That is a very narrow view of the fandom.minors shouldn't be using the site to begin with
Minors don't belong in the furry fandom as the fandom is inherently fetishistic in nature, and ideally they should be barred from this forum
also reminder that what is being requested is the banning of discussion revolving around content that I can provably show can be found at your local bookstore or even in theaters in some cases. By extension such a rule would bar the positive discussion of artistic media you can buy off the shelf at a Books A Million for $12.99
Furthermore, this is a furry forum. What is a furry forum really for but to discuss furry content and the furry fandom at large? Or are we supposed to close our ears and pretend that Inkbunny doesn't exist and that FA never hosted cub art? Or am I expected to lie and say I don't like Inkbunny and that I fully support the rule changes on FA?
Could we implement a watcher only option for Uploads and/or Descriptions?
Examples where this could be useful
Description Example with the [watchers] tag
- Story descriptions, Giving the uploader the ability to show a brief section of a story. Only those who watch the uploader on FA will see the full story. This could be implemented with something custom but similar to BBCode with [watchers] [/watchers]
- Uploads, This watcher only concept would help with watcher exclusives from Artists when they upload 'YCH' or 'Adopts'.
This part will be viewable to anyone,
[watchers] This part can only be viewed by watchers. [/watchers]
I think this would be an interesting concept to get others to watch more people on FA if they enjoy what they see.
This also opens the concept to make an upload readable by FA+ members, A built in Patreon which could help fuel the income for FurAffinity as a whole. Pushing people to get FA+ to see exclusives from their favorite artist.
I do understand the annoyance of that, but I was thinking something similar to the SFW option on FA. You just wont even see it or notice it. It would be invisible to anyone not watching them.I DO like that deviantart did this because it sort of removes the need for Patreon. BUT, I do personally find it annoying that I'd have to watch someone to see a pic. It's not going to inspire me to watch someone just to view one image. If anything, it's going to irritate me seeing all of these blurred thumbnails on the front page. I watch an artist because I value their work and quality, but it's gonna make them harder to discover if I can't see what they're uploading! I also see a lot of future Watch and Unwatches if this should be implemented.
i would simply just love to be able to view all the comments ive made in the past in the "manage my content" settings areaIt'd be nice if comments, especially trolling comments could be truly deleted instead of 'comment hidden' on pages and journals, that way pages can be cleaned up from troll's spam.
Im talking about the main site btw not the forum because if i remember well, the forum does have this optioni would simply just love to be able to view all the comments ive made in the past in the "manage my content" settings area
I clean my note inbox regularly and have forgotten to fav and save some of the art I've commissioned. I did have a comment posted on it but i just cant find it back (the artist probably used a vague title and no tags). Im sure many people have similar issues like this as well.
Cannabis usage is an explicit exception because it’s been legalized in so many states. Illegal activity in art is already allowed anyway. Exceptions are not self-contradictions. I’ll totally concede that the wording could be more clear on that point, however.Rule 1.1
forbids any promotion of federal crimes.
However it is also stated that promoting cannabis use will be accepted, despite this being a federal crime.
So this is a contradiction in the site's first rule.
I suggest this be re-phrased to state that portrayal of drug use in art won't automatically be interpreted as promotion of illegal activity, but that attempts to advertise cannabis products or journals advocating their consumption will be.
Cannabis usage is an explicit exception because it’s been legalized in so many states. Illegal activity in art is already allowed anyway. Exceptions are not self-contradictions. I’ll totally concede that the wording could be more clear on that point, however.
I would love a way to download a list of the post IDs of all my favs, so that I can make an external gallery to use to browse them.
At one point in my past I made a simple script that nabs the URLs of every post as I page through my favs for this purpose, but I have 233 pages of favourites now! Trying to scrape that would actually have an impact.
Bonus points if there can be a way to nab a JSON file of each image URL and some post metadata. I understand that high traffic from botting is a concern - but I feel that botting could be lessened by giving people bulk download options so they don't have to manually nab everything.
For example, I know that if the staff were presented with evidence that somebody was sexually grooming teenagers over the internet on different forums, that they wouldn't allow them to have a forum account here.
I feel like this would be a mess/huge burden. 1. How would they know this information is accurate/true and then 2, how would they know the private info of said people in order to ban them in advance? There would no doubt be a lot of bad news if it ever comes out that they blocked someone that was innocent. :/
But with the online world it's easy to impersonate. Not saying it's wrong to seek or brainstorm some sort of solution to the problem, but to me it doesn't make sense to put the burden of investigation on a furry-appreciation site. The first person I'd take it to is the relevant law enforcement.The most obvious example is that a user lists a social media account they have on their profile- and the offending content is on that account.
I believe in 2018 that standard was used by the forum staff to ban a user who had posted screeds about Jewish people on their tumblr account.
That sounds like it could be flawed/abused by others.A question was asked if the site can take preventative actions against users who might potentially be acting in bad faith (Ex: If somebody confirmed for posing as Nigerian Royalty for money-making scams made an account on FA).