I have little to say that hasn't already been said, but frankly this decision needs as many voices as possible against

The stated reasoning for the rule is 'preventing minors being exploited'. Blanket bans on certain Pokémon and Digimon if not arbitrarily "aged up" per some random person's expectations is not going to prevent minor exploitation, its just going to negatively label and ostracize artists for being on model instead of 'furryifying' characters. I've already seen the negative impact this has when similar labels are applied on other sites, and the negative impact this has *already* had on your site.

The exclusion for minors in 'non-sexualized "interests"' is non-sensical. You mean to ban art of non-existant non-minors for *possibly* being interpreted as being young, but you explicitly ALLOW art of what you KNOW to be minors in situations like vore and pregnancy? That seems like a far more significant loophole that you're baking right into the policy on purpose.

The proportional standards as given make little to no sense, considering how easily broken they are by basically every cartoon character ever, along with shortstacks, who are somehow specifically said NOT to break the rule. Ultimately it doesn't seem like you have any real way to explain or quantify this rule in a way that is useful to the people who would need to pay attention to it - every response leads me to believe the actual standard is along the lines of "we know it when we see it". Yet, the actual examples given strongly imply you're seeing things that aren't there. An on-model yoshi is not a child and looks nothing like a child, straight up. If your standard says they are, your standard is a joke.

The responses and behavior from the administration on this have been abysmal, although sadly in-line with what I've come to expect from FurAffinity. That said, for the apparent admin of minor protective services to be so unprepared to handle this situation makes me wonder what even prompted the rule change in the first place, as I would've expected this change to come from them personally. Given the wide speculation about another site takeover or a payment processor forcing this through, I'm one of many thinking along these lines. So, if those are the case again, transparency would've been appreciated and still could be. If not, then this is an exceedingly ugly example of the administration being ignorant of its users.

Ultimately, I'm not really accepting any path forward beyond rescinding this update and taking a hard look at both the staff and the previous incarnation of the rule. Harm has already been done to close friends of mine and I'm rueing another day watching one erase 16 years of work.