I have seen some people moving and setting up shop to this new site called FurryLife Online (https://furrylife.online/), which has modern features compared to FurAffinity, and I'm considering on moving there. Though what are your thoughts on FurryLife Online? Will it be a hit or an "aight" kind of art gallery like Furrynetwork back in 2016?

It's an alright artsite. Things are still in beta over there, so it might get better. Only negative things I've heard from people on there is the default search system on there sucks. It only goes off of words in the titles/descriptions. Tags are basically useless other than blacklisting stuff.

I think Weasyl is a better artsite personally.

Any connection to Furry Network?

People say it's basically furry twitter, but with an art gallery element to it.
Features include easy sharing and access to stories, audio submissions, and live streams. As well as the creation of open/closed clubs.
Overall, the site looks pretty slick and seems like a nice site to use. It's already been up since 2018, but it's just recently been popping up again.

However, there's a large controversy surrounding the site right now and that is the ban on (real-life animal) NSFW feral artworks, i.e. any NSFW art with feral animals currently living or recently extinct.
Many argue the policy associates feral-loving furries with zoophiles, others say the inconsistency when dealing with anthros bearing realistic animal_genitalia.
Then there are dinosaurs, and real-life animal inspired beasts such as centaurs and minotaurs. Many predict an exodus/avoidance due to this policy.

thegreatwolfgang said:
However, there's a large controversy surrounding the site right now and that is the ban on (real-life animal) NSFW feral artworks, i.e. any NSFW art with feral animals currently living or recently extinct.

Well, that's a mess.

"Even if a real life animal is given a not-real-life quality, such as wings or horns, so long as they retain their natural real life shape they are still, effectively, animals."
"We understand animal characters can have a lot of different personal lore to them, and that lore can suggest a great many different things about their origins, sentience & capability, but we want to be as precise as possible regarding specific intolerance of animals in sexual situations."
"What isn’t a "real life" animal? ... fantasy media IPs (like Pokemon...)"

I presume someone has spotted the problem already.

"What isn’t a "real life" animal? ... furry anthro characters with animal traits"

Have fun with that.

"Realistic animals/creatures in tv and movies are included in this (i.e. Lion King, Balto, etc.)"
"What isn’t a "real life" animal? ... established fantasy series like My Little Pony"

Not sure you could be any more vague and arbitrary.

And finally,

"we believe there are some minimum standards necessary to protect our user base from harmful paraphilias."

So when should we expect the ban on art featuring rape, somnophilia, cuckolding, rough/violent sex, etc? Or is that art less harmful than NSFW feral art?

watsit said:
"we believe there are some minimum standards necessary to protect our user base from harmful paraphilias."

the feral art is charging at us with a knife, run away

Furries really are their own worst enemy. You'd think after all of the petty infighting, mudslinging, and ban happy BS that killed furrynetwork, people would maybe try a different approach to content they don't like (heaven forbid they use the blacklist), or more specifically these site owners/mods would stop compromising their vision and website just to placate a couple of whiny people on Twitter.

To answer your question OP, it's already dead in the water. They've shown they'll cave under pressure, and their policies on content bans are a slippery slope. By all means, make one if you like the place, but it's not going to take off, and given the social state of furries, no new website ever will.

thatbiackguy said:
You'd think after all of the petty infighting, mudslinging, and ban happy BS that killed furrynetwork, people would maybe try a different approach to content they don't like (heaven forbid they use the blacklist), or more specifically these site owners/mods would stop compromising their vision and website just to placate a couple of whiny people on Twitter.

It could be for a financial reason. Banks don't really like this type of content. For example, furaffinity banned cubs mostly because their bank was like "Yo I don't feel like supporting something that looks like pedo shit".

zenti said:
It could be for a financial reason. Banks don't really like this type of content. For example, furaffinity banned cubs mostly because their bank was like "Yo I don't feel like supporting something that looks like pedo shit".

That'd be all fine and well...

...if Furaffinity was having issues because of hosting feral artwork.

this site gets a big yikes from me for basically trying to be a furry twitter but keeping only all the toxic elements of twitter and none of what makes it good for anything.

Hard pass.

demesejha said:
this site gets a big yikes from me for basically trying to be a furry twitter but keeping only all the toxic elements of twitter and none of what makes it good for anything.

Hard pass.

