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

What the crap?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jamestigris

New Member
Amen brother, Amen. This is why we aren't a selective art community, they suck.

Wolfblade said:
Trying to argue "Art" and "not Art" is pointless in general. A crappy cell phone photo that most people would call "not art" could still be seen as Art by somebody. Trying to define what is and isn't art based on time put into something is also silly. Someone can do a 5 minute sketch that many would call art, while another person can put hours into something that is largely regarded as "not as good" as the simpler sketch. Or an experienced and seasoned Artist can do an impressive work, where a beginner may need twice the time to do something half as good. Time put into something does not a work of Art make.

I really hope we're not going to try and define what is and isn't art with any sorts of rules. The rules should define what we do and do not allow. If it comes to saying "we allow it if it's Art," and leave it at that, then we might as well just ASK people to start fighting. 9_9
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
noitaroproc said:
every single admin on furaffinity is utterly incompetent.


watch me get banned.
You caught a giant catfish! (That's because you used a giant mousefish as bait!)

Gullible said:
yak said:
In the above poster's case, Gullible, photoshopping a crop of an animal photo over a pre-existing image takes about 5 minutes, even when the user is not skilled or familiar with how Photoshop works. And it's not an artistic action, it's a procedure where the creativity can only be shown in picking the photo, and the position of the placement of the crop.

I take your points into consideration, however if you count the time it took to travel down to the coast and take the photos from which this one came, the "production time" would become several hours. Photography takes time too. D:
As a fellow photographer, trust me, i know it does.
But the end result is still the same, very similar or even an exact match of what others may and will probably do, be the photo something of their own creation or came from a google search. There is no way, even remotely reliable, to tell that the original photo belongs to you or not, and frankly speaking, i think there could be other things the administration could do rather then spending their time verifying sources.

FA, as an art site, is already watered down to the point where it hardly resembles an art site any more. It becomes more of an image dump of some sort, and i'm honestly not saying that to reprimand someone; more of a very broad look at things. I fully realize it comes with the territory of focusing not on physical media, but more on the providing a platform for the community's development. That, however, does not exclude the possibility that this path strays somewhat from the collective vision the people behind the website have of it, and would like to be followed.
Pretty words aside, taking in consideration and accepting the ramifications the community needs impose on that vision we would still like to see FA focus more on the original, user created content rather then a semi-periodic flood of media that has a limited timespan of interest in it, and being a rather annoying spam to those not sharing the idea of said flood. Memes are short-lived by definition, and should have a short-lived platform to develop on.


Arshes Nei said:
yak,

A bit of disagreement here, just because he took his own photo and did a very quick job with it, doesn't discount it as art. A lot of people just use the magic wand and floodfill a picture yet they get to stay.

What about commissions done by other people, that are reposted, for you by you would apply but if time was a factor, the commissioner put no time in it at all.
I know very well i would fail the english exam if i ever tried to join any high-level educational facility. So perhaps i misused the term "factor" in what i said earlier. I meant to say something along the lines that time was something to consider when making up a decision, a "factor", and i've said that it definitely isn't the only one, though in that case probably the major.
There are numerous others that apply, of course. But trust me when i tell you, i will be the first one to fight the tendency of the behavior otherwise described as trying to be the judge of what is art and what is not, if such will ever be clearly expressed by the administration. I, for one, would be greatly saddened of ever being in the not good enough group, regardless of whether that estimate would be legitimate or not.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. The "cons" overweigh the "pros". It's a meme and on top of that it's photoshopped - these factors alone raise the red flag. User created submissions on that meme will qualify still, unless they will be going against other rules of the site.

The cardinality of "ideas" in a meme is already seriously capped by the meme's theme - not that much creativity options left there - and when it starts to resolve to the submissions made of bits and pieces of things photoshopped together it is a time when we seriously have to put our foot down, regardless of great many things.

So without sugar coating my entire reply in Shakespearian prose and poetry, i'll just say that every place occupied by the crappy mspaint doodle, renamed to a jpeg file and submitted to FA rivalling certain musical submissions in bytecount, that place could have been occupied by your masterpiece instead. And so could it be so in your message center and the browse section. From a hardware side of the site, FA it's far from being limitless.
 

Sonderjen

New Member
You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".

Per FA's AUP:

Harassment
Images clearly intended to harass or slander other members of the community will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, images that directly convey racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association directed at another individual or group.

