this cheeseburger, etc).

Seriously, I just finished this post and went to have a peek at the new uploads and this is staring me in the face: http://www.myriadofmagpies.com/uploads/images/stuff/crabs.jpg
Shitty photo without redeeming qualities, the uploader couldn't even be bothered to write a comment beyond "^"

 

[Fallowfox]

Clarifying maybe rules for Groups
I had to deal with the Starcraft Group when I reported them for posting art that wasnt donated to the group or for them. A person I had a debate with stated that since the art posted WAS about starcraft it would fall within the aup as long as they show who owned the art. I countered back just cause the group was about StarCraft the owner of said group didnt have the right to just upload the art to their account, they still had to go out of their way to ask if they could post said art to their account. I then used the Renamon Group on FA as they request that folks donate art to the group to be posted on that group account, they cant just go around posting anyones art around Renamon as they did know.

I suggest maybe a small section for Group accounts stating the Do's and Don'ts specifically for groups



Hmm well to me its just mean "If its mature dont wear it, just display it" as I know photos can never reach past mature

Photos of someone modelling a fursuit with a zip on it are not automatically adult content. Sexual adaptations may not even be visible.

In this context there's negligeably difference between modelling a fursuit that has a zip or a fursuit that does not. If zips are considered automatically erotic material [which would be rather silly] then it could otherwise be stipulated that they must not be visible in the photograph.

Automatically prohibiting any modelling of fursuits with sexual adaptations makes it difficult for people who produce those costumes to show off the craft, because how a suit fits a model is an important part of the quality and demonstration of skill, in comparrison to something on a hanger that could be any old length of fake fur.

If people are trying to post sexually explicit photos of themselves in costume...well that can be treated exactly as if they were taking those photos out of costume.

 

[Dragoneer]

Last time they tried to redefine the rules on spamming YCH, saying people could only upload 1 and any additional images used to sell artwork to the scraps folder, but I'm still seeing the same YCH auctions being posted over and over and over in a single day. If you file a ticket because someone has uploaded the same images 6 times in an hour, mods take days to respond and don't accept screenshots as evidence, so it's completely unenforceable and it shows in the new uploads. You can browse the new uploads at any time and roughly 18% of uploads are auction/YCH/etc. spam.

We are offering a quasi-marketplace for people in a new UI. People who are selling art/commissions can click the marketplace, and the front page/browse will allow you to sort through what people are selling. It should help reduce that.

We're also drafting up some ideas to help curb serial re-uploaders.

 

[Wakboth]

I think there could be a little bit more clarification about the "by you / for you" policy, related to situations where person A commissions person B to create art for person C, as a gift for example. As I understand it, the intention is that at least B and C can post it, possibly also A, but it could be read as only B (the artist) and A (the commissioner) being allowed to post it, which seems backwards.

Now, this isn't a major issue, but it's one where I think a bit more clarity, or an example along these lines, would be helpful. Otherwise, I think the AUP is pretty comprehensive and clear enough as it is.

 

[DUVMik]

A problem with the current AUP is that there is no clear definition of what is mature or adult, in visual art.

If I uploaded a drawing of someone naked I could, with the current AUP, put it in general audience without breaking any rules. (At least not any rules in the AUP)

Generally, it's a mess to figure out what is allowed and what is not. It would be nice with some clear definitions, or possibly examples.

For instance, first thing on the AUP:

What we permit in your gallery:

• Original Art (Music, Photography, Traditional Art, Digital Art, Writing)

What is original art? A simple stick figure drawing? My face photoshop on top of a pencil? When is it original, and when it is not? Without proper definitions rules are worthless.

 

[Jango The Blue Fox]

That's a fair enough criticism, but the problem comes it involves women's breasts. There's a double-standard in American society regarding nipples/breasts, so it's kept as a "no nipples" for more of an equality standpoint.

Also, totally random, but how many fursuits actually have nipples?

quite a few fursuits do. http://www.furaffinity.net/user/superbabsy123/ http://www.furaffinity.net/user/winfox/ http://www.furaffinity.net/user/chainerprime/ those three users have fursuits with nipples, winfox and superbabsy make fursuits and they usually have nipples though since they have had admins complain superbabsy doesn't post pictures of her suits topless anymore or censors the pictures when she does and winfox stopped putting nipples on her suits because that isn't allowed on FA or if she didn't its hard to tell because her suits are usually clothed though I can tell at least some of her suits still have nipples, and chainerprime's personal fursuit has nipples on it.

 

[Lilith]

Maybe clarify some points that some users are questioning.
Maybe even make a separate post in laymen's terms so those cannot understand the legal terms, can clearly see what is, and what is not accepted.

 

[Juska]

Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.

 

[Teal]

Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.

That has nothing to do with the AUP.

 

[Rhetorica]

There is no definition of "3D model" under the last section. Depending on how rigorously the term is interpreted, Poser art in particular can be either completely banned or completely safe. It would be nice to know what the administration's intentions regarding 3D renders actually are; the last several editions of the AUP were highly technical but seemed to be written by someone who didn't have a firm grasp of the technical concepts at hand. When is a model modified enough to be distinct? What is acceptable in the background vs. the focus of the image?

 

[ANTIcarrot]

Can we still use commercial audio as part of a 3D movie?
The rules used to say yes, but the new rules don't say yes or no.

Can I recommend a data density rule for uploaded pictures?
When saved as a JPG, even a large picture doesn't have to be more than a few hundred kilobytes in size. But if the artist does something silly (like using the wrong file format) even a 500x500MB picture can be over 2MB in size. If the picture is then looked at and downloaded 500 times, that's a significant chunk of bandwidth that gets wasted, and it's probably not exactly speeding the server up.

 

[PawzHusky]

To take issue with a user who submits drawings or other art of copyrighted characters, when the site itself has a search filter for Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic fan art, seems awfully inconsistent to me. I'd like to see either an explanation for why this is still allowed, OR a more comprehensive and staff-advocated enforcement of ban on fan art of copyrighted characters. Thank you.

 

[Lvx]

Photos of "Things I own" should be completely disallowed unless they made the thing themselves from scratch
I'm really tired of seeing "Look at this thing I bought!~ Here's 20 pictures so you can see it from every angle"

Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.

You can quasi-blacklist artists with adblock plus

c/p
1. Use Firefox
2. Download+install adblock plus
3. Right click offending artist's submission thumbnail
4. Adblock Plus: Block Image...
5. Custom
6. Delete all but #artistname
7. Accept pattern only at the end of the address
8. Add filter
9. ????
10. All submissions by that artist will no longer show thumbnails while browsing and the picture will not load if you view the submission

 

[Houkuko]

I feel like a dolt for asking, but I still have some confusion over what exactly is allowed in terms of YCH and other auction pics. The AUP states that only one image of this sort is allowed in the gallery at once, and otherwise must be moved to scraps. Does this include posting several auctions at once, even if they are different images? And since that could still be seen as spamming, would it alleviate this problem to use one post to show several different active auctions (such as in panels on a single image)?

Not sure if I've explained myself well, so if you need any clarification, please let me know!