fchan

discussion

Why can't we have beast here?

Pages:1
1Report
at 13 Feb 2008: 18:38

I don't get it.  In /ah/ we have vore, gore, watersports, hell, even furry child pornography.  Yet for some reason it's against the rules to post beast porn.  What the fuck is up with this?  It's still furry.  If you can prove that the animal can talk you can post it in /m/ (for example: those pics of james and arcanine).  It makes no sense.

I ask that the mods relax on this rule and let us post beast in /ah/ at least.

2Report
at 13 Feb 2008: 18:53

>>1
...Like actual REAL porn? That's illegal dumbshit.

3Report
at 13 Feb 2008: 19:34

>>1
>Fchan is for anthropomorphic furry art only

>anthropomorphic furry art only

>anthropomorphic

4Report
lost souls at 13 Feb 2008: 19:37

>>1 >>2 >>3

Fchan is not for real-life style art. It is for furry art. It's that simple.

5Report(capped) (sage)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 13 Feb 2008: 19:47

I wrote the no beast rule years ago because, to be completely honest, I do not want to look at it. Neither does Xenofur, or the rest of staff.

As the staff does not wish to view it, and allowing it on the boards would force us to view it. The answer has been, is now, and will forever be no.

Finally, we believe that beast is beast, not furry.

6Report
at 13 Feb 2008: 20:54

Again, there are already image boards devoted to bestiality...lots of them. WAY more than there are furry image boards. Do a web search for GermParrot and Pet Lover's Forum for a starting point. Even the other 'chans' can let bestiality slide occassionally.

7Report
at 13 Feb 2008: 22:02

>>5
Not to criticise, but you have conflicting statements. Quoting yourself from from another thread:

"I must admit, back when I created /ah/, I created it as a place to put all those things I was not wanting to look at. So I do not really go there unless I really have to.
Something to think about is the staff here is directed to look for reasons to allow things to remain, not to look for reasons to remove. Personally, I would prefer to see those removed, but I have no way to prove that they are not just non-morphs, or just animals.

Also, keep in mind, what is quoted in >>1 is a general guideline. It is subject to interpretation, and possibly a rewrite some time in the near future."

Still, the last statement is probably the only arguement needed.

8Report(capped) (sage)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 13 Feb 2008: 23:11

>>7
Meh, whats a little contradiction between friends?

Seems that way. Wow, score one for the home team.

But on close observation, I do not think I do, but then I was kind of vague to begin with. I do not want those here, and though the staff is directed to look for reasons to keep things around, we pretty much all agree, we can not justify beastie. To us, it is not furry.
Not able to prove it is or is not sentient? I will still say no.

@Last statement: Tag with "by staff".

9Report
lost souls at 14 Feb 2008: 01:15

>>8

"Not able to prove it is or is not sentient? I will still say no."

That's the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? How can you tell whether it is a talking animal non-morph (furry) or a garden variety animal (not furry)? What qualities in the picture itself short of having 'beastiality' in its file name, which I've seen in /ah/ and I think that image is still up there, that would disqualify that picture?

Two people can look at an /ah/ picture and come to the exact opposite conculsion. It's just like how two people can look at the distorted facial expressions on an /a/ pic and one says "she's being raped" while the other says "it's bondage and she enjoys it".

10Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 02:39

I think it's sufficiently justified that so long as it's not RL, it should not be censored because of lack of determinitive properties. However, I'll come to another question. Should non-morphic be accepted in toon?

Quite clearly you understand why non-morphic by itself is no  longer a good justification for an image to be in /toon. I'll instead suggest a clarification to the above: non-morphic in toon should also be in some way unrealistic, be it via mythical properties (dragons), extinct properties (dinosaurs), stylization (toony), or obviously communicative/performing human-like actions (clear signs of sapience). For further clarification: human-like actions in this case does not include sex/rape by itself, since any creature is perfectly capable of doing so (example: backrubs, usage of tools, doing the tango).

