• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

[@@@ ON HOLD @@@]: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Status
Not open for further replies.

czgoldedition

Chinook McMutton Z
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

WelcomeTheCollapse said:
czgoldedition said:
I find that I disagree with this decision - photos equate art as well, or may have artistic value in being used as references, et cetera. Personally, I feel like "imageshack behavior" should be allowed, but simply restricted to scraps rather than out in a person's main gallery if the photos are just snapshots.

Server space. That, and nobody wants to see 9 shots of your new shoes, scraps or not.

Perhaps designate them their own category that you can filter out if you'd like?

And I'm not sure what you're trying to express; I've never posted a photo of my shoes in my life, nor did I ever intend to. XD Paws I built, perhaps, I might - or a kitten sitting in a shoe if such a shot presented itself. But this rule seems to restrict these things to some degree, which is why it merits re-evaluation, as is underway - so I have no complaint. Nor did I have one anyway.. just voicing my view. :]

And re: server space - is there any way to donate to FA? I'd gladly toss in a few bucks when I can to help purchase space if that means no restrictions for everyone. :D I have hardly ever posted any "snapshots", ever, but I enjoy looking at those pictures others post of their pets, fursuits, etc.
 
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Eh, the example was rhetoric conjured up from nothing. The point was that snapshots really shouldn't be allowed on the basis that they're not art. FA is an art site. Snapshots of a non-art-related nature are a waste of this server's space and should be taken to a place like ImageShack or the like.

And Dragoneer, if people are in fact using this site like ImageShack, why not just block hotlinking?
 

Victoria Viper

Draws Lots of Hairy People
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Boy, sorry about all the insanity, people who run FA. Nice try, though. ;)

Yeah, that's the #1 biggest problem: All art is subjective. What might be art to some is just garbage to others.... In some cases, literally, like that guy who makes pictures out of labels that I saw on the Food Network, once....

So, yeah, that's going to be really hard to get past. I wish you the best with the revision, though. The less useless crap on the site, the better. Heck, if you want me to, I could sift through all my pics, see which ones are the least popular, and delete them. I doubt anyone would mind.

C'mon, everybody. Join in! Get rid of your garbage. Nobody wants to see it, anyway. XD
 
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

VictoriaViper said:
Boy, sorry about all the insanity, people who run FA. Nice try, though. ;)

Yeah, that's the #1 biggest problem: All art is subjective. What might be art to some is just garbage to others.... In some cases, literally, like that guy who makes pictures out of labels that I saw on the Food Network, once....

So, yeah, that's going to be really hard to get past. I wish you the best with the revision, though. The less useless crap on the site, the better. Heck, if you want me to, I could sift through all my pics, see which ones are the least popular, and delete them. I doubt anyone would mind.

C'mon, everybody. Join in! Get rid of your garbage. Nobody wants to see it, anyway. XD

The images in question aren't art and don't belong on an art site, though. It's really funny to see people getting bent out of shape that their pictures of malformed muffins and lolcats and omg me and my friends lawl x50 are going to be removed when they never really belonged here in the first place. It's painfully obvious that some of this crap just does not belong here, but it's too broad of a category to define in some kind of anal retentive sort of way. I thought the policy was fine and some of the users were the ones with the problem.
 

Rrruff

New Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Endless Night said:
Well now that it's pulled we all get to enjoy this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/306279/ kind of crap again.

I'm really looking forward for the phoenixing of the rule.

Maybe you guys could start with banning the clearly nonsense stuff like that link above and leave the more tricky stuff like photos of pets which may be an artful portrait or may be snap shot depending on the eye of the beholder, posing items, etc., until you can further discuss it?

It's actually pretty sad that folks can't self police themselves even a little bit on this one now that it's been brought up as an issue. I think most people have the sense to know what should go in their LJ/Photobucket and what should go here. I still believe in the general common sense of the community, misplaced as that may be. :p

Anyways I'm really hoping for a crack down on the completely inane submissions even before you guys try and tackled the more complex parts of the issues.

Indeed, you do get to enjoy that 'crap', as that was the point of the picture! Enjoying something that was crappily made, was it not?

All 'jokes' a side, you're based on biased opinions, of course. Some people find cooking to be 'art work', some find dog poses to be 'art work', there are so many definitions to 'art work'. If you are going to get rid of the cooking aspect, then mise well get rid of it all unless it is furry related.

No, I am not defending my image. I know it's got nothing to do with furries, however, it doesn't release the fact that the people who have seen it had smirked - And believe me, Databases can handle Rice Krispie treats, I would know. I'm a masters in Computer Science, I know how Databases work, and I work with them every single day at my real-life job.

Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture?

