FA UP 2.7 Feedback

# 0) Introduction
I've had some time to mull things over since the initial announcement, clarification post, and the discourse in the discord thread, and unfortunately my opinion on how UP 2.7 is used has soured significantly. While I am in favour of it's purpose of banning cub content, as I find such content to be very uncomfortable, the aftermath of the announcement and moderation judgements since has shown that it potentially forbids much more than that, to the detriment to the community.

My opinion now is that UP 2.7 needs to be significantly reworked to make it fit for purpose, both for the safeguarding of minors and for the good of the community.

# 1) UP 2.7 as enforced casts too wide a net by focusing on proportions above all, forbidding art that was never intended to feature minors while leaving blind spots elsewhere
My awareness of UP 2.7 prior to the announcement was that it just bans cub content from FA, however afterwards the announcement, following clarification post, and subsequent moderation judgements on user-requested content checks, it's become clear to me that UP 2.7 can be used to forbid much more than that, potentially forbidding characters always intended to be adults and treated as such in the art they feature in if they happen to significantly stylised or be of certain fictional species.

Focusing on proportions above all is an oversimplification that ignores artist intent and the context in which a character appears in. While proportions can be a strong indicator of whether or not a character is an adult, it only really holds true for humans and real-life animals, and is much more difficult to judge in the case of fictional species such as Pokémon and Digimon to the point where it can be argued endlessly about. Proportions as a sole metric is further weakened by artistic style, which may make a character appear younger or more ambiguous in age. The potential for over-classification of characters as minors has a significant effect on the community that I will go into in 3).

Inversely, it is possible for a minor character to look like an adult. One example another user brought up in the feedback channel is Jake Long from American Dragon, who has a dragon form that has more adult proportions. Another example is Legoshi from Beastars who, as a 17 year old at the start of the series, may be seen as an adult despite being a minor. As Legoshi ages during the series, fans collectively decided to use a facial scar the character receives as the determining factor as to whether he is depicted as a minor or as an adult, factoring in context alongside appearance.

In other to properly determine whether or not a character is an adult or a minor, other factors must be considered in addition to proportions, as otherwise a user risks their adult characters being deemed as minors regardless of intent. Context is a good factor, as a minor character will be featured in different situations compared to an adult character, as well as how that character acts and talks. Artist intent is another one, although one that's harder to judge from the outside. One indicator of intent was brought up by FA staff in the discord thread: Checking other sites to see if the artist has labelled the same piece as cub on a site that permits cub. That's a good concrete metric to use, as it is evidence of an artist's intent (Note, this does not apply to sites that use user submitted tags like e621).

In essence, UP 2.7 needs to only concern minor characters and focus on keeping cub content off FA, not characters that could potentially be seen as a minor due to proportions alone, as otherwise it disregards artist intent, artist style, character species, and how else that character is used. For a site that handles it in a manner I believe is more acceptable, I would point to Itaku.

**Recommendations:** UP 2.7 needs to be reworked to better match it's purpose and reduce the potential for over-classification of characters as minors / false positives. Context and artist intent must be factored in alongside appearance in UP 2.7 as written in the AUP, not in any guidelines invisible to users (See 2)).

# 2) UP 2.7 as written and UP 2.7 as enforced differ too greatly which makes users uncertain and harms user trust in FA moderation
The recent announcement and following clarification revealed that there was a set of internal guidelines that dictate what is and isn't permitted on FA with regards to UP 2.7, beyond how it is written in the AUP, such as what styles FA considers suspect, how FA determines what is and isn't too child-like to be allowed, and the exceptions for vore and TF. This was surprising to myself and many other users, according to the discord thread, and I had reactions along the lines of "Wait, that's allowed?" (With regards to non-sexual kinks as stated in the clarification) and "This rule prevents that?" (With regards to art styles that FA deems to be too child-like).

This is unacceptable as it puts users in a position of uncertainty where their art may be unexpected deemed to be cub content and removed based on factors they cannot see, the effects of which I will go into in 3). This uncertainty damages user trust in FA, and because users cannot see the guidelines by which their art is judged, it is perceived that any judgement is subject to moderator bias, regardless of how it is in practice. It also invalidates the statement of "The rule isn’t new and hasn’t changed." in the clarification, which was seen as a lie by many because while the rule as written haven't changed, how it is enforced has changed, which is effectively a rules change no matter what the announcement says.