11Report (sage)
at 14 Feb 2008: 02:41

>>10
Actually, I should've just said that "realistic" non-morphs should go into /ah/, since that's much easier to explain... but meh. Eitherway, the point is:

Unrealistic non-morph: /toon
Realistic non-morph: /ah

12Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 02:41

Me thinks the problem the Fair Lady Nadia is hinting to is her desire to err on the side of caution.

13Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 05:08

Natural and "photorealistic" animals aren't furry, they're animals (animals != furry). Non-morphic means furry, just without the physical humanoid morph, you can still distinguish by facial expressions for example (those animals aren't capable of) or speech. And the moment humans are involved in the picture it shouldn't be posted at all (except for clean art).

But the whole /ah/ topic turned out to be quite strange. I mean, the administration told a few times that she created the /ah/ channel, but none of the entire staff is willing to check it. So, why they're defining rules for it, but none of them cares wether these rules are appreciated or not?

Why not simply remove /ah/ and define new and clear guidelines for the other boards. The admin hasn't to maintain a /ah/ section, expecially when she doesn't want that stuff. It's her private site and further is accesible to the public, it means that if there will be any legal issues with posted material at any time she doesn't realize because she doesn't want to check /ah/ on it's content, she got the problems.

There will be a lot of crying, but the people should keep in mind that they were allowed to post their stuff the whole time, even the the site's owner(s) actually don't like the stuff around here. But to be honest, romoving the whole /ah/ board would make things a lot easier and fchan isn't the only imageboard aviable, isn't it?

14Report(capped)
FoxStar at 14 Feb 2008: 06:38

>>13 We aren't removing /ah/, we aren't allowing beast. Ever. Deal.

15Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 08:21

>>5
Oh wow, this is classic.  Do you guys DO like to look at gore, vore, furry child porn, rape, torture, and everything else?  Wow, just wow.  Screen cap moment. 

You guys are the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen.

And I wasn't talking about real beast porn, the drawn kind.  Drawings are not illegal.

16Report (sage)
at 14 Feb 2008: 09:05

>>15
If assuming you are >>1 as you are implying, then you have no point to begin with. Drawings were always allowed, and had always been allowed. The past 2 topics: "ok this is just a little too far" and "RequestingNon-morphs/Bestiality clarification" had already clarified it as such. (In fact, I had specifically made the topic asking for clarification so as to end the other topic.)

It is precisely because you made this topic despite the previous two topics I mentioned that everyone thought you were not referring to the drawn kind of images.

I'll end this post by noting that if you were referring to drawn images, this discussion was officially CLOSED ever since those two topics were concluded. I'll repeat that drawings are allowed, period.

I think we can close this topic now, I believe we do not need 3 topics on this point, two with overwhelming biases and uncertain terms, and one which contains only necessary information.

On further thought, we may need to put this clarification in /faq so that we do not repeatedly have people contesting this.

17Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 21:46

I agree with >>1 . It's still a furry fetish. The rest is just personal bias.

18Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 22:19

A Guide On If Your Opinion Matters;
-Do you own the site?
-Do you pay the bills for the site?

If you answered yes, you get a say in the matter.
If you answered no, promptly STFU.

Thank you.

19Report
at 14 Feb 2008: 22:22

>>18
By the way, I don't own the site either and i'm not one of the mods. I'm simply tired of all the morons constantly making posts about how this or that should be allowed because YOU want it to be. It's up to the people who own the site and if you want to state your opinion that's fine.

However, don't post some huge paragraph full of pretentious, insulting and ridiculous points saying how Fchan should bend to your will. It's annoying and it's disrespectful to the great people who make this site possible.

20Report
Basque at 14 Feb 2008: 22:40

>>18
Actually, that's not true. Xenofur and Nadia don't own the site or help cover the cost, but they make the rules.

