freaky me to

i like to play and draw

I mostly agree with the changes, namely the removal of countryhumans and nazis especially. finally. Me and my friends found just a literal SS officer last year, good riddance. Secondly--this is not an effing porn site. You have the entire internet for that, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect as SFW-as-possible references for this kind of event. But with that, it's also rational to want clarification how the new rules define SFW content.

I also agree with others the wording could be more detailed or state its aims more clearly, to distinguish the spirit of the rule from specific content. Could clarify the line between: a character that cannot be drawn accurately without duplicating the kink-related features, versus a character that might have suggestive aspects, but can be suitably recreated and recognizable without exaggerating or copying those features. The key wording in the new guidelines is: 'not framed in a sexual manner.' I think this suggests it's free to have characters in leather, tentacles, heels, with big teeth, etc, so long as they're drawn non-suggestively and not posed/textured with intent. I see this as consistent with the rules around nudity and non-sexual nudity. It feels to be about minimizing potential abuse and boundary violations, not demonizing sexuality. As another mentioned--in the end this comes down to expecting the moderators to act in good faith. Given the incredibly long grace period given, the other guidelines, and my previous experience with the site--I am to assume good faith is the case, but not with certainty. A reality of living moderators is that moderation will always be on a case-by-case basis and subject to discretion.

Ultimately: This strikes me as a change in wording more than a change in actual rules because the updated guidelines appear to list things were already disallowed, but not explicitly listed previously. Though to avoid body-shaming and prevent further misinterpretation, I'd more clearly explain that it's how those features are presented, how detailed, sensory & sensual they are, or extremely disproportionate with the rest of the character, etc--and that this level of suggestive content wasn't allowed to begin with, but difficult to moderate without precedent. In the end, none of this seems stricter than what I remember in the guidelines last year; it's just attempting to be more comprehensive.

I have some concerns over my own characters--and I had those same concerns last year. I will probably modify descriptions and images somewhat. My main concern has honestly at times been more about receiving suggestive or insensitive art, not my own art being too suggestive and insensitive. The comments here are demotivating me more than the guideline update lol. This seems like a common concern, unfortunately, and I don't mind direct acknowledgement of fetishism and explicit guidelines around historical/stereotype stuff. That was a tangible problem.

The wording on feral characters is not vague. To my memory, it is also not a new rule. It specifically says non-anthro. Anthro characters are still allowed to be suggestive and have nudity to the allowed extents. Hell, feral characters are allowed to have nipples. "Feral NSFW" is "squick" because they're literally, physically animals; same as "She's psychologically 1000 years old!" or "They're just 2D" excuses. celestia is completely valid to note that these are used as grooming techniques. Some of the earlier commenters seriously sound like enablers--potentially the very type of people celestia was trying to refer to--and there is no reason to gang up and attack them. I do not think interest in anthro characters is necessarily directly linked with zoophilia, I have my own anthro characters--all I can say is jeez furries really do a god awful job at keeping a sincere, ethical distance from it. "No animal s*x" is about as specific and reasonably scoped as you can get in this context. 

In the end, more clarification would be appreciated by everyone.

what the fuck is this comment section 

I appreciateate the clear visual examples given in the filter examples, and the written examples. Thank you. I'll double check through my characters for body horror and such stuff later before the event kicks in.
Also glad to see clarity on sexual beings like incubus and succubus. I was wondering if those were allowed or not. I have one I wanted to add but wasn't sure it was allowed until now. Though I go with doll anatomy, I can't draw anatomically correctly bits, makes me uncomfortable. Mostly I was wondering about the mention of it in writing. So thanks for the clarification.

I never really have the energy for AF, but I am Poking in to parrot all the other comments to please define fetish content better if it's not going to be allowed.

I have a different angle as well from the other issues people have brought up, in that I'm aware this change is likely being done to protect minors on this site while accounting for those that lie to get past age filters, but minors won't be able to identify someone fetish mining or making fetish content if you don't give them an example of it. Sure, I can identify the difference between "Muscle fetish" vs "Muscular character", but I'm also an adult who has experience examining these things.