UP 2.7 as written in the AUP must reasonably resemble how it is enforced so users are aware of whether or not their art violates the rule, and it shouldn't be left as a secret set of guidelines that only staff are privy to. Users must be able to trust FA applies their own rules appropriately, and it is difficult to do that if a significant part of those rules is hidden from them.

**Recommendations:** UP 2.7 as written in the AUP needs to reasonably resemble how it is enforced, instead of relying on internal guidelines that users cannot see.

# 3) Cub art is a taboo equivalent to CSAM for many, and the risk of having art defined as such has a chilling effect on the community
Cub art is seen in an extremely negative light by much of the community, so much so that it's seen as a taboo similar to real-life CSAM by many. This is evidenced by the frequent usage of terms CP and CSAM when referring to cub art in the discord thread and feedback channel.

The consequences of this alongside the potential for over-classificiation discussed in 2) and 3) is a chilling effect on the community, as users wish to avoid violating UP 2.7 for various reasons, such as to avoid punishment, the social / personal implications of having their art labelled as cub art, and to avoid the financial consequences of losing access to FA's userbase. This result of this chilling effect has lead to users deleting art that contain characters that could potentially be perceived as a minor despite being adults, feeling forced to change their art style to avoid potentially violating UP 2.7, or by leaving the site altogether, all of which I have seen in the aftermath of the announcement, as the announcement highlights just how broadly UP 2.7 can enforced beyond what is written in the AUP.

As a consequence, the rules change to UP 2.7 and existing implementation overly limits what artistic expression is permissible on the site in terms of species and style. Below I will go into detail of the three reasons I have given that contributes to this chilling effect.

## 3.1) Punishments
The punishments for UP 2.7 are targeted towards intentional violations as a "one strike and you're out" system, which is only suitable if the rule doesn't allow for false positives, and as I've mentioned in 1) and 2), this rule has significant potential for false positives and it is difficult to know for certain whether any particular piece violates it or not without checking via a trouble ticket.

This isn't suitable for a rule that can be accidentally violated by drawing a Pokémon too on-model or having a art style that is too cute, and even if violations can be appealed or if a temporary grace period exists it will leave users feeling judged by the platform they exist on, which is a pressure to avoid content and styles that might unintentionally violate UP 2.7. This may cause a user to leave FA if they believe they may accidentally violate UP 2.7 for having adult characters deemed too child-like, thinking it is only a matter of time before a report boots them off the platform. In essence, why wait to be booted off when they could spend the time setting up elsewhere?

If this rule is left in a form where users can accidentally violate it, the degree of punishment must be lessened and only use the "one strike and you're out" systems for clearly intentional violations, however the ideal solution is to change UP 2.7 to reduce false positives and prevent over-classification of adult characters as minors.

## 3.2) Social / Personal Consequences
Given the aforementioned taboo nature of cub content, I find it deeply disturbing that FA is willing to label art that was never intended to feature minors as cub content because the characters within are depicted in too stylised a manner or because they happen to feature certain on-model Pokémon / Digimon.

Such moderation actions is an implicit comment on the user, one that comes from a position of authority as FA is one of the largest furry art websites. Consider the following scenario of a NSFW piece involving a user's fursona and another character that user knows to be an adult: If FA moderation deems that other character to be too child-like, to a reasonable user, that is easily seen as an implicit judgement that the user (as a fursona is often a stand-in for the user) is into cub content, and to those are believe cub content is so taboo as to be equivalent to CP / CSAM, it's an implicit accusation of being a paedophile. That would be deeply upsetting to any reasonable user.

Socially, if a user is known to have content removed due to UP 2.7 violations, some may see that as evidence of that user being into cub, and judge them to be a creep or worse. For evidence, see the number of accusations (explicit and implicit) of paedophilia in the discord thread and on/off site following the announcement directed at those opposing the rule change.

## 3.3) Financial Consequences
FA has one of the largest userbases out off all the furry art websites in the community and many artists make a living off of FA's userbase via commissions, promoting a patreon, tips, or other means. Even if an artist never intents to draw anything that violates UP 2.7, there is financial consequences to drawing certain styles or species, because the vague enforcement of UP 2.7 risks booting artists off the site or tarnish their reputation by labelled them as a cub artist without ever intending to draw minor characters. This makes a strong incentive to "play it safe" by changing art styles or by avoiding species where characters could potentially be seen as minors (even if they are not minors).