Per dictionary definition:

ha·rass /həˈræs, ˈhærəs/
–verb (used with object)
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

Where on FA did I or anyone else do this? The key to harassment is continual pestering, which is easily circumvented with FA's built-in blocking system that any user is free to utilize. By definition, Dragon103's comments were much more harassing than what we did, even if the artist whose page the arguments occurred wasn't offended. Once a user starts using sockpuppet accounts to get to someone, I could see it as being a harassment case.

Of the following comments, which is more confrontational:

A: "Haha wow, grow up and get a life, kid!" (well, that's the jist of a couple shouts... you get the idea)

B: (a link to parody art) and a couple of these: :) :) :)

Come on. Really now. You make us sound like thugs.
 

XeNoX

Member
"You are a loose canon Admin X., you are suspended, gimme you gun and badge!" -if this were a movie
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
Sonderjen said:
You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".
It's your right to do so. Pick up the phone and dial 28557448
 

uncia

Member
Sonderjen said:
You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".

Quick question, aside;
Why the selective quotes and clauses which you read only in your favor, Sonderjen, given that it is almost certain you were called out on the ToS as well as the AUP?

viz.
ToS said:
Code of Conduct
You agree to respect the rights of others and their rights to join and engage in the Fur Affinity community. The basic guidelines listed below will be enforced by Fur Affinity Administrators and Staff. By using the Service, you also agree to Fur Affinity’s "Three Primary Laws of Common Courtesy"

The Three Laws of Courtesy:

* A User may not intentionally harass, slander or disrupt another User of the site, or, through inaction, intentionally allow another User to come to be harassed.
* A User must obey the requests and guidelines given to them by the Administration, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
* A User may protect their interests, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second Law.

“Inaction” is defined as the User being aware of harassment, slander or other abuse and not notifying a member of the Administration of the Staff. If you see harassment taking place you are obligated to report it.

Fur Affinity does not tolerate bigotry and will remove and take action against Users leaving remarks found to be crude and vulgar. Crude and vulgar is defined as, but not limited to: racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association.

Users agree that they will not engage in "disruptive behavior" in chat areas, forums, galleries, or any other area of the Fur Affinity community. Disruptive behavior shall be deemed to include, but will not be limited to, conduct which purposefully interferes with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries, or dialogue in the chat or forums.

Or was that not (also) used?
But, presuming it was, in what way do you believe you were excused from this when you deliberately did not report any issues with a given user but continued to escalate the matter having taken it into your own hands to "deal with".

Regards,
David.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
yak said:
Let's look at this from a different perspective. The "cons" overweigh the "pros". It's a meme and on top of that it's photoshopped - these factors alone raise the red flag. User created submissions on that meme will qualify still, unless they will be going against other rules of the site.

Understandable, I think that's a self moderation thing, I'd love to see some quality control, but I'd rather that fall on the user's discretion and well .... (other than the TOS trying to eliminate the myspace aspect)

The problem is though sure there isn't quality control over art and different skill levels and while I wouldn't say "that's not art" I certainly feel it's within rights to say "that's bad art"

Bad Art doesn't mean a Bad Person but that's whole nother topic.


Like I said my problem with the whole thing were two users submissions removed when it was more of an indirect "attack" when the person wasn't named or used. In fact, Hilda is the one being used.

People need to watch Pan's Labyrinth.
 

Sonderjen

New Member
uncia said:
Sonderjen said:
You know... I've been thinking during my TIME OUT, and I'm afraid I need to call "bullshit".

Quick question, aside;
Why the selective quotes and clauses which you read only in your favor, Sonderjen, given that it is almost certain you were called out on the ToS as well as the AUP?

viz.
ToS said:
Code of Conduct
You agree to respect the rights of others and their rights to join and engage in the Fur Affinity community. The basic guidelines listed below will be enforced by Fur Affinity Administrators and Staff. By using the Service, you also agree to Fur Affinity’s "Three Primary Laws of Common Courtesy"

The Three Laws of Courtesy:

* A User may not intentionally harass, slander or disrupt another User of the site, or, through inaction, intentionally allow another User to come to be harassed.
* A User must obey the requests and guidelines given to them by the Administration, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
* A User may protect their interests, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second Law.

“Inaction” is defined as the User being aware of harassment, slander or other abuse and not notifying a member of the Administration of the Staff. If you see harassment taking place you are obligated to report it.

Fur Affinity does not tolerate bigotry and will remove and take action against Users leaving remarks found to be crude and vulgar. Crude and vulgar is defined as, but not limited to: racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association.