I don't really see what you mean about keeping only the toxic elements.

thatbiackguy said:
Furries really are their own worst enemy. You'd think after all of the petty infighting, mudslinging, and ban happy BS that killed furrynetwork, people would maybe try a different approach to content they don't like (heaven forbid they use the blacklist), or more specifically these site owners/mods would stop compromising their vision and website just to placate a couple of whiny people on Twitter.

To answer your question OP, it's already dead in the water. They've shown they'll cave under pressure, and their policies on content bans are a slippery slope. By all means, make one if you like the place, but it's not going to take off, and given the social state of furries, no new website ever will.

Interesting insight there. Also, the FA ban on fetishizing of ANY teen pregnancy (aka 13-17 years of age), regardless of the context, along with banning certain symbols because "BOO HOO HATE SPEECH ;__;" from the site is nonsensical. Admin Dragoneer and most of the mods on FA care more about that SWEET IMVU cash and clout than free expression. However, what happened at FurryNetwork though that made it deflate?

leotheairwolf said:
I don't really see what you mean about keeping only the toxic elements.

There are, or at least were, threads and posts by users echoing extremist views that Twitter views as "acceptable", including the usual "white people are evil" rhetoric.

votp said:
There are, or at least were, threads and posts by users echoing extremist views that Twitter views as "acceptable", including the usual "white people are evil" rhetoric.

If there were threads about that, but they were deleted. Then I'd say that's on the userbase, not the site or its moderation team.

ywingbass said:
However, what happened at FurryNetwork though that made it deflate?

Basically exactly what's happening now. A couple of popular people who shared the same opinion made a big public stink about content they didn't like that the website was open to hosting. At first the site admins told them to get over it and use the blacklist, but then they started slandering the site/staff on Twitter and attempted to go upstream and get their funding dropped through spreading lies about the website being for child trafficking and whatnot. The site eventually caved in and banned it, but by that point the community that had gone there hoping to make it their new home/FA had fractured and fallen apart over all of the infighting, drama, and lengths people were going to to get their way. Everyone was scared their kink was going to be next on the chopping block/ they would be on the receiving end of harassment, so they cut their losses and just went back to FA.

TL;DR, a few popular people threatened to burn the whole website down until they got what they wanted. They got what they wanted, and the site burned down anyways.

thatbiackguy said:
Basically exactly what's happening now. A couple of popular people who shared the same opinion made a big public stink about content they didn't like that the website was open to hosting. At first the site admins told them to get over it and use the blacklist, but then they started slandering the site/staff on Twitter and attempted to go upstream and get their funding dropped through spreading lies about the website being for child trafficking and whatnot. The site eventually caved in and banned it, but by that point the community that had gone there hoping to make it their new home/FA had fractured and fallen apart over all of the infighting, drama, and lengths people were going to to get their way. Everyone was scared their kink was going to be next on the chopping block/ they would be on the receiving end of harassment, so they cut their losses and just went back to FA.

TL;DR, a few popular people threatened to burn the whole website down until they got what they wanted. They got what they wanted, and the site burned down anyways.

Furries: "FA is trash, we want a new home!"
>New furry site appears
Furries: "Ban these fetishes that I don't like or else I'm convincing my hivemind not to use your site and go back to FA"

thegreatwolfgang said:
However, there's a large controversy surrounding the site right now and that is the ban on (real-life animal) NSFW feral artworks, i.e. any NSFW art with feral animals currently living or recently extinct.
Many argue the policy associates feral-loving furries with zoophiles, others say the inconsistency when dealing with anthros bearing realistic animal_genitalia.
Then there are dinosaurs, and real-life animal inspired beasts such as centaurs and minotaurs. Many predict an exodus/avoidance due to this policy.

Furries will always be broadly associated with zoophilia (bestiality) by detractors, perhaps for good reasons, so banning ferals is just a waste of everyone's time. You might as well not care about cub or the other fetishes at that point either.

The policy you linked does exempt high fantasy and mythological creatures, including centaurs and minotaurs. That's clarified in the comments by the staff member:

Taurs count as fantasy creatures! Same as things like Minotaurs, Sphinx, etc etc. All of these are half-human monsters that fit into the fantasy category of unmoderated.

Anthros with realistic animal genitalia are fine:

What isn’t a "real life" animal?

furry anthro characters with animal traits (we mean anthro in the traditional sense within the fandom: a human-like animal person, with clear human-looking traits. we know "anthropromorphic" is a broader term than just how a creature looks, so we are focusing pretty specifically.)