This isn't meant as a "kids are dumb" comment. It's just the fact that showing people, especially kids, what to watch out for is the best way to keep them safe.

I agree with everyone else’s statement on the vague rules. Even if they don’t personally affect me much as a non-suggestive artist, but it does feel very vague and unfair for those who might indulge in such things. There’s already warnings that exist to hide it from people I don’t see why it suddenly has to be against the rules when the ability to add content warnings are already there. It’s always such a shame to see how many sites have been against even anything remotely sex positive lately especially when there’s already content warning features.

The message from Schattenfell sums it up best.

All that aside I am interested in seeing what the theme will be and will still of course participate. It’s just ashame the rules are vague and will affect a lot of people

use some common sense you guys. please. there's an obvious difference between when a character design is there for the aspect or specifically to be sexualized. if you can't tell the difference than please take a break from the Internet.

im sorry to be so curt but the new rules are fine. stop treating the admin like sh*t over it

honestly, instead of getting rid of fetish stuff as a whole and nsfw n such, why not just ID people? 

I have some concerns.

Especially with "Not fetish gear" as a. Blanket thing?
Like. Fetish is not necessarily sexual, spans a wide gamut and is in many ways in the eye of the beholder.
Is lots of leather fetish gear? Spiked collars? BDSM-esque lingerie? 
Please just be specific instead of first saying "No fetish" and then going "this specific socially acceptable fetish adjacent thing is totally fine even without a filter if it's not presented in a overtly sexual manner".

EDIT: Not to mention the whole "during pride month" thing. Really not a fan of taking this incredibly vague swing at a still extremely stigmatized part of the community (For those who want to get their panties in a twist "Community that has supported queer people since the beginning").
I'd understand a specific filter for it, but this is. Not great even beyond the sheer vagueness/lack of clarity.


Secondly. Extreme vagueness about "feral" characters??
Aliens exist (in fiction). Speculative biology and worldbuilding exists. Fantasy creatures commonly portrayed as sapient without being humanoid (dragons, sphinxes etc.) exist. I can name a good 3 people who have sophonts (sapient beings of similar intelligence to humans) that do not easily fall into any of this off the top of my head.
Not everything is furry/framed using a furry framework/something that a furry framework can be usefully applied to.

Hi ! While I'm very excited about Art fight I'm also quite concerned about the new added rule concerning fetish art. Firstly while I am not a fetish artist in the slightest, I don't really understand the decision to remove it a decade later ? Especially since extreme gore is still allowed on art fight with proper filters? 

And while with proper explication I can get behind the fact that Artfight doesn't want to host fetish art. But I feel like those rules are so vague that they could be very easily exploited ? For example, one of my character is a nurse ? They are people who are nurse fetish so would she be at a risk of being reported? Would my fat characters would be at risk of being reported for trying to appease to a fat fetish even though it's not my intent at all ? Also where is the line between art style and fetish art for the mention of "exaggerated proportions" 

I feel like fetish art when properly filtered isn't an issue so I don't understand the decision to remove it but if it must be removed, at least makes the rules about it more clear ? 

CozyCritter Wow, those look really cool! Space is my favorite one omg, it’s so prettyyyy

Help what is going on in the comments😭?

Ooh looks like Rain vs Shine/Arctic vs Tropic :O

anyway, I drew what I think all of the team badges would look like! 

As someone who’s main art style contains “exaggerated proportions” (large forearms and legs), and none of my work is f3tish related in the slightest, I’m a little concerned about that wording being misinterpreted or abused in the “disallowed content” section in the suggestive themes tab, especially since I know I’m not the only one who exaggerates parts in their sfw art as a style choice. Maybe it can be edited to be a little more specific somehow? 

I know what the rule is referring to, but (hopefully at least) many others don’t.