Users agree that they will not engage in "disruptive behavior" in chat areas, forums, galleries, or any other area of the Fur Affinity community. Disruptive behavior shall be deemed to include, but will not be limited to, conduct which purposefully interferes with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries, or dialogue in the chat or forums.

Or was that not (also) used?
But, presuming it was, in what way do you believe you were excused from this when you deliberately did not report any issues with a given user but continued to escalate the matter having taken it into your own hands to "deal with".

Regards,
David.

Someone had already brought the issue up in the harassment forum - there was absolutely no reason to be redundant. What on earth did I take into my own hands? It's satire of a silly incident, and there are far more extreme things that could have been done.

I would like to know if anyone directly involved in the original incident actually contacted you, or if this is something the mods took upon themselves to enforce some nebulous view of proper conduct.

Also:
Disruptive behavior shall be deemed to include, but will not be limited to, conduct which purposefully interferes with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries, or dialogue in the chat or forums.

Last I checked, the dust had already settled and no one gave a damn about any of those pictures anymore. I forgot I'd even drawn it while I was guessing the reasons behind my ban - I had to learn that through the forums and off-site resources. Through its actions, THE MODERATION kicked up one hell of a bigger storm than we ever could have. However entertaining this debacle has been, their decisions have been far more disruptive in the cause-and-effect.

You still haven't presented any evidence proving the contrary and I believe a reversal is in order.
 

uncia

Member
All comments/observations 02c only, of course...

Sonderjen said:
Last I checked, the dust had already settled and no one gave a damn about any of those pictures anymore.
There is no statute of limitation on FA. If it takes six days to discuss and pass a vote for whatever reason, is that not still a bit better than an immediate knee-jerk reaction?

Sonderjen said:
I forgot I'd even drawn it while I was guessing the reasons behind my ban
Given that you'd received a comment on that submission only the day before it was deleted and that there were well over 50 comments and several dozen +favs on that, I find it had to believe you'd totally "forgotten" you'd ever drawn it. (And that aside from the related "drama" off-site which is not relevant here: you know which sites, though).

Sonderjen said:
- I had to learn that through the forums and off-site resources. Through its actions, THE MODERATION kicked up one hell of a bigger storm than we ever could have. However entertaining this debacle has been, their decisions have been far more disruptive in the cause-and-effect.
That there were any such issues does not excuse your behavior in the first instance.

Sonderjen said:
uncia said:
Why the selective quotes and clauses which you read only in your favor, Sonderjen, given that it is almost certain you were called out on the ToS as well as the AUP?
What on earth did I take into my own hands? It's satire of a silly incident, and there are far more extreme things that could have been done.
It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.

At least there should be no repeat on any such incident to the same degree as it is not possible to fail to realise by now that if there is such an issue with a community member, the best approach is to raise that with the administration.

Regards,
David.
 

Sonderjen

New Member
There is no statute of limitation on FA. If it takes six days to discuss and pass a vote for whatever reason, is that not still a bit better than an immediate knee-jerk reaction?

An a faulty decision is still incorrect no matter when it arrives. I would judge the massive wave of disagreements and open derision of the administrative staff from the general user base as an indicator that the decision was indeed faulty.

Given that you'd received a comment on that submission only the day before it was deleted and that there were well over 50 comments and several dozen +favs on that, I find it had to believe you'd totally "forgotten" you'd ever drawn it. (And that aside from the related "drama" off-site which is not relevant here: you know which sites, though).

At the moment of thinking back to anything I'd done that could even remotely be worth a ban, yes. Yes I had forgotten about it. My exact response upon finding out was, "Huh? THAT?"

It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).

You make it sound like the conversations went something along the lines of:

"hurr hurr, that'll show 'im"

"yeh, hurr hurr"

And yet, I don't recall this being the case.

At least there should be no repeat on any such incident to the same degree as it is not possible to fail to realise by now that if there is such an issue with a community member, the best approach is to raise that with the administration.

Wait... no? Had this been something I had a real issue with and was deeply offended by, I would have approached administration proper. This wasn't. The whole situation was silly and insignificant, but everyone's approaching this like someone had acid poured over them.

And I can see how this could devolve into a nuh-uh/yeah-huh argument with you, and would love input from the primary administrators who made the decision. I STILL have not received a direct statement from anyone, and perhaps I'm missing something?

I doubt it though.
 