Furry anthros with animal genitalia (knots, etc) will not be subject to a ban.

Dinosaurs are specifically exempt because they are sooo extinct that no human could have possibly fucked one. I guess that means that if a group of mad scientists makes Jurassic Park a reality, all the dino pics will get nuked from orbit. Hopefully that site will fizzle out before then and the dinosaur sex tourism industry will explode.

Well, that's a shame. I kinda like its features though...

leotheairwolf said:
If there were threads about that, but they were deleted. Then I'd say that's on the userbase, not the site or its moderation team.

Twitter users are the toxic element that is being described.

votp said:
Twitter users are the toxic element that is being described.

I've always thought that Twitter's toxicity came from Tumblr refugees.
Or has Twitter always been like that?

alexyorim said:
I've always thought that Twitter's toxicity came from Tumblr refugees.
Or has Twitter always been like that?

It was always like that, the Tumblr exodus just made it worse

I don't have too much faith on it , Its very innactive, my stuff gets posted there just thanks to postybirb, and i hope it grows up without getting filled with extremist twitter people. Also it needs a better notificacion/gallery/folder system.

blitzdrachin said:
I don't have too much faith on it , Its very innactive, my stuff gets posted there just thanks to postybirb, and i hope it grows up without getting filled with extremist twitter people. Also it needs a better notificacion/gallery/folder system.

Too late to hope for that, and I hope you're ready for Ree-ing from the anti-feral people the moment they figure out you have that content elsewhere. That's the next step, if I had to guess, in the "anti-zoo" crusade.

votp said:
Too late to hope for that, and I hope you're ready for Ree-ing from the anti-feral people the moment they figure out you have that content elsewhere. That's the next step, if I had to guess, in the "anti-zoo" crusade.

The core of the problem is likely a generational one. Truly, Gen Z and many among Gen Y are the people who never fully grew up, and aren't aware of it. Just receive, believe, and consume.

ywingbass said:
The core of the problem is likely a generational one. Truly, Gen Z and many among Gen Y are the people who never fully grew up, and aren't aware of it. Just receive, believe, and consume.

I'm not going to blame stupidity on age demographics, at least not in that way, your parents likely thought your entire generation was stupid at one point. This sort of thing just comes and goes in cycles, you get a few years of relative peace, and then a wave of dumb happens, the dumb solves itself most of the time.
In this case, the dumb will likely solve itself by those engaging in the group stupidity ripping themselves apart through infighting and the shifting of goal posts on what is deemed acceptable until nobody meets their standards and they have fully alienated their community.

ywingbass said:
The core of the problem is likely a generational one. Truly, Gen Z and many among Gen Y are the people who never fully grew up, and aren't aware of it. Just receive, believe, and consume.

how did you create a comment that warrants "okay boomer" as a reply, for this situation??

was excited for it only to see it crash and burn that fast.

Shame really, and this is coming from someone who is hoping that Weasyl somehow takes off.

strikerman said:
how did you create a comment that warrants "okay boomer" as a reply, for this situation??

>Okay Boomer
And here we see that the term "boomer", like "cuck", and "incel" is losing its actual meaning, primarily because of the careless throwing around of it back and forth. I'm not a boomer, nor is such a term a state of mind, contrary to what you and your possible reddit, tumblr, twitter, or SomethingAwful herd of groupthink gas-snorters like to believe. Yes, each generation has indeed shown to have its share of idiots, that is true. However, that is no excuse to go let the twitter and tumblr outrage mob go and run amok. But by all means, go ahead blindly consume product.

ywingbass said: . . .

ok boomer

bitwolfy said:
ok boomer

You are free to like any meme you like, but seriously resorting to "ok boomer" as a rebuttal is fucking stupid, for it is not a valid argument point, dear gas-snorting reddit fuckwit.

ywingbass said:
You are free to like any meme you like, but seriously resorting to "ok boomer" as a rebuttal is fucking stupid, for it is not a valid argument point, dear gas-snorting reddit fuckwit.

There's no argument here. You are just ranting about how the younger generation is dumb, and throwing insults at everyone who disagrees.
There is only one response to that kind of rhetoric: okay boomer.

bitwolfy said:
There's no argument here. You are just ranting about how the younger generation is dumb, and throwing insults at everyone who disagrees.
There is only one response to that kind of rhetoric: okay boomer.

