fchan

discussion

Several changes and clarifications in policy

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321
321Report
LLz at 13 Mar 2008: 17:52

Another point would be that, so what if it's obscene? The Miller test does nothing to prove that it is harmful in any way whatsoever. Inherently, it's censorship based on public opinion of what constitutes as disgusting.

Irregardless, until someone challenges the PROTECT Act, it'll still stand.

322Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 19:11

harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl harbl

323Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 20:07

Fchan trolls new best friend: Godwin
Even tho they cant spell it and dont know who the fuk it was...

"2 times just on me
Rule 0: Behave politely and civil.
Calling mods nazis?"
Check the banlog a bit further, maybe you see the hidden truth.

In any case the rules are retarded and the moderation team skips all the time on its own rules. Thats all and nothing more. The sad part is that some deama fan sub trolls enjoy it to bolster the moderators with their explict stupidity.
They do something out of the picture? The answer comes right away, its their site and not yours, what the hell of an argument.

Once the baby trolls finished learning and start to gasp that there are countless other sites and boards, this one will slowly get fu*ked up. Whatever, have some harbl. Good night

324Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 20:26

moo :3

325Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 22:45

>>324
That's the most useful thing anyone's said in this thread in the last 323 posts. =p

326Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 05:40

1. Cub art

Due to its host having increasing concerns about such art and additionally due to several federal states of the USA having passed as-of-yet unappealed legislations that forbid such art, Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site itself by banning cub art.

** translation: we don't like cub art, and are scratching at reasons to say it's not our fault so we can remove it and ignore the users' complaints.

As of today, all clear and definite depictions of childs or child-like characters outside of /c are forbidden. Unclear

** cub art in /c has always been deleted with an excessively large banhammer. Thanks for clearing up your personal hangups.

specimen will be treated at the discretion of our moderators, with a trend towards deletion, with the exception of /ah and /toon where the trend will lean towards keeping.

** specify WHY you'd be keeping art you don't like, OK? You said "ALL CUB ART" and now you MIGHT keep it?

To make this a bit more clear, some examples:
Images like the one depicting a young bear girl sucking a rather huge penis (done in a hardiman style), would be deleted on sight, even on /ah or /toon.

** so, no diapers in sight there...just a chibi-fied bear girl...I see.

However images any depiction of Tails the Fox, would be perfectly fine in /toon. Unless of course he is wearing a pacifier.

** ah, thanks for clearing that up. "pacifiers mean that the character wearing it are 'cubs'." ok, goodbye all you ravers, we know how much you like your pacifiers when raving.

You like tails, and even though you know he's underage, you can handwave away your furious fapping because he's your favourite.

Grow some fucking balls, seriously. If you were to say "we don't like cub art, it's our board, we won't allow it, clean or not, diapers or not, pacifiers or not, come hell or high water" I'd still call you on being a hypocrit but I'd have an easier time respecting your shitty decisions.

So clear this up for the babyfurs - CLEAN pictures of 'cubs' (meaning "cubs not having sex", hurrhurr you scat lovers) are allowed in their respective places!

cubs are now allowed in /c and /toon if they're clean clean cubs, diapers or not.

'dirty' clean cubs are allowed in /ah.

If not, you're showing your bias and we're free to call you on being two-faced sackless hypocrits

327Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 06:06

1. Cub art

Due to its host having increasing concerns about such art and additionally due to several federal states of the USA having passed as-of-yet unappealed legislations that forbid such art, Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site itself by banning cub art.

** translation: we don't like cub art, and are scratching at reasons to say it's not our fault so we can remove it and ignore the users' complaints.

--- Are you the host? No? Then you don't get to make decisions. Especially since it's not through your work that the server is maintained. Furthermore, please read >>308, where I explained why the legislation is valid.

As of today, all clear and definite depictions of childs or child-like characters outside of /c are forbidden. Unclear

** cub art in /c has always been deleted with an excessively large banhammer. Thanks for clearing up your personal hangups.