Or are you upset that there are regular furs out there who do not have the talent of every artist when it comes to picking up a pen/pencil with their hand. I can certainly post my art-work if you would love me to, but I assure you, that those Rice Krispie treats will look a lot better when you see a comic strip of mine like this.

So you can argue the fact that you dislike cooking, but to all the chef-furries out there, they'll know that this is one piece of 'art-work'.

(And, and I've already had offers of people wanting me to commission a piece of 'rice krispie' treat to their den).

--Clearly a humour-post here. Take it with a grain a salt, but I have put my opinion down, and with that I leave you to contemplate over such artistic talents of mine.

I might add, it can easily be removed, but it's the only picture in my gallery, sadly. I suck at furry-life.
 

uncia2000

Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Wolfblade said:
Nice to know we have some clairvoyants in the userbase. However, if I may suggest an alternative way of looking at this; it is possible that the staff, not just Dragoneer, has decided as an Administration, to enact a more firm policy on an issue that has been a source of irritation to many for a long time. The issue may have been handled at this particular time BECAUSE of all the server and traffic issues, and this is one way of lessening hardware and resource strain by removing usage that really was never what this site was intended for.

I've spent some time clarifying with people not on the forum who had misconstrued that resource limitations were the reason for this decision.
Any casual (incomplete/"scribble") art submission or journal entry by one of the most watched FA community members is likely to cause something like a thousand times more load on the system than a newbie posting their mugshot or piccie of their cat.

Looking from over here, the issues are perhaps more one of personal redefinitions as to what the "site was intended for" (actually/originally intended not just a dump for art submissions, but a wider community scope for people with an affinity for fur(ry)/etc. art) and recognising that it's not primarily the total number of "off core-topic" images that's the "issue", but moreso the rare (barely once per day?) "floods" - in which "off-core topic" images are far more "obvious".
Far easier just to have anti-flood etiquette/possible controls (e.g. http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1396&pid=15762#pid15762 & as posted elsewhere) than trying to "fix" using hard non-timeframed limits with dubious "quality control" measures that will inevitably be divisive.
*
But all of this is relatively minor compared with the larger issues we actually need to be focusing on at present. And certainly not worth losing people over, as has happened.
If it's somehow deemed to be a "big issue", tag/flag as "real-life", "computer games", etc., and filter accordingly?
(Sometimes it's difficult to please people who would rage incandescently over a single photo of a pair of socks, however, rather than just ignore or else smile, blithely reply "any socks is better than no socks" and carry on, enjoying, elsewhere...).

Just my 02c, anyhow.
David/u2k.
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

uncia2000 said:
But all of this is relatively minor compared with the larger issues we actually need to be focusing on at present.

What *are* the larger issues that need focusing on at present?

I see people say this and I see people say that, but If someone were to say to me: "what are the biggest issues, that transcend matters of personal opinion, facing FA at the moment?" I would then reply: "damned If I know".

I would like to know, but as it is, all I can do is pontificate, speculate and procrastinate.
 

Wolfblade

Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Dave Hyena said:
What *are* the larger issues that need focusing on at present?

I see people say this and I see people say that, but If someone were to say to me: "what are the biggest issues, that transcend matters of personal opinion, facing FA at the moment?" I would then reply: "damned If I know".

I would like to know, but as it is, all I can do is pontificate, speculate and procrastinate.

Ditto.

I mean, obviously there are site functionality issues, but really, how much effort should be put into the current site code when you're going to be dumping it for an entirely new one soon? Which leads to the question of how far off is Ferrox still? How much of the current work on wiki and rules and regulations are being made for THIS site, without taking into account the differences that will come along with the new one?

There should be an effort made to keep the problems with the current site to a minimum of course, but at the same time, there's only so much energy you should put into something you know is only temporary anyway.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Wolfblade said:
There should be an effort made to keep the problems with the current site to a minimum of course, but at the same time, there's only so much energy you should put into something you know is only temporary anyway.
*nods*

The wiki is very modifiable, and we can edit it quickly and swiftly. Anybody who has access to that can edit it. The rules of the site will remain the rules, even into Ferrox.

As to Ferrox, progress is being made, but some of the code was scrapped. Now, the CODERS are still working on that, but I code about as well as the 500 internal server errors bring smiles to the average user's face. Thus, I concentrate my energy on attempting to improve the site in other facets.

Namely, rules, regulations and more. Things that help users NOW rather than THEN. Things can't always be instantaneous, but I can try my best to make things as painless as possible for users. I thought that's something you would have recognized...
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Dragoneer said:
The wiki is very modifiable, and we can edit it quickly and swiftly. Anybody who has access to that can edit it. The rules of the site will remain the rules, even into Ferrox.

Aha! I was thinking strictly in terms of "issues = problems and problems = issues", but not all issues are problems and nor are all problems issues.