Disagreeing is okay. But fucking glossing over my previous point and replying with "okay boomer" sure ain't smart. I did not insult everyone who disagreed with my point about Gen Z and many among Gen Y. What I did say is this:

ywingbass said:
And here we see that the term "boomer", like "cuck", and "incel" is losing its actual meaning, primarily because of the careless throwing around of it back and forth. I'm not a boomer, nor is such a term a state of mind, contrary to what you and your possible reddit, tumblr, twitter, or SomethingAwful herd of groupthink gas-snorters like to believe. Yes, each generation has indeed shown to have its share of idiots, that is true. However, that is no excuse to go let the twitter and tumblr outrage mob go and run amok. But by all means, go ahead blindly consume product.

Blind consumerism IS a thing. Plus, its damn foolish to go around unironically believing that all criticism of a generation is wrong by default.

ywingbass said:
Disagreeing is okay. But fucking glossing over my previous point and replying with "okay boomer" sure ain't smart. I did not insult everyone who disagreed with my point about Gen Z and many among Gen Y. What I did say is this:

Blind consumerism IS a thing. Plus, its damn foolish to go around unironically believing that all criticism of a generation is wrong by default.

All criticism of a generation as a whole is wrong by default.
Mainly because there are not as many differences between generations as you might want to believe.

On the other hand, generalizations, exaggerations, projection, entitlement - those are all signs of a boomer.
Because a boomer is not defined by your age. It is, in fact, a state of mind - the one that you demonstrate quite clearly.

You are so wrong that it's not even worth arguing with you.
I'm sure that you have some more creative insults for me, though.

bitwolfy said:
All criticism of a generation as a whole is wrong by default.
Mainly because there are not as many differences between generations as you might want to believe.

On the other hand, generalizations, exaggerations, projection, entitlement - those are all signs of a boomer.
Because a boomer is not defined by your age. It is, in fact, a state of mind - the one that you demonstrate quite clearly.

You are so wrong that it's not even worth arguing with you.
I'm sure that you have some more creative insults for me, though.

Well, now that you mention it, there aren't quite as many differences between the generations as some believe. However, making generalizations, exaggerations, projecting, and entitlement I know to be found across the generations, not just one.
>boomer is a state of mind
Says who though? Where did you get that information that you just so happened to gobble up? Last time I looked it up in a book, it has more to do with the place in time your were born, not how you think. Goodbye now.

ywingbass said: Last time I looked it up in a book, it has more to do with the place in time your were born, not how you think.

In the context of "baby boomer" as a generation name, yes, that has everything to do with where and when you are born.
In the context of "okay boomer" as a meme, boomer stands for judgmental, and entitled attitude that some people have.

Words can have multiple definitions depending on context.

ywingbass said: Well, now that you mention it, there aren't quite as many differences between the generations as some believe. However, making generalizations, exaggerations, projecting, and entitlement I know to be found across the generations, not just one.

Pretty much. Again, it's a state of mind, not age or generation.

bitwolfy said:
Pretty much. Again, it's a state of mind, not age or generation.

Except it is? I mean, "okay boomer" is a dismissive generalization of the baby boomer generation being entitled conservative old fogies who don't get the modern world. Using "okay boomer" on a non-baby boomer generation is essentially equivocating non-boomers with that same generalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_boomer

"Some commentators have considered the phrase to be ageist. [...] Francine Prose of The Guardian suggested that the phrase reflects general cultural acceptance of discrimination against older generations. [...] The phrase, according to India Ross of the Financial Times, has "come to symbolise a generational cultural fracture" with attacks on its use from baby boomers perhaps only serving to increase its power and use." [...] Miyo McGinn of Grist applauded the term, writing, "This joy undeniably stems from righteous indignation as much as simple amusement — the two words feel downright poetic after years of hearing my generation blamed for 'killing' everything from restaurant chains to department stores to relationships.""

Even the one reference suggesting it "should be considered a shorthand term for "The Establishment" rather than targeting a specific age group" is in an article talking about how the phrase is changing generational relationships. How is this not tied to age or generation?

Boy, remember how this was originally asking for opinions on FLO?

votp said:
Boy, remember how this was originally asking for opinions on FLO?