**Recommendations:** Only escalate UP 2.7 for artwork that intentionally violates it (e.g. only for someone trying to sneak cub art onto FA) or preferably rework UP 2.7 such that it only punishes cub content intentionally uploaded to FA (See 1)).

# 4) Communication from FA has been extremely poor and it has an opaque decision-making processes
There is so much to mention here. FA has made multiple, critical mistakes in how it communicates to it's users in the announcement and in it's response to the fallout of the announcement which has severely damaged user trust in FA. Many of these mistakes should've been obvious and avoided as such.

The only positives I will mention is that the feedback channel gives me a place to put this essay, and that Conger and Flamingo were effective in keeping the peace in the discord thread, particularly Conger's "mall cop" approach. Everything else communication-wise is negative.

## 4.1) Poor timing
The announcement happened on a Friday in my time zone, which is one of the worse times to make any large announcement (especially a controversial one), second only to making an announcement on Christmas Eve, because staff members may be unavailable over the weekend, and those who work a typical Mon-Fri 9-5 may be tired and prone to miscommunication. These entirely predictable consequences occurred after the announcement, mods stated that staff members were unavailable, and one member of FA staff miscommunicated multiple times (e.g. using human growth chart which was interpreted to be how solely FA determines whether art violates UP 2.7) and even stated they were unaware the announcement was due to be sent out that day, which only made the initial community response worse.

FA should've been aware of how controversial this rules change would be, given the popularity of Pokémon and Digimon within the community and how severe a taboo cub art is seen as being by many, and it should've been prepared to handle the community response by both ensuring staff were present and timing the announcement such that they could properly assuage the concerns of the community. Instead, FA left the community to stew for two days over the weekend, before posting a clarification post the only worsened things.

**Recommendations:** Don't make big announcements unprepared. Don't make big announcements on a Friday.

## 4.2) Apparent lies and contradictions
Following the announcement FA staff have make several statements either in the FA discord or in the clarification post that were later backtracked or undermined by moderation decisions. While some cases are unavoidable, this should be minimised to prevent damage to user trust. Below is a list of instances I have seen where FA has contradicted itself or backtracked.

- The reassurance that naturally short species such as corgis were fine (which were explicitly mentioned in the clarification post) was undermined by the moderation decision that Radasus' corgi fursona, intended to be a 30 year old adult, looked too child-like to be permitted on FA (Regrettably I cannot check context here, as following that judgement, Radasus has removed all art of their corgi fursona from FA).

- FA states that this was not a blanket ban on species and that there was no species list that they would always take action on, the clarification post later named a list of Pokémon and Digimon FA deemed as having their on-model appearance to be too child-like to be permitted on FA. The nature of UP 2.7 and taboo nature of cub content (See 3)) results in this being interpreted as a ban by many regardless.

- FA staff state that a visual guide will be posted, only to be backtracked due to the risk of misinterpretation and backlash. This is the one instance that I consider more understandable to backtrack.

- The statement that "Although this rule is not new and has been in effect for over 7 years" is an apparent lie given that UP 2.7 relies on a set of internal guidelines that are invisible to users. How users thought of UP 2.7 prior to this announcement may have differed greatly to how it is used in practice.

**Recommendations:** Avoid contradiction between words and actions where possible.

## 4.3) FA does not explain why it does things or that it's doing things at all
Decisions without context will result in speculation at to what that context is, which has resulted in users interpreting FA's actions in a much more negative light, from the initial rules change to the aftermath.

In the announcement, this rules change seemingly came out of the blue only motivated by vague reference to positive feedback from the community from the previous rules change during the IMVU takeover of FA, this was a surprise to myself and many who have never seen this feedback, which led many to speculate why this decision was done, ranging from being a precursor to FA being acquired again, or conspiracies about puritans. Decisions like this must be clearly motivated, if there was a reason why this change was enacted, like the AlertPay situation with the initial cub ban from before I joined the site, it should be stated. If it was genuinely due to positive feedback, where that feedback came from needed to have been communicated, because the sheer negative response from the community indicates that this source of feedback is not representative of the community. Users deserve to know how FA makes the decisions it does.

