Banning erotic cub art was never a sound decision because it was not based on facts. The deluge of votes against cub art were proven to be fraudulent, and even though Varka acknowledged this on the very day it happened he proceeded to make a hasty administrative decision. Therefore, a minority of loud bigots created a false representation of widespread outrage, and Varka folded nonetheless. This has been documented on Wikifur for several months now.
Secondly: Legal liability has never been the issue. To suggest so propagates a falsehood. Not a single legal claim has been made against an anthropomorphic art piece since 1988. And the case was against a comic book shop owner for selling "obscene" material. There has never been a case brought against a furry website owner for hosting obscene material. And if that's the concern, well... better get rid of everything.
Inkbunny doesn't have the scope of payment systems that Dragonfruit is planning for FurryNetwork. Their interface was coded ten years ago, and while it's very clean, it doesn't cover the vast array of services this site will, so it will lead to an economic disadvantage for cub artists in the long-term.
By the way, if you guys really wanted to be crafty, you would go the way that Disney and other major brands do when they're worried about hurting their reputations. You make another brand and hold it with the same parent company. In other words, if you got idiots on this site who are being snooty about being near the cubs, then make another site with the exact same interface and let them have their fun there. Pretty simple. Instead of trying to buy out all these other sites, just make your own.
Then you can't call this task "completed" since the original author talked about cub art explicitly. This is rejected.
It's also not that complicated as commissions and payments and such. None of that has anything to do with it. It's simply NIMBY attitudes, fear, intolerance, and site reputation because you guys are for-profit rather than for-fandom.
Good! That means cub stuff can come back!
I'm supposing the feeling behind this idea is so that furs can create character profiles like on F-List. I'm basically asking for more tools to enhance fursonas. The custom field is fine for perhaps some simple text, but a more comprehensive profile page would be very nice. I mean as long as all y'all don't mind me putting IC info in my profile I guess I don't see a problem with just making a ton of custom fields. But those can only go so far.
I'm going to agree with everything you said.
Yes, there is a schism in the fandom between those who are/not into RP.
Yes, people can be stupid and judge books by their covers.
Yes, the site does a very good job so far in providing minimal tools.
Yes, people will create groups for roleplayers and to associate with one another.
Therefore, I think it would be extremely necessary to have an IC profile page with specialized fields like I'm suggesting! Without that tool, people will have no clear indication whether the profile they're looking at has fictional or non-fictional data. What if they say their age is under 18? Then what? I already have a character on here that is 100% In-Character.
If you're worried of people having such fears, it's imperative to provide the proper tools!
I kinda feel like the Multimedia section is already being treated as "other" right now. That's kinda the problem. I just think since audio is a single-malt type of media it should get its own category.
Artwork, Audio, Photos, Stories, Videos, Flash
I'm wondering if PDFs will be accomodated (or are they already?)
"Other"? Well, could be other types of files, perhaps maybe SVG/vector images, other filetypes if accepted. I don't see too much use unless they want to open the site to something more like DeviantArt all together.
I think that would pretty much cover all the bases.
The primary reason I'm against having two or more copies uploaded of the same exact file that it's wasteful and clunky. It takes up more bandwidth and hard drive space on the server, and it clutters up search results. I see it all the time on FA. A new piece of art is made, and sometimes I see two or three copies of it on my new submissions lists. It's stupid!
We don't have this problem on Boorus because the artpiece is the center focus. Attributions to artists and participants are merely tags. Look at what they've done on e621. They have a great and active community keeping tags up. Why would a social networking site run any differently?
Each of the linked @users get a chance to have that same file listed on their timeline and add their own unique description to it if they wish. OR they don't need to have it in their submissions at all. They could suppress it. Why? Who knows. Just give them the option.
Imagine what that would do for filtering options. It would be beautiful. You could uncheck "commissions" and just look for pieces made BY that user, not for them. Or vice versa. You could filter it to show ONLY that person's commissions.
You could have a list of pieces that they've appeared in. Maybe a 2nd party commissioned a piece from a 3rd party. Maybe they showed up in a comic or they were mentioned in a song or a video or was a character in a story.
So many possibilities.
Markdown doesn't even seem to be working. Plus the default text is way too bright. All text is defaulting to bold.
Customer support service by UserEcho