When has discussion of a new furry-centric art platform not gone straight to people complaining about banned content?

I know right? Can we go back to the original question on whether FLO is good or not, and will it be the hot new website of the year?

alexyorim said:
I know right? Can we go back to the original question on whether FLO is good or not, and will it be the hot new website of the year?

I don't know, I can see a lot of (mostly anthro-based) artists jumping onto the FLO bandwagon and it might or might not take off just from that.

Their ban on "feral" NSFWs, however, still has some pretty questionable reasoning. It was supposedly voted on by 2000+ users on a now-locked poll?
If that ever gets brought back up again (maybe in another future ban on other "harmful paraphilias"), I'd suspect that it would come to another screeching halt.

Honestly, it could have been dealt with more professionally, instead of taking a hard stance against a part of the furry community.
Suggesting a default blacklist would have been better. In the end, it's still their site and their policies. If they want to alienate their userbase, so be it.

Even beyond the ban shenanigans, is there any reason for people to migrate to this site in particular, instead of one of the many other furry sites out there?

IIRC the poll ran for less than 24 hours, and was locked due to "the results getting too close for comfort" unless that statement got nuked as well. If anyone has a screenshot or can dig that up, feel free to post it, or clarify if this is my memory acting up in old age.

strikerman said:
Even beyond the ban shenanigans, is there any reason for people to migrate to this site in particular, instead of one of the many other furry sites out there?

In my case, I like trying different sites and communities, so I joined to see how it goes expecting it would be a kinda friendly community. Maybe some people joined for the same reason. But recently I see people joined because of the twitter dramas praising it about the feral ban, and now are making a circlejerk in forums to ban every fictional content they don't like and insult any user that doesn't agree with them :p , mods doesn't seem to help with hostile users neither.

blitzdrachin said:
In my case, I like trying different sites and communities, so I joined to see how it goes expecting it would be a kinda friendly community. Maybe some people joined for the same reason. But recently I see people joined because of the twitter dramas praising it about the feral ban, and now are making a circlejerk in forums to ban every fictional content they don't like and insult any user that doesn't agree with them :p , mods doesn't seem to help with hostile users neither.

I dOn'T lIkE iT sO iT's WrOnG!

I just view it as rock and roll and D&D being "satanic" all over again. Thankfully, it'll pass.

Geez. FLO is like a furry website for Karens.

votp said:
IIRC the poll ran for less than 24 hours, and was locked due to "the results getting too close for comfort" unless that statement got nuked as well. If anyone has a screenshot or can dig that up, feel free to post it, or clarify if this is my memory acting up in old age.

Found a screenshot of the poll on U-18Chan.
https://u18chan.com/uploads/data/13325/EguLM21WAAI2c7O_u18chan.png

There's even talk about banning non-con and incest content in their NSFW Feedback section as well. Literal dumpster fire.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Found a screenshot of the poll on U-18Chan.
https://u18chan.com/uploads/data/13325/EguLM21WAAI2c7O_u18chan.png

There's even talk about banning non-con and incest content in their NSFW Feedback section as well. Literal dumpster fire.

There's a lot of funny stuff in that poll.

1. How close it was to not getting the result the staff wanted.
2. The core group of about 227 voters, 11.5% that wanted centaurs and anthro *mons banned.
3. Around 148 voters wanted to ban feral but couldn't help but vote for an exception for totally not feral MLP characters.

Some other gems:

Alt-right, QAnon, Back the Blue, likely certain green frogs, etc. are banned, not Antifa
You most likely have to be BIPOC, or claim to be, to join the staff
Staff Team Leader Spazz Dragon gets dogpiled on after he warns someone who says 'This site can only succeed as a leftist space'. I assume a 0 point warning is like if you got a neutral record on e621
Spazz Dragon apologizes for the above and also changes his 'ableist' name to Stahz Dragon
They want pronouns listed not just in the bio, but under post count on every forum post
The non-con discussion I found, not sure about incest

Do these things make FLO a failed site? Not necessarily. But it will become an insular space and it could be whittled down by more infighting.

lance_armstrong said:
The non-con discussion I found, not sure about incest

Do these things make FLO a failed site? Not necessarily. But it will become an insular space and it could be whittled down by more infighting.

Check the NSFW Feedback section, where the original feral poll was posted.