For the aftermath of the rules change, the clarification post stated that pregnancy art involving minors was permitted before being removed on the 24th. If this exception was intended to allow for non-fetishized stories or illustrations involving teenage pregnancy as the post on the 24th said, FA should've stated so from the beginning. Instead, the exception was left open for interpretation, which resulted in a backlash from many interpreting it in a negative light, one that is reasonable because FA is a site that hosts pregnancy fetish content.

Simply put, FA needs to say why it does things, as users will be more understanding if they know why things are happening and why certain decisions were made. Users don't know why FA is making decisions that negatively impact them, resulting in confusion and anger, as well as worsening user trust even further.

While writing this post, I noticed that comments by a user on their own journal / art are now highlighted by a "OP" tag. I assume this is a recent change and if so, why was I not told about this? Being informed about what's going on with the site development-wise even if it's only small changes and slow progress would counter the perception that FA is not developing highly desired features and would help rebuild user trust. Something like a regular patch notes or a newsletter would help here.

**Recommendations:** FA needs to say why it does things. Regular summary / patch notes for the site to rebuild user trust by keeping them aware of decisions / development.

# 5) The exceptions given in the clarification post are baffling and seemingly permit kink content involving minors
The clarification post on May 22nd did not help things. Most concerningly to me, it contained exceptions that permitted minors to be involved in "non-sexual kinks" such as vore and TF that were unexplained. This is confusing and very concerning to me, as someone who is involved in sub-communities about non-sexual kinks, as it opens the door to minors appearing in art that many (especially people in non-sexual kink sub-communities) would see as fetishizing.

While there are narrow situations where many would consider it to be ok, such as screenshots of children's cartoons or art replicating those cartoons, blanketly allowing minors to appear in non-sexual kinks could allow much more. Because these exceptions were just stated without explanation in the clarification post, many within the community responded with disgust and ridicule, as this lack of information left users to infer why these exceptions exists. A charitable interpretation would be for content as it would appear in a cartoon, however a less charitable interpretation, which led to the disgust and ridicule, would be to permit specific users to exist on the site, or specific types of cub content. This reflects extremely poorly on FA.

If any such exceptions are to exist, they must be limited to only allow what FA intends and they must be clearly explained to avoid the community misinterpreting them. To see another example of this, see 4.3) with regards to the pregnancy exception. Additionally, in general, non-sexual kinks should be properly tagged and rated, as I have seen kink content appear where it should not, which is a safeguarding issue. (However this is, to a degree, a separate topic and also one that must be treated with care given that it is a very difficult line to draw that will vary with kink to kink.)

**Recommendations:** Enforce proper tagging and general / mature / adult rating for non-sexual kinks. Any exceptions to allow minors to feature in "non-sexual interests" must be extremely limited and explained in the AUP to avoid misconception by the community, or no such exceptions should exist.

# 6) The consequences of this rule change limits FA's ability to safeguard minors due to ticket workload and user exodus
There is one positive thing I will say about FA as an organisation here. FA is the only site that I'm aware of that has a team dedicated to safeguarding minors, and as one of the largest furry sites in the community, it is in a unique position to help safeguard minors. However, following this announcement, I believe FA risks limiting it's ability to safeguard minors.

Firstly, the vague usage of UP 2.7 and severe consequences has caused a surge in trouble tickets from users fearing that their content may unintentionally violate UP 2.7. To evidence this, FA staff stated that there was at one point over 700 tickets in the queue, and that majority of the tickets were for content that obviously depicts adults. Given that FA has a limited ability to handle tickets, relying on volunteer moderators, an increased ticket workload takes away time from more critical safeguarding tickets (such as minors viewing NSFW and grooming) and will potentially result in rushed judgements for tickets in an attempt to keep up with the workload. If UP 2.7 remains as it is, users will continue to submit tickets to be on the safe side, which distracts the MPS team from more important tickets.

Secondly, artists are leaving FA for other websites as they no longer feel safe remaining on FA, and will likely take their audience with them, which may include minors. Unfortunately, minors can and will lie to gain access to content they're not allowed to see, and they are more vulnerable if they do so on a site that hosts cub content (such as InkBunny) or a site that lacks safeguarding measures. In order for FA to have as much of a safeguarding impact as it can, it needs to retain it's userbase.

**Recommendations:** See all prior recommendations to retain users, rebuilt user trust, and maximise the safeguarding potential of the MPS team.