--- That has nothing to do with this issue today.

specimen will be treated at the discretion of our moderators, with a trend towards deletion, with the exception of /ah and /toon where the trend will lean towards keeping.

** specify WHY you'd be keeping art you don't like, OK? You said "ALL CUB ART" and now you MIGHT keep it?

--- Cub Art is banned. Just the definition of what constitutes as Cub is not as strict.

To make this a bit more clear, some examples:
Images like the one depicting a young bear girl sucking a rather huge penis (done in a hardiman style), would be deleted on sight, even on /ah or /toon.

** so, no diapers in sight there...just a chibi-fied bear girl...I see.

--- How do you know it's a girl? Lore doesn't count since characters can be drawn older than canon.

However images any depiction of Tails the Fox, would be perfectly fine in /toon. Unless of course he is wearing a pacifier.

** ah, thanks for clearing that up. "pacifiers mean that the character wearing it are 'cubs'." ok, goodbye all you ravers, we know how much you like your pacifiers when raving.

--- Exaggaration for clearness. Every ban/deletion is still a case by case basis, as it has always been.

You like tails, and even though you know he's underage, you can handwave away your furious fapping because he's your favourite.

Grow some fucking balls, seriously. If you were to say "we don't like cub art, it's our board, we won't allow it, clean or not, diapers or not, pacifiers or not, come hell or high water" I'd still call you on being a hypocrit but I'd have an easier time respecting your shitty decisions.

So clear this up for the babyfurs - CLEAN pictures of 'cubs' (meaning "cubs not having sex", hurrhurr you scat lovers) are allowed in their respective places!

cubs are now allowed in /c and /toon if they're clean clean cubs, diapers or not.

'dirty' clean cubs are allowed in /ah.

If not, you're showing your bias and we're free to call you on being two-faced sackless hypocrits

--- Again, please read >>308. Unless you can argue how that legislation has no change of being able to target cub, the host has a perfectly legitimate reason to be cautious.

--- I'm calling you for biasness, until you actually read up about the PrOTECT Act and inform us why it can't target cub art.

--- In advance, because I know the whole thread is tl;dr, I'll repeat myself that just because it doesn't resemble a human minor doesn't mean it can't be targetted. Lolicon can be argued to not resemble a human minor, but there has been at lease 1 successful charge of someone owning lolicon. Again, details at >>308.

328Report (sage)
at 14 Mar 2008: 07:44

The thread starts over...

329Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 08:51

>>327
Just to be clear, because you're a tool, I'll use caps where necessary to highlight the obvious:

Unless ALL depictions of ALL 'underage' CREATURES* are illegal, pictures of 'underage' creatures of a NON SEXUAL NATURE** ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL.

*(if we extend 'person' to mean 'imaginary non-human anthropomorphic animals)
**(that means just plain 'cubs' in diapers, 'cubs' with pacifiers and 'cubs' just standing around looking cute)

Is tiny toons illegal?
Is muppet babies illegal?
Is rugrats illegal?
is the knuffel bunny illegal?

until or unless they are, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS WHATSOEVER for your kneejerk reaction in banning ALL 'cub art' except where (by your grasping-at-straws attempts) you make "children" also apply to said imaginary non-human creatures.

So yeah, I think that logical reason pretty much informs you about why you're wrong.

If you want to ban it anyway, grow some damned balls and say "not on my server because I say so", you two-faced sackless hypocrit. I'll call you on it, but I'll shut up.

330Report
www.lulz.net at 14 Mar 2008: 08:55

>>329
THEY ARE NOW ! LOL!

331Report
Azrael at 14 Mar 2008: 08:55

Okie... My take on the cub thing is that those who REALLY want that pedo crap can make their own damn chan just for it.

I like macro stuff, but I wouldn't be butthurt if they canned extreme violence with the macro.  I would just go somewhere else for it and in fact have a few alternatives for macro already.

So why don't you guys just get together and make your own site just for various cubby stuff?  It can't be that hard and there certainly appears to be enough demand for it.  Then it's your site and your responsibility and those of us who are seriously creeped by it don't have to see it.

332Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 09:00

loli == a depiction of a human child
human child == the "child" in "children", the children in the "PROTECT" act

furry == a depiction of an imaginary non-human species of animal
furry 'cub' == a depiction of an imaginary juvenile non-human species of animal.

A "child" does not mean a) an animal nor b) a non-human creature even if we ignore the imaginary part. If you want to call furry cub porn art "furry loli" im not going to stop you, but the law really doesn't give a shit about depictions of non-humans in any way, shape or form. Honestly, it doesn't, and trying to link the illegality of loli to ALL furry cub art (clean or not) is making too large a jump to swallow.

It's at this point that you start frothing at the mouth and declaring all non-human juvenile art (see tiny toons, muppet babies, rugrats, baby looney tunes etc) not only porn, but childporn, when it is clearly neither.

333Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 09:03

>>331
Ok, Az, grow a pair, say it outright for once in your life, say:

I DONT WANT ANY CUB-LIKE ART, CLEAN OR NOT, ON MY SERVER BECAUSE I DONT THINK YOUR FETISH IS AS GOOD AS MINE, YOU KEEP YOUR CUBS STANDING AROUND IN DIAPERS TO YOURSELF, AND LEAVE ME TO MY VORE, MACROPHILIA AND SNUFF KTHXPLZ

334Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 09:13

>>327
"--- Are you the host? No? Then you don't get to make decisions. "

you're *almost* there. go on, spit it out, you don't like babyfur art in any way, shape or form, adult or not (since you've deemed a pacifier to magically mean that the character wearing it is a child, we can assume you've decided diapers are the same).

Can we agree on a change of wording, if you're not capable of banning all babyfur art since there's no law against it?

"cub porn" is not allowed, but "cub art" is?

335Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 10:59

>>334
a) Host != mod. I don't know where you get that idea.
b) The point of stylization is that without external cues, we can't tell the age of characters. An example of an external cue would be diapers. IF the character isn't stylized there wouldn;t be a problem to begin with.
c) Where did you get the idea that babyfur is banned? Only that which is indistinguishable from cub porn is illegal.
d) The legislation targets porn. There's a clause stating that "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;" is a requirement for said works to be targetted.

>>332
Neither loli and cub are real children. Cub just has more differences to differenciate from a child. There's no information just how much differenciation is required, due to vagueness of legislation.

"It's at this point that you start frothing at the mouth and declaring all non-human juvenile art (see tiny toons, muppet babies, rugrats, baby looney tunes etc) not only porn, but childporn, when it is clearly neither."
--- I don't understand your logic. Please explain why this would be the case. Even if we were banning cub porn just because, there's no relationship whatsoever. Unless the US Government also decides to make said works illegal, but that's not our fault (again).

>>329
No one ever said it's illegal if it's not porn. There's no arguement.

Even though the rule changes state cub art outside of /c/, if it is not porn, it's supposed to be in /c/ anyways, hence they'll still be deleted for being out of topic.

336Report
jono at 14 Mar 2008: 12:49

The legislation is (likely) intentionally vague so that it can be argued include things outside the word-for-word meaning of it. Which is a pain in the ass, because really it depends on who you're talking to whether or not it applies.

My main argument for its legality is precedent: there is a published cub art magazine for which people pay money and receive without legal action or scrutiny, and Softpaw itself promises intense legal action for attempts to interfere with its operation. Maybe their confidence is misplaced in the law and their lawyer(s), but when I e-mailed them, they seemed pretty damn confident in their ability to legally defend their publication.

If that isn't enough for your provider (and generally, an explanation like that is), then chalk it up to the mods looking for an excuse to ban something they don't like. If they were really interested in serving the community in any way (this place would be anything without user-posted content, so they should be willing to help the people that make their site happen), they should be trying to help us get cub art re-allowed instead of flatly standing against part of the community, the unconstitutional-ness of the ruling and the unreasonable logic of their provider.

337Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 13:18

>>336
Fighting against legislation is not exactly a cheap, timeless, riskless, effortless process. Not to mention that the provider still gets the final say irregardless.

338Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 13:51

To >6 of "same old bullshit."

------

>>7
Seeing that most of the arguements derive from 1.1 in your logic, and 1.1 is heavily based on the legislation, I don't see why it is not applicable. Neitherless, if you just want to talk logic:

1.1: It's the Host's decision, not the Mods. Hence placing the blame squarely on the Mod's is simply either being biased against Mods, or being ignorant. Additionally, you have not explained what the problem is with protecting users. For instance, many service providers do not share private information of it's clients, even though they are technically legally allowed to do so.
1.2: I don't see where you get that idea. It's basically redefining where images goes to.
1.3: This is the exact opposite. There's nowhere in this ruling that states light bondage to be removed from /a/. It's in fact expanding the allowable areas for posting.
1.4: I don't see any paradox or otherwise. The statistical population of full herms IRL is for all intents and purposes negligible. Please clarify exactly how this is a paradox. If you've going to use the definition argument, I'll just say that for all intents and purposes, the definition changes now.
1.5: It has always been nagging how multiple furs aren't exactly a kink; if it is, it's about the tamest kink ever, since it only involves just 1 more person. Please clarify exactly why you believe /s/ should only contain m/f images. If you've going to use the definition argument, I'll just say that for all intents and purposes, the definition changes now.
1.7: I don't see any similarities to 1.2. This is similar to 1.6, other than instead of referring to normal ads, it refers to full screen ads.

- What the moderators dont like will be deleted even if its not against the rules.
--- They can be deleted (mods from anywhere have said capabilities). They're not necessarily deleted (mods usually follow some rules). The belief that mods will delete what they do not like is an asusmption until proven otherwise. This changes aren't proof.
- If the moderators dont like you, you will be deleted even if its not against the rules
--- Mods can't delete you. I do not know if you mean post deletion (which I've never seen being done, and in no where is mentioned within rules mentioned here, and thus an assumption) or being banned (which I've never seen being done, and in no where is mentioned within rules mentioned here, and is thus an assumption).
- If the moderators dont like something they will say its against the government and the not yet released laws.
--- See? The laws are relevant. Please refer to >>5.
- Its not porn, its science
--- I don't know where you get this. I'm thinking you're not using the traditional definition of science, so you'll need to explain yourself.
- If you cant cathegorize exactly a 10 foot shemale godzilla being tied up by a cartoon character, your post will be deleted.
--- /ah/ from my knowledge of rulings. Unless the toon character is too questionably cub, in which case, not here.
- If you dont know Fchan science you will be eventualy banned shortly.
--- If by science you mean rules, yes, just like how anyone repeatedly breaking rules in other forums tend to bet banned too. If you mean something else, please explain.
- If you dont agree with the moderators or think they are mentaly handicaped, you will be eventualy banned shortly.
--- Rule 0. It also applies to mods. If mere disagreeing is cause for banning, I myself would have been banned too. (if you do not believe me, read that whole thread.)
- If you dont agree with the majority you will be eventualy banned shortly.
--- Only if you insult others (rule 0) or break rules (all the other rules). I don't see scat posters being banned, and I'm quite sure they're no whre neat the majority.
- If you think some of the moderators have mental problems for making rocket science out of a bunch of "mating" disney characters you will be eventualy banned shortly.
--- There is no thoughtcrime. Only if you break rules are you in danger of being banned. Like anywhere else.

339Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 15:40

>>335
a) Host != mod. I don't know where you get that idea.

gee, maybe since most of the mods seem to be saying "we dont like it" far louder than the host, and without as good a reason as "it's my butt, not yours" which is totally understandable.

b) The point of stylization is that without external cues, we can't tell the age of characters.

sigh, so you've gone the guilty until proven innocent track - well, as long as it's not porn (lewd or lascivious pictures) it's not illegal. Thanks for clearing that up.

c) Where did you get the idea that babyfur is banned? Only that which is indistinguishable from cub porn is illegal.

ah, now we're getting somewhere. So, babyfur art of a non-sexual nature isn't banned. Great!