The Wiki is an issue that deserves focusing on, but it is not a problem, it is a rather important and useful resource. As long as FA is there, so will be the wiki, and everyone will go to the wiki for help.

To the Wikimobile!
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Dave Hyena said:
Aha! I was thinking strictly in terms of "issues = problems and problems = issues", but not all issues are problems and nor are all problems issues.

The Wiki is an issue that deserves focusing on, but it is not a problem, it is a rather important and useful resource. As long as FA is there, so will be the wiki, and everyone will go to the wiki for help.

To the Wikimobile!
True, but we have people who can work on coding issues specifically (real issues) and those who can handle others (wiki, harassment, admin stuff). People seem to think that we're devoting all our resources to these items, but we're more than just two or three people.
 

Endless Night

New Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture?


No. But that's when you get a personal webpage or personal webspace. Not join an <i>art site</i>
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Endless Night said:
Not join an art site

if you use [ in place of < it will work :)

Dragoneer said:
People seem to think that we're devoting all our resources to these items, but we're more than just two or three people.

Ah yes, that is also true. 13 people are there on the staff page.

It's those we see and interact with most that we remember and it is easy to forget the others, but they are there and working.

When one looks at a hunter type watch, certain cogs are more visable than others, but they all are essential to the running of the mechanism nonetheless.
 

Dancougar

Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Upon reading the posts here and the wiki, it appears to me that the policy was not a very well thought out one. Although the emphasis was upon curbing the tendency of members to flood the site with "Off Topic" images, this really set the policy itself up for a fall, since submitted works could be of decidedly non furry subject matter such as Anime. This made any act against works of this genre as being 'unfurry' to be acts of hypocracy. It does no good to put the 'fur' back into furaffinity when it was cast off for a broader userbase long ago. If one wants to go that route, why not eliminate the genre from the listings in submittable artworks alltogether, since well, if one really must get into it, furry characters are furry characters no matter where or what genre or medium they are found in. This puts furries in classical works, literature, media, ect all on the same page. And would do good to clean up the submissions pages alot too. Although seemingly off the scope of this discussion, it is in fact part of the problem that this failed policy was trying to fix. Upon further analysis it seems to me that the policy as it was, was pretty unfriendly to 3D artists who use characters, environments, ect, who did not actually model them, although they bought or dled them, and have the licenses to use them. It mainly stressed upon the creation portion as being a qualifying stricture for submission, and not the actual works themselves, or the possibility of using the same models but in different renders. For example, while one may have say, foxy-fox and robot servant A in this picture, as written it seemed to count against the artists number of times the characters could be used, even if the end images were totally different in content and presentation. The fact that thes same models were used in each picture was a strike against the posting artist. Having a posted max number of images didn't help matters either, this made the policy really seemingly hostile against the posting of series of works in progress, thereby defeating the very act of doing so unless you went with the bare minimum of views, those being a preliminary work, work in progress, then finished work showing such progression. It was pretty hard on presentation variants of works, and on those works that were created when inspiration struck as well. In the point of the latter, it denies the possibility of sharing with the others that creative spark that hit the artist when their muse really influenced them. Recalling the policy was a good step though. Its best to keep the lines open for feedback, to see what works and what does not by listening to what everyone has to say. These are just my two bits on the subject to take or reject as you see fit.
--Dancougar
 

GranDragon

New Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Many artists we have one or two pictures of ourselves. Will we be able to conserve them?


Dragoneer said:
A new policy has gone into effect called the "Imageshack Behavior" policy. This policy, in essence, affects only those users who use FA as an image dump for anything and everything NOT art related.

Policy: Imageshack Behavior

Short End of the Story: Changes are being made to the maximum number of "personal images" that can be uploaded to FA. Too many users are treating the site like Photobucket/Imageshack, and it's flooding the site with too many random pictures of pets, toys, bugs on the wall, etc.

Long Version: See our wiki entry for the full policy.

If you have any questions or comments feel free to voice your opinion! We're trying to give everybody a heads up as to the change.
 

Asria Wolf

New Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Good, I'm tired of seeing my submissions page filled with photos and second life screenshots. v.v
 

Rrruff

New Member
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Endless Night said:
Which brings me to another point, some people don't have the time to sit down for hours on end, learn to draw and/or write a story that is (atleast to me) worth putting on the internet for people to read. Are you shunning out furries in their own culture?


No. But that's when you get a personal webpage or personal webspace. Not join an <i>art site</i>


Aye. But you post your 'master pieces' and get opinions. Have to start somewhere. I rather happen to be a very good cook - This is all part of my marketing scheme. Start back and get substantially better. ;)

So be nice. The 'mature' thing to do would be to not point out a specific post. Though, I don't mind at all, someone else with low self-esteem may care.
 
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

Quick thought, if this new policy becomes active, will I have to clear out some of my gallery?