Also, http://fchan.me/dis/#1202799753.

21Report
lost souls at 14 Feb 2008: 23:09

>>1

To the mods: If the issue is so contentious, then why not put a clear and distinct clarification of the rules on /faq/?

22Report
at 15 Feb 2008: 10:52

Sooo.... you support child porn in the guise of furry and imply that its fine, yet you denounce beast which is very arguably a cornerstone of furry.
the argument of do you pay for the site ? is moot as "yes each of us does pay for the site by being forced to see the adds and crap"
Nice way to show you stepped down Nadia / Miyagami.

23Report
at 15 Feb 2008: 13:00

>>17 >>22
Please refer to >>16.

No one has any contention with drawn porn. Everyone (or at least, I think so) has contention with RL beast porn. There is no arguement. This topic is dead.

Unless you're going to argue for RL beast porn?

24Report
at 15 Feb 2008: 22:47

>>22
LOL, sorry, wrong wrong wrong WRONG.

The advertisements even on 4chan take maybe 1 second out of my day and the advertisements integrated into the site barely affect the experience at all. What exactly are you 'paying' for by having to view these ads or rather IGNORE the ads? I'm not such a pretentious little fuck that I think a few ads being on a page gives me the right to control the content of the site.

25Report
at 15 Feb 2008: 22:55

Each and every one of indeed has the ingrained ability to control the content here, and we do so by whether we come here and look at and or post files.  vote with your posting and browsing habits boys and girls.
>>24 *snerk* by viewing those adds we are paying the bills bubba.

26Report
at 15 Feb 2008: 22:57

(fixed)
Each and every one of us indeed has the ingrained ability to control the content here, and we do so by whether we come here and look at, and or, post files.  vote with your posting and browsing habits boys and girls.
>>24 *snerk* by viewing those adds we are paying the bills bubba.

27Report
at 16 Feb 2008: 03:21

>>25
>>26
You are an idiot. That's like going to a blog and making constant whiny and pointless posts saying how the guy in charge needs to add content you want that goes against what they want just because you are visiting. At the end of the day it's still their site and you are not personally paying for it(even then a business has a choice to do what the hell they want) so if you don't like it piss off.

28Report
at 16 Feb 2008: 07:27

>>27
Get used to it because this is the kind of pretentious self righteous entitlement this shitty generation of children are proud of. They can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that being a customer or fan doesn't give them the right to tell someone to do something against their wishes. If a porn site wants to draw a line you feel is hypocritical OH FUCKING WELL, it's their right to draw any line they choose. You know what your right as a fan is? You can stop visiting the site anytime you please.

Let's face it though, probably less than 1% of the people who come here want to see beast porn.(I sure don't want to see it and I don't consider it furry either) So if those people want to leave it's no big deal, not like this is a commercial site anyway. Less traffic = less bandwidth bills to pay.

29Report(capped)
Xenofur at 16 Feb 2008: 09:56

Saaah, so much anger. Everyone, please, go make yourself a nice tea, sit down in front of a window overlooking some greenish landscape and relax~

There. Feel better? Good.

Now, to the op: First off, there is a little misunderstanding. If a quadruped can talk then it is *not* ok in /m, however it is ok in /toon. Secondly, as far as i am concerned, there is a huge difference between bestiality and furry, which lies in furry being "beings with human traits and animal traits" and bestiality being "animals without human traits". As such, bestiality does not belong on fchan. End of line.

As for the ownership: The owner of the server has for a long time been paying the bills for this server out of his own pockets and has only "relatively" recently added those ads to take a bit of the sting out of those bills. Don't delude yourself into thinking they actually pay for the site. However he is a friend of mine and nadia's, so he allows us to go on with the site. Again, end of line.

30Report
at 17 Feb 2008: 00:31

I was his roommate too, we used the money from fchan to visit mexico, thanks to the ad's I got laid like 30 times! thanks fchan!

31Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage