FA+
Shop
5220
Views
Views
168
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Photography / Fursuit
Species German Shepherd
Size 690 x 1000
File Size 399.8 kB
Report this content
★
More from dancingduke
Well if FA thinks standing in a public place in a pair of undies breaches their TOS, so be it.
So i'll censor it to be able to upload it here.
You can view the unedited image over on Weasyl https://www.weasyl.com/submission/1.....he-dance-floor
I adore this image, it's a shame one person thought that deleting it was the correct method of action.
I love FA, I honestly wish they had some sort of "review mode" where an image is taken out of view from the public eye and you can discuss with an admin the action needed or simply the ability to upload an edited image should it breach the TOS. (Youtube has something like this)
Also it's an individual who deems it inappropriate.
So what one admin may feel is ok, another may not. It's just so incredibly frustrating.
I wasn't going to make a big deal about it and the original submission was deleted weeks ago. I put a trouble ticket in, but that is yet to be looked at it seems, if ever.
I do understand what they're trying to stop.
They don't want "real life" porn on their website as they can't legally host that sort of stuff.
However, i'm not in a sexual position, on a bed. I don't have an SPH with my real life junk in the underwear. I'm not bulgy (fake or real). I'm not grabbing my package.
The ironic thing is, my character naked in the same pose would be ok. Yet putting a pair of undies on it somehow makes it breach the TOS?
In fact, i've seen pro sports mascots do the same sort of look.
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/134851451-singer-jessica-sutta-dances-with-the-kings-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=fOqRSGnZREbdOD5U9z9THydUkMbOACONDOmm5YdHnwJQG5vu%2Fgm0Tn1vTq6hbJi6T0dPruEIBzHuCOkC3jLiHg%3D%3D
These are in front of thousands and on television.
Here I am in public convention space, on the dance floor in front of others.
I respect FA and their TOS, I've never thought anything I've uploaded breached the TOS. Whilst I want my character to appear Calvin Klein billboard sexy, I don't want it to appear in porn. The images I take as Duke would be no different to what you would see in a music video from a pop star or on the cover of a magazine.
But some how being dressed as a dog makes this inappropriate?
I am upset by it, it's a shame the original image, comments and favs were all removed in an instant.
I certainly hope FA and the admins that control the content on here really sit down with one another to deem what is and isn't ok.
Because apparently the image you see here wasn't ok.
But the image of their mascot in a doggy style position on a bed was.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKP-fr4.....rQ83.jpg:large
Just needed to share my thoughts and hopefully someone at FA will hear it and look into a more understanding position on the issue.
So i'll censor it to be able to upload it here.
You can view the unedited image over on Weasyl https://www.weasyl.com/submission/1.....he-dance-floor
I adore this image, it's a shame one person thought that deleting it was the correct method of action.
I love FA, I honestly wish they had some sort of "review mode" where an image is taken out of view from the public eye and you can discuss with an admin the action needed or simply the ability to upload an edited image should it breach the TOS. (Youtube has something like this)
Also it's an individual who deems it inappropriate.
So what one admin may feel is ok, another may not. It's just so incredibly frustrating.
I wasn't going to make a big deal about it and the original submission was deleted weeks ago. I put a trouble ticket in, but that is yet to be looked at it seems, if ever.
I do understand what they're trying to stop.
They don't want "real life" porn on their website as they can't legally host that sort of stuff.
However, i'm not in a sexual position, on a bed. I don't have an SPH with my real life junk in the underwear. I'm not bulgy (fake or real). I'm not grabbing my package.
The ironic thing is, my character naked in the same pose would be ok. Yet putting a pair of undies on it somehow makes it breach the TOS?
In fact, i've seen pro sports mascots do the same sort of look.
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/134851451-singer-jessica-sutta-dances-with-the-kings-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=fOqRSGnZREbdOD5U9z9THydUkMbOACONDOmm5YdHnwJQG5vu%2Fgm0Tn1vTq6hbJi6T0dPruEIBzHuCOkC3jLiHg%3D%3D
These are in front of thousands and on television.
Here I am in public convention space, on the dance floor in front of others.
I respect FA and their TOS, I've never thought anything I've uploaded breached the TOS. Whilst I want my character to appear Calvin Klein billboard sexy, I don't want it to appear in porn. The images I take as Duke would be no different to what you would see in a music video from a pop star or on the cover of a magazine.
But some how being dressed as a dog makes this inappropriate?
I am upset by it, it's a shame the original image, comments and favs were all removed in an instant.
I certainly hope FA and the admins that control the content on here really sit down with one another to deem what is and isn't ok.
Because apparently the image you see here wasn't ok.
But the image of their mascot in a doggy style position on a bed was.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKP-fr4.....rQ83.jpg:large
Just needed to share my thoughts and hopefully someone at FA will hear it and look into a more understanding position on the issue.
Category Photography / Fursuit
Species German Shepherd
Size 690 x 1000px
File Size 399.8 kB
I have to agree, besides some odd moments here and there. I actually think FA has played a critical part in development of the fandom.
They just need to set more strict or obvious guidelines among their staff, rather than based on an individual view.
As well as a "review" options for submissions, rather than instant delete.
They just need to set more strict or obvious guidelines among their staff, rather than based on an individual view.
As well as a "review" options for submissions, rather than instant delete.
I can think of a million and one more adult pornographic images (including human drawn images) that this site has hosted. Someone posing semi-sexi (which lets face it is extremely a stretch for some people's imagination) is the LEAST of their worries. They need to wise the f* up or get the heck out.
Lol I am sorry, but with how FA thinks that is bad? They should see what's worse than a freaking undies pic. I mean, how is wearing undies so bad?
I honestly don't see an issue with it I mean you're not hurting anyone, I get the fact that some people may look at it differently in the wrong ways.
Sorry that happened to you Duke.
Keep being yourself! forget what people tell you differently.
I honestly don't see an issue with it I mean you're not hurting anyone, I get the fact that some people may look at it differently in the wrong ways.
Sorry that happened to you Duke.
Keep being yourself! forget what people tell you differently.
Hm, what AUP rule do they claim it's in violation of?
Is it: "3.5 - Photography depicting nudity (exposed buttocks, breasts, bulges, outlines of genitalia, etc.) or indecently-clothed models (undergarments, diapers, lingerie) is prohibited. Exceptions may be made for swimsuits worn in public locations, such as a pool or beach."?
If so, that's very dubious. Back when I was still admin, this rule didn't apply to fursuits, iirc.
Is it: "3.5 - Photography depicting nudity (exposed buttocks, breasts, bulges, outlines of genitalia, etc.) or indecently-clothed models (undergarments, diapers, lingerie) is prohibited. Exceptions may be made for swimsuits worn in public locations, such as a pool or beach."?
If so, that's very dubious. Back when I was still admin, this rule didn't apply to fursuits, iirc.
Ridiculous that you had to censor it... but then again FA has taken a downward spiral since IMVU took over so not all too surprising...
...Maybe its the fact that you were pulling part of the undies down all seductively like? Then again.. I'm a bit confused on FA's standards when they don't allow things like this.. but have no problem advertising ads for human porn sites.
...Maybe its the fact that you were pulling part of the undies down all seductively like? Then again.. I'm a bit confused on FA's standards when they don't allow things like this.. but have no problem advertising ads for human porn sites.
As Lycos said, fursuits with more clothing, like underwear and bathing suits is not ok, but without them is. It doesn't make sense, but it is part of FA's upload policy. They even deleted pictures on my Raider account, even though it wasn't a new picture and threatened to ban me from the site if it happens again.
After my Marvin the Martian diaper pic, they DID change the AUP,,,
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5977159/
but it looks like they changed it back again.
I still want to know what they consider a (indecently clothed) "model". Do they mean a human person?
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5977159/
but it looks like they changed it back again.
I still want to know what they consider a (indecently clothed) "model". Do they mean a human person?
Weird. I swear the only reason FA is still in business is because of the impression that everyone is here and therefore no one wants to leave and lose their followers.
Oh well. you're awesome, Duke! I love your "Good Times" MWFF video! I didn't know you had a Weasyl account until today but now I've followed you there too!
Might I suggest directly noting one of the admins about this? You should mention the name of the moderator that deleted the picture if you know who it was. You might get a faster response by going to them directly instead of opening a trouble ticket which the admins might not even see if a mod gets to them first.
Oh well. you're awesome, Duke! I love your "Good Times" MWFF video! I didn't know you had a Weasyl account until today but now I've followed you there too!
Might I suggest directly noting one of the admins about this? You should mention the name of the moderator that deleted the picture if you know who it was. You might get a faster response by going to them directly instead of opening a trouble ticket which the admins might not even see if a mod gets to them first.
It's a shame they are curbing your artwork.
Since IMVU and FA are both located in the USA they are bound to Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"
Since IMVU and FA are both located in the USA they are bound to Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"
Those rights don't make it any easier for FA to host just anything, though.
Photography that can be considered to be "erotic" of nature is a hellhole for site owners. Legally, the owner has to have some kind of ID of the photo's subject, should push come to shove.
For that reason, it's more practical just to ban erotic photography.
Now, I'm not saying the original picture should've been considered "erotic", nor that the rules mentioned here are broken. I think the removal of the original image is dubious.
That still doesn't mean anyone can just upload anything, though.
Photography that can be considered to be "erotic" of nature is a hellhole for site owners. Legally, the owner has to have some kind of ID of the photo's subject, should push come to shove.
For that reason, it's more practical just to ban erotic photography.
Now, I'm not saying the original picture should've been considered "erotic", nor that the rules mentioned here are broken. I think the removal of the original image is dubious.
That still doesn't mean anyone can just upload anything, though.
That's kind of ridiculous that underwear over your fursuit got taken down on A furry website,
Meanwhile if you posted it on ANY OTHER WEBSITE IN THE UNIVERSE it would be okay. Like Facebook, or twitter, or christian mingle probably. But the one website meant for furries....
Meanwhile if you posted it on ANY OTHER WEBSITE IN THE UNIVERSE it would be okay. Like Facebook, or twitter, or christian mingle probably. But the one website meant for furries....
Comments