Where do we put it?

A "clean diapers" topic just got axed from /ah, so where should it go? /a ? if /c is "SFW" (as if furry art could ever be safe for work...) then maybe it *should* be in /a as an "alternative" lifesystle is what it's often called?

340Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 15:47

>>335
the point vs loli and cub art, is that loli is a picture of a *human child*, whereas an animal of any age isn't a person, let alone a child, and it's "children" that this act 'protects'. The fact that neither of them exist is neither here nor there since, as you say, the legislation is awfully vague, however the point remains that a furry cub, no matter what it is doing, can't be construed as a person since real-world examples of furry cubs do not exist.

The point of the vagueness of the law is to protect children from being exploited using the loophole of (digital) manipulation of pictures to the degree that identifying *actual children* becomes virtually impossible, not to encompass juvenile animals and other non-human creatures into the bargain.

and, as was already stated, non-sexual pictures in no way fall under this law whether they are of humans or animals or somewhere in between in any medium whatsoever, otherwise copies of "home alone" for goodness' sake would be illegal.

so, where's the failing to understand this?

If you don't like cub art, if enough of the mods, or the host, doesn't like cub art or art involving furries in diapers or of juvenile furries so much, then don't hide behind a purposefully vague law to justify your actions.

341Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 16:16

This thing keeps saying "Posting Not Allowed" every time I try to post, and I am doing the captcha right... I get the feeling that we may be being secretly silenced...

342Report
at 14 Mar 2008: 16:17

No matter how much we argue here, no matter how valid the points are, the mods are not even paying attention and they aren't GOING to because they don't care! /Dis/ is the place they tell you to go when they don't feel like dealing with you. 341 posts in this thing, and how many mod responses are there? NONE, and the only time there will be is when they come here to threadstop it. /Dis/ is the criticism trashbin of Fchan. Let's all just move on to Paws(dot)RU or e621.

343Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 16:44

a) Well, it's the point glossed over by most of the people here, but yes,

b) It's called taking precaustions. Even though the law follows the innocent until proven guilty track, lawsuits tend to be messy and ugly. /c (SWF) images are not affected whatsoever.

c) Clean diaper (cub) is /c/. Are images of babies not clean? You might have some bias here, but if it's not sexual, it's not a kink. I'm not too sure about clean babybur diaper (adult), but I'd imagine it's /ah. The thread that was posted however, was clean diaper (cub).

344Report
LLz at 14 Mar 2008: 16:52

>>340
Again, there's 2 parts of the legislation. One deals with images indistinguishable from child (the digital manipulation part) which is NOT what is in contention. The other, about images that "appear to be" child porn, is the problem. "Appear to be" is overly vague, problematic, but so long as it's there, cub is targettable.

Anyway, if you want me to put it in another way: Are catgirls targettable? Are furry catgirls targettable? How much difference is the presence of fur supposed to mean?

Also, at no time was any art meant for /c/ ever restricted. I do not know why it keeps being brought up.

345Report(capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 14 Mar 2008: 17:10

>>342
Learn to count : >>19 >>37 >>43 >>50 >>54 >>61 >>63 >>66 are all responses. That is eight. Since you are also >>341, you are not being secretly silenced. There is a number next to your notice, if you come to IRC, you will be able to discuss with the one who set the flag on you.

We decided to give you a place to complain, moan, speculate, theorize, and discuss. During the last few days, all Mods have been directed to leave this thread alone and to monitor it for valid input.

I have personally read through this whole thing, and there are nearly zero points that are valid. Those which are have already been adressed.

ProTip : Lawyers are not going to change our decision. Only a judge has that power. Even then, this is a privately owned server. That means the owner, admins, and staff can dictate what to not allow.

tl;dr : Everything there is to be said has been said. I am now closing the thread, and anyone who wishes to discuss it further or still has questions is invited to come to irc and talk to one of us personally.

346Add 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