I have a few pics of my dog from just before she died, along with 1 random thing I noticed at work.

Just curious.
 

Rhainor

Rawr.
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

crabby_the_frog said:
Quick thought, if this new policy becomes active, will I have to clear out some of my gallery?

I have a few pics of my dog from just before she died, along with 1 random thing I noticed at work.

Just curious.

Those all sound like they'll fall under the "general off-topic" heading, and thus be limited to no more than 5 in your main gallery.
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
RE: New Policy in Effect: Imageshack Behavior

AFAIK the policy has been suspended for revision since day one of it's use, so... It'not in effect yet

*edits thread topic*
 

SageHendrix

Member
I know this is a long going thread so maybe that is why this is happening, but the wiki entry that the OP linked to has no information.

Regardless, I agree with this policy. Case in point As you can see by the first 2 comments (one being someone commenting and the other being this user's direct response to that) , the attitude of "this is my furspace" seems to be what has developed from this restriction not being in place yet.

I sure hope that things will improve. I still sit on the fence about "furry vs. non furry content" but the "Photobucket Syndrome" is definitly where I see how "allowance of human content" can go overboard.
 

uncia

Member
(fast-forward from 2006...)

*tailwaves over* Heyas, Kat: long-time, no speak. ^^

Catwoman69y2k said:
Case in point As you can see by the first 2 comments (one being someone commenting and the other being this user's direct response to that) , the attitude of "this is my furspace" seems to be what has developed from this restriction not being in place yet.
That's a delete per the current AUP. Flagged and gone now.
"Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. “pixel art”) using art directly from games."

Lack of admin timeliness to enforce existing rules doesn't necessarily mean further, more restrictive ones are required, IMO.

Catwoman69y2k said:
I sure hope that things will improve. I still sit on the fence about "furry vs. non furry content" but the "Photobucket Syndrome" is definitly where I see how "allowance of human content" can go overboard.
For FA as a whole, that's still running at around 10% on content and much less in terms of page views. And a considerable amount of community building from that, from reading various submissions (of those which /are/ valid by the AUP) and journals.
Fwiw, your own "non furry art" content is still running well above that 10% level and was higher prior to those deletions a long time back. (A few others are probably also pushing the AUP now, given the new "apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature" clause therein).

Sometimes it's best not to wish for more restrictions on others in case those end up impacting oneself? The only person who's fully immune to that syndrome is the site owner. :)
02-snowie-c, anyhow...

Cheers & Best wishes,
David/uncia.
 

SageHendrix

Member
uncia said:
Lack of admin timeliness to enforce existing rules doesn't necessarily mean further, more restrictive ones are required, IMO.

Yeah, I didnt mean in my post before this at all. I just meant that it is more of a commonplace thing for these "photobucket" type images to grace the pages of FA and thus is perpetuating the problem to the point of it creating a "this is acceptable" idea in some furs heads.

uncia said:
Fwiw, your own "non furry art" content is still running well above that 10% level and was higher prior to those deletions a long time back. (A few others are probably also pushing the AUP now, given the new "apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature" clause therein).

Sometimes it's best not to wish for more restrictions on others in case those end up impacting oneself? The only person who's fully immune to that syndrome is the site owner. :)
02-snowie-c, anyhow...

Cheers & Best wishes,
David/uncia.

Im not going to get too far into this but I am not really sure how to take that statement from you. I would rather not try and draw conclusions of my own, and contribute to unnecessary drama. Besides, with FA, I find it best not to try and convince them about anything related to the artworld-wide artistic nudes vs porn argument. 2257 seems to be the easy fact to bring up by many sites concerning artistically expressed images such as mine.

However I will say, in an unrelated context, that when it comes between helping out in reporting (which I do occasionally if I happen to find something gracing the front page that looks to be in a site violation) vs running the risk that my account will be drawn to attention by admins, I really could care less what happens to my account. Always had that attitude and, in the case of FA, it has been moreso in recent months.

If you feel the need to further express what you feel about things like this in relation to my personal account and activity here, by all means send me a note.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
This original idea died long ago, and there was really no need to resurrect this old, defunct thread. The original incarnation of this was scrapped, and while there is no doubt in my mind we will return to this subject at hand, for the mean time this is dead.
 

SageHendrix

Member
Preyfar said:
This original idea died long ago, and there was really no need to resurrect this old, defunct thread. The original incarnation of this was scrapped, and while there is no doubt in my mind we will return to this subject at hand, for the mean time this is dead.
Oh. Well that I actually didnt know. Thanks for the heads up. i dont know why it appeared at the top of the thread subject list as if it had been recently answered. Usually dead horse threads get locked as well. Sorry for bringing up old shit. I suppose that would explain Uncia's response.

Kat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top