There are several threads of people giving their 'perspectives' about the feral ban, an unofficial second feral poll, a couple of locked discussions on non-con, the one on incest, and one literally calling for a 'ban' on ban topics.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Check the NSFW Feedback section, where the original feral poll was posted.

There are several threads of people giving their 'perspectives' about the feral ban, an unofficial second feral poll, a couple of locked discussions on non-con, the one on incest, and one literally calling for a 'ban' on ban topics.

I don't have an account there, so I didn't see that subforum or any of those topics.

lance_armstrong said:
I don't have an account there, so I didn't see that subforum or any of those topics.

Oops, sorry about that. I created an account on the day they opened the poll (didn't know about it then), and I sure as hell didn't know it was going to end up like that.
But yeah, they limited their NSFW forum to 18+ member access while the rest may still be viewed by guests.

Claiming that something is "harmful" while hoping that nobody will ask why = favorite tactic of the moral guardians

"recently extinct"
No dodo porn for me?
;_;

So, to summarise;

Site is flooded with moral busybodies and Twitter Twats, and the likelihood of it remaining operational for any length of time seems to be steadily decreasing every time a staff member opens their mouth or does anything in any official capacity. I'd honestly just... not waste time even bothering with it at this point? It does seem like it has taken every possible measure to ensure it is going to fail.

votp said:
It does seem like it has taken every possible measure to ensure it is going to fail.

It could exist for years to come. It only needs enough donations to cover the costs of running the site, and staff is unpaid.

My guess. It will lose "only" up to 50% of its active members from recent events.

votp said:
So, to summarise;

Site is flooded with moral busybodies and Twitter Twats, and the likelihood of it remaining operational for any length of time seems to be steadily decreasing every time a staff member opens their mouth or does anything in any official capacity. I'd honestly just... not waste time even bothering with it at this point? It does seem like it has taken every possible measure to ensure it is going to fail.

As an artist, I wouldn't bother with it, either. All of the content restrictions and drama are a recipe for disaster, and it just doesn't seem worth it in the end. The possibility that you could draw something one day, build an audience, and years later get a permanent ban for an old drawing that is no longer okay you forgot to delete is pretty stupid. I doubt that the website itself would go down overnight anytime soon, but it's still not a good investment in the long-run.

I'd rather post my content somewhere like InkBunny or Pixiv, honestly.

waba said:
Furries: "FA is trash, we want a new home!"
>New furry site appears
Furries: "Ban these fetishes that I don't like or else I'm convincing my hivemind not to use your site and go back to FA"

I guess whoever said "it's furry twitter" is right in more ways than one

I rather stick to Inkbunny thanks. Their policies are a whole lot less stupid and I rather not have to deal with Twatter people potentially canceling me if I post FANTASY feral stuff there.

Hypotetically, if I were to post realistic animal artworks on FLO like what watercolor artist Denise Soden does, would those still be banned, yet the unicorn and pegasus (yes, it's "pegasus", and not "pterripus") pics would be acceptible?

alexyorim said:
Hypotetically, if I were to post realistic animal artworks on FLO like what watercolor artist Denise Soden does, would those still be banned, yet the unicorn and pegasus (yes, it's "pegasus", and not "pterripus") pics would be acceptible?

Probably not, because "iT's StIlL a HoRsE".

votp said:
Probably not, because "iT's StIlL a HoRsE".

That's a shame. FLO banning feral content reminded me of Y-gallery banning anthro content.

----

Related question. Are artworks depicting humans allowed on FLO though?

alexyorim said:
Related question. Are artworks depicting humans allowed on FLO though?

Probably, it should anyway considering that FA also allows human_only posts.

alexyorim said:
Hypotetically, if I were to post realistic animal artworks on FLO like what watercolor artist Denise Soden does, would those still be banned, yet the unicorn and pegasus (yes, it's "pegasus", and not "pterripus") pics would be acceptible?

They would not be acceptable; a real life animal given a not-real-life quality, such as wings or horns, still counts as a "real-life feral". No special consideration is given for mythological creatures, only creatures that are considered "high fantasy" (like dragons) are allowed. Which is an interesting way to put it, since low fantasy settings often include dragons too, like Game of Thrones, The Witcher, and Lord of the Rings. I wonder what the line is between a "real life feral" and a "high fantasy creature" (gryphons with very subdued avian features? wingless dragons with a more lizard-like style? a sphinx?).

I'm also still curious where the line is between "a real-life animal given not-real-life qualities" and "fantasy media IPs (like Pokemon)" too, given how Pokemon often use real-life animals as a base and give them not-real-life qualities to varying degrees (houndoom being based a dobermann with some bony accessories and a spade tail, mudbray being a horse with some frills, mightyena clearly resembling a hyena, midday lycanroc resembling a wolf, liepard being based on a leopard, etc, etc).

the rules seem kind of inconsistent to me, ferals of real-life animals aren't allowed unless they're MLP horses in which case it's fine, because they're stylized, I guess(?) or they have """"unique lore"""". it kinda seems like they're just trying to placate idiots but they're too scared of losing the bronies so they're like "but MLP is fine, tho, don't worry" just because MLP is by far the largest feral majority community, it's kinda bullshit.

honestly, despite it still being _absolutely_ bullshit to ban feral art, it's probably worse that they make weird loopholes/exceptions for certain communities.

watsit said:
They would not be acceptable; a real life animal given a not-real-life quality, such as wings or horns, still counts as a "real-life feral". No special consideration is given for mythological creatures, only creatures that are considered "high fantasy" (like dragons) are allowed. Which is an interesting way to put it, since low fantasy settings often include dragons too, like Game of Thrones, The Witcher, and Lord of the Rings. I wonder what the line is between a "real life feral" and a "high fantasy creature" (gryphons with very subdued avian features? wingless dragons with a more lizard-like style? a sphinx?).

I'm also still curious where the line is between "a real-life animal given not-real-life qualities" and "fantasy media IPs (like Pokemon)" too, given how Pokemon often use real-life animals as a base and give them not-real-life qualities to varying degrees (houndoom being based a dobermann with some bony accessories and a spade tail, mudbray being a horse with some frills, mightyena clearly resembling a hyena, midday lycanroc resembling a wolf, liepard being based on a leopard, etc, etc).

At this point, the FLO staff team are completely against any form of sexualisation of real-life animals.

To quote one of the mods,

• "Even if these real life animals are weird colors or supposedly capable of speech/transformation/whatever cool magical stuff in their individual lore, please do not depict their animal forms in sexual situations. Realistic animals/creatures in tv and movies are included in this (i.e. Lion King, Balto, etc.), as their animal forms are not meaningfully changed in any way in their media and they are still actively acknowledged as real life animals (as per the examples: lion, wolfdog, etc). Even if a real life animal is given a not-real-life quality, such as wings or horns, so long as they retain their natural real life shape they are still, effectively, animals."

Basically, any feral characters (with or without features like horns, wings, etc) that resemble real-life animals are not allowed as NSFW content.
I believe that crosses out winged horses unless they are from My Little Pony or any other fantasy media IPs. Gryphons, lizard-like dragons, and sphinxes should be okay.

• "We will not be moderating the features of these fantasy creatures that are clearly not real life animals ... We understand there are a myriad of different kind of characters, many of which bear ostensibly no resemblance to real life creatures, that borrow some animal traits. This is fine, and we cannot pick and choose which specific traits are "too" animal. In a similar vein, though some fantasy media creatures like Pokemon may clearly be inspired by animals, we cannot discount that their lore is so diverse and they do not even share names with real life creatures."

Which means that MLP & Pokemon NSFW ferals are technically allowed, on the basis that they are not "real-life".
Even if they may be inspired by their real-life counterparts.

• "These distinctions are meant to be as unambiguous as possible, to best protect folks as well as not have to create a massive spreadsheet of what creatures are and are not supposedly okay for sexualization. These choices do not mean that people aren't free to have a variance of opinion, we simply, at this time, cannot enforce rules that are not as clear as possible."
• "Sexualizing real creatures from our world is unacceptable to us, even if someone has a wolf character with a sparklepelt and wings. To most allow people to know exactly what we are moderating, we have to acknowledge that we cannot regulate fantasy and media species that are not as easily identified."
• "Staff retain discretion in carrying out this rule. If the need arises, we can revisit this topic with the user base in the future, as we know there are many opinions and many concerns."

They have made a giant grey area to tell users to just not approach such content, may it be fantasy, fictional or otherwise.
Ultimately, it's up to the staff's discretion when carrying out the rule. If a lot of fuss is put up about the policy, they may revisit it.
Though I highly doubt that after the ideological cleansing they did when they first implemented the policy (i.e. a lot of users have already been alienated, silenced or banned).