Janglur said:
BTW, i'm not naming names. But the artists involved are all VERY high profile. Not just some corner-stuffer like Vegex.
Ooh, name-dropping. Classy!
uncia said:
It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.
Wait, are you kidding me? There was nothing malicious about Sonderjen's submission. He was poking fun at something silly that happened on FA, there were no direct attacks against anyone involved :?
 

agouti-rex

New Member
uncia said:
It was not "innocent" satire by a long shot. (Likewise from the comments you received in response and with which you did not disagree).
Yes, there were far more extreme things which could've been done, but again that that is so does not excuse violating the community rules.

Ya know, Dragon103 was whinging because someone drew a gory pic of paleman eating a little blue dragon when he only wanted to see happy pictures of dragons being eaten. Sonderjen obliges him and gets banned? Has it come to the point that objectively innocent pictures done with slightly tongue-in-cheek intent are off limits?

I think it's obvious that the only solution here is to limit Furaffinity so that it's nothing but Second Live dog dick avatars.
 

Firehazard

I can fix it!
Wait, hold on a minute. Let me make sure I understand what's going on here.

tealdeericonsbyoctanbeabl3.png
TEAL DEER CROSSING AHEAD: USE CAUTION

1. Sonderjen was "banned" from the main site. (I'll explain the quoteyhickeys in a moment.)

2. The staff member responsible for enacting said "ban" has not, as of yet, contacted Sonderjen with an explanation as to why. However, a brief but vague explanation was sent by somebody.

3. Said "ban" is actually a three-day suspension.

4. The reason for the "ban" was, apparently, (A) being involved in a meme that apparently was originally meant to be hurtful towards somebody, and (B) not playing vigilante and reporting other users for posting negative comments about that somebody.

Am I right so far? Assuming I am (and disregard if I happen to be off on some crucial point), I pre-emptively make the following commentary:

1. Okay, whatever. No surprise here. He's never posted anything directly confrontational in the past, but he's among those users I wouldn't necessarily put it past (though he is at the bottom of that list, easily).

2. Not cool. Users should have the right to know exactly why they were banned, and the opportunity to discuss said ban directly with the staff member responsible so as to clear up any questions they might have. And it looks like Sonderjen has several.

3. This is an issue I have with pretty much every website you could name, because they all seem to do this: temporary suspensions and permanent expulsions are both referred to as "bans" without any sort of language clarifying which. This always causes no end of confusion and drama among other users, who have no way of knowing and assume it's permanent because in the real world, that's what "ban" means. If they knew the person was just "in the time-out chair," they'd probably keep quiet(er) about the whole mess. Especially if they knew it was only three f'ing days!

4. In my own opinion, this might have been grounds for a warning and deletion at most. First of all, I've already seen that meme pop up two other places, by users who are not known for directly attacking specific people. Secondly, I don't know anyone who'd argue that failing to report policy violation is a serious offense, much less one that merits the same punishment as those violators themselves (I'm guessing the users who left those comments are the other ones who got banned, here).

*comes up for air* There you go. Your daily dose of uninformed ranting. Now back to life as usual.
 

uncia

Member
Sonderjen said:
You make it sound like the conversations went something along the lines of:

"hurr hurr, that'll show 'im"

"yeh, hurr hurr"

And yet, I don't recall this being the case.
>> HAHAHAHA Y E S. Oh god, yes.
>> HOW DID I KNOW YOU'D BE ON THIS RIGHT AWAY

>> dagagjakljdflkafjwlk46tju0rdfiojkmbv i lol'd so hard i coughed up a lung.

>> I laughed whole-heartedly, sir!
> Thank you for being the catalyst.

And the number of times you stood back to consider that the overall impact of your submission and comment back-slapping might be being (deliberately) hurtful for the sake of the lulz?

So if there's now a hypothetical submission created that is so very clearly a "lulz Sonderjen got pwned" in-joke with stacking of back-slapping comments (heck, let's spread it around a few other drama sites, even though those don't count for FA purposes), you'd be more than happy with that?
OK, maybe you would... I'd be fully expecting the administration to be doing something about that, though. Especially if that person had a history of deliberately laughing at other's expense without realising that FA is a safe-haven for RL people to enjoy, not a political pressure cooker where everyone is "fair game" for whatever cutting satire one cares to throw around. Is that not a clear enough distinction?
 
sigh... I can only hope one day I achieve memedom

edit: well, maybe not. it would probably end up being super-ridiculous and not be anything like me. and i just realized this is the site section. i'm outside my natural habitat, the rants and raves section : x
 