• "We will not be moderating the features of these fantasy creatures that are clearly not real life animals ... We understand there are a myriad of different kind of characters, many of which bear ostensibly no resemblance to real life creatures, that borrow some animal traits. This is fine, and we cannot pick and choose which specific traits are "too" animal. In a similar vein, though some fantasy media creatures like Pokemon may clearly be inspired by animals, we cannot discount that their lore is so diverse and they do not even share names with real life creatures."

"Sexualization of things that look like real life animals is yucky, it dosn't matter if they have a horn or wings or can talk or anything, it's gross and bad and we DO NOT ALLOW IT!...
...
...unless that animal is a Pokemon or is an MLP character in which case it's a-ok and we love you guys, please don't leave."

edit: also what the fuck is "they do not even share names with real life creatures" even supposed to mean? what does the fucking name of a species have to do with anything?

thegreatwolfgang said:
"[...] they do not even share names with real life creatures."

seel and ekans quietly hide in the background

strikerman said:
seel and ekans quietly hide in the background

Don't forget that Arbok and Muk are in that corner as well.

Isn't Twitter still thriving in spite of its apparent toxicity? I think this new website will thrive. It will just have an audience that folks over here will resent, if not already resent. There are plenty of successful safe-havens out there for the morally sensitive, and this new one wont be the last.

leon_neon said:
Isn't Twitter still thriving in spite of its apparent toxicity? I think this new website will thrive. It will just have an audience that folks over here will resent, if not already resent. There are plenty of successful safe-havens out there for the morally sensitive, and this new one wont be the last.

Twitter has the benefit of a longstanding and massive userbase.

Spazz Dragon apologizes for the above and also changes his 'ableist' name to Stahz

Spaz is still a pretty nasty slur in the UK, so yeah I can understand him wanting to change his name tbh

mindbomb said:
Spaz is still a pretty nasty slur in the UK, so yeah I can understand him wanting to change his name tbh

"Dragon" is also sexist slur.
He should drop that part, too!

leon_neon said:
Isn't Twitter still thriving in spite of its apparent toxicity? I think this new website will thrive. It will just have an audience that folks over here will resent, if not already resent. There are plenty of successful safe-havens out there for the morally sensitive, and this new one wont be the last.

Twitter exists for a similar reason to youtube; nobody competes. Nobody really can (partially due to some, ahem, "interesting" coincidences in many cases), so they go unopposed and have a monopoly on their particular usages. It'd be more accurate to put Furaffinity in the place of FLO for your comparison, as it's already a safe space for the perpetually offended.

My opinion on FLO; they're racists, communists, SJW Cultists, and they ban anyone who is politically to the right of Stalin. FLO is exactly what happens when you don't gate keep and keep the marxists and their 'politically correct' terms/language/demands out of the main objective of any given, or potentially good, furry porn website.

I mean my god, they have threads in their forums where admins, moderators, popular (on their website) users and everyone else, constantly act and speak with sincerity, their hate for people based on their skin color (i.e.; their thread on why its okay to be racist against white people) and other threads like how all conservatives should be banned, and how you can't trust centrists.

inb4 "muh private community, they can do what they want"

I admit, I made a page on there purely to see and watch from the shadows, but literally only had a page for not even a day before I was banned for being a "fascist supporter" without making a single post, or comment, figured someone googled my name and saw my twitter, lol. But still, FLO will thrive, and survive, up until they do what all communist societies do, purge their enemies, and when all their enemies are gone, they turn on one another, and eventually collapse. Then six months later, another FLO will pop up and repeat, and repeat, ad nauseum.

FLO is what I fear E6 and FA will become, when the two eventually go 'woke', except unlike actual companies and for-profit business ventures, furry communities don't go broke, because largely speaking, furries are simps and so long as communities give them a bone now and then, the communities will never regret going woke.

But what do I know, I'm just a grey muzzle who's seen this shit happen to literally every hobby/interest group he's ever been in. I'm only surprised it's taken this long for furries to get this toxic. 4chan was right all along... /sigh.

marflebark said:
*snip*

lul

darryus said: lul

User Feedback ( Marflebark )
- Do not leave uncivil comments meant to cause unrest.
- Don't be a troll.

Sounds about right.