Firehazard

I can fix it!
(in response to a reply that was accidentally sent thru PM instead of posted)

What I want is to see the picture in question and how it is so different from all the others. Also to know why, if there's a consensus that he's hanging by a thread as it is, they chose to delete, and ban him for, this but not the picture of Fisk that he did a while back. Because at least this one could be explained away as hopping on a bandwagon.
 
uncia said:
Sonderjen said:
You make it sound like the conversations went something along the lines of:

"hurr hurr, that'll show 'im"

"yeh, hurr hurr"

And yet, I don't recall this being the case.
>> HAHAHAHA Y E S. Oh god, yes.
>> HOW DID I KNOW YOU'D BE ON THIS RIGHT AWAY

>> dagagjakljdflkafjwlk46tju0rdfiojkmbv i lol'd so hard i coughed up a lung.

>> I laughed whole-heartedly, sir!
> Thank you for being the catalyst.
Once again, are you KIDDING ME?
The whole dragon103 or w/e shitstorm that happened was seen by alot of people on FA. Hida is a guy well-known for commissioning 'cute' vore and such. Someone uploads some Hida vore that isn't particularly 'cute'. Hida shrugs it off, Dragonguy goes in and throws a fit because it is just NOT CUTE ENOUGH.
Sonderjen JOKINGLY re-interprets the image, this time making it 'cute' by having Hida smiling, tounge firmly in cheek.
Hida laughs it off, people are amused by Sonderjen's quick timing, LIFE. GOES. ON. Unless Hida himself contacted admins and was upset about this, there really is no way I can see this as 'harassment' in any shape or form.
 

uncia

Member
"Jokingly" from one point of view can easily be taken as "mockingly" from another.
Something can look "ridiculous" in a funny way, yet who wishes to be a subject of "ridicule"?

The submission in question and various posts thereon clearly made dragon103 (a community member) a deliberate subject of ridicule, encouraging others to similarly ridicule and deride them; as can still be seen on their user page.

Can you honestly tell me hand-on-heart that that is the best way to deal with someone who's throwing a bit of a tiff rather than pointing out as quickly as possibly to the administration (repeatedly if needs be) that that requires tidying up/defusing asap?
 

Bokracroc

Bokra, come out to pla-ay
Well considering it can take anywhere from an hour to 3 weeks to answer a Trouble Ticket...
 
uncia said:
"Jokingly" from one point of view can easily be taken as "mockingly" from another.
Something can look "ridiculous" in a funny way, yet who wishes to be a subject of "ridicule"?

The submission in question and various posts thereon clearly made dragon103 (a community member) a deliberate subject of ridicule, encouraging others to similarly ridicule and deride them; as can still be seen on their user page.

Can you honestly tell me hand-on-heart that that is the best way to deal with someone who's throwing a bit of a tiff rather than pointing out as quickly as possibly to the administration (repeatedly if needs be) that that requires tidying up/defusing asap?
Honestly, there was no encouragement to go and ridicule dragon103. There were no direct links/mentions of him in sonderjen's submission, only the people who knew of the incident before hand went after him. And sonderjen's picture isn't to blame for that, individual members of FA are.
And I'm sorry, but the idea of constantly casting paranoid glances over my shoulder in fear that someone might take a joke/satire the wrong way and have me silenced goes against everything an art site should represent.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
soundhound said:
Honestly, there was no encouragement to go and ridicule dragon103. There were no direct links/mentions of him in sonderjen's submission, only the people who knew of the incident before hand went after him. And sonderjen's picture isn't to blame for that, individual members of FA are.

Sonderjen has been suspended multiple times for doing this kind of thing, has even been told to not do so again. He is quite aware of the effect that his particular work has, as well why he was suspended. There were many better ways to respond to the situation that occurred, and he did not take those options, rather opting for a method that has gotten him in trouble in the past, and that's exactly what happened again. He's going to have to live with the repercussions of the decision that he made. He'll be back soon enough and hopefully more the wiser.

soundhound said:
And I'm sorry, but the idea of constantly casting paranoid glances over my shoulder in fear that someone might take a joke/satire the wrong way and have me silenced goes against everything an art site should represent.


Everything you feel an art site should represent. I'm fairly certain that the people who are on the bitter end of someone just looking for the lulz would not agree with you at all.

That being said, this is over. Sonderjen received his suspension and it will be up soon enough. Next time something like this comes up, find a more positive way to resolve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top