Angelbird's policy criticisms

ANGELBIRD'S STAFF FEEDBACK IN TEXT FILE FORMAT WOO

I'm gonna go full GameFAQs on this with an 80 character limit per line since
Discord's stupid text parser doesn't like to wrap words and I want this to be
as readable as possible to the staff.

But you know what does fit in GameFAQs style posts? The ASCII art title they
always include at the top of guides like shitty pre-2003 wordart!

               .-.
              (-`))
                //
               //
              ((_.="""=.
               '.   ,.  \
                 '-._,)__\
                    |\   `
                  __|_\
                ((` |
                    |
                  =="-

Hoo boy. So where to begin with the feedback itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE ACTUAL, SERIOUS PREFACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To start, I'm not against the expansion of AUP 2.7 to include Pokemon/Digimon
content since there shouldn't be anything exempt so portions of the community
are allowed to post sexually explicit cub content on-site. BUT I do feel some
things need to be discussed. I've summarized them in poitns below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OFFICIAL PLACE TO PUBLICLY DISCUSS CHANGES IN THE FUTURE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps you open a Discord server that requires age verification for discussion
to be held. That sort of thing could happen on the forums but can't happen if
those changes are of an adult nature on the official Discord. A new one could be
created temporarily to account for the change, and held open for a week or two
for people to discuss and provide feedback. People will be toxic and I recognize
that has happened on prior journals. That doesn't mean this isn't a necessary
and vital process for the street of two-way communication between the FA staff
and people behaving in good faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE INITIAL TIMING AND COMMUNICATION OF THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since the announcement was dropped with little in the way of administrative
authorities online and available to speak on the matter, the first five or six
hours was just nonstop harassment on the Discord and mods being way too
confrontational to people looking to discuss the policy change. It was ugly on
both sides. Flamingo eventually allowed a non-staff user to open a policy
discussion channel, Luffy came off of work completely unprepared for this and
had only a short time to respond before other life obligations and that resulted
in some very poor messaging. There was no response for this or capacity for
staff to provide an immediate response and it only resulted in more anger and
frustration that was necessary as people felt that staff were absent and
detached from the community. That sentiment still very much remains among many
people. Please ensure in the future that there's clear communication to admins
and acknowledgment that communication has been received when pushing new policy
changes, and work with the one primarily in charge of handling the policy to
ensure they're available in their immediate future to handle the discussion on
it. It's not a huge deal to delay a policy by a week or two or to set a date for
it in a Google calendar so people can be ready and fit FurAffinity's usual
melodrama around their personal lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE RULES ARE STILL VAGUE AND PEOPLE NEED VISUAL GUIDES TO DETERMINE WHAT'S OKAY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I realize that people fought over the few visual guides provided, but since we
have words to go off of alone for visual art, there's no clear-cut, set-in-stone
ruling that says "here's what is allowed, here's what's not." And I get that
it's nebulous, but species-specific diagrams (especially when it's specific
species being targeted) are a great way to show what's Hell, Sifyro offered to
draw them for you for free and I'm sure that any artist would've been able to
provide proportion charts for you on goodwill, no problem. If possible, accept
these offers and make these requests. People have no idea where the line is and
that lack of understanding is worrying a lot of people and causing more
collateral damage than even just the art that's actually getting pulled by the
rule. Even with no risk of disciplinary infraction, people still don't want to
risk parts of their gallery getting pulled by staff and to have those
conversations that their stylistic choices and choice in subjects drawn violate
the rules. Work with artists to provide comprehensive charts and documents so
artists understand where the line is drawn for their own art AND so
commissioners understand what leeway is allowed for the characters they possess.
Show us where the lines are because they clearly exist somewhere. You will catch
more shit from the community for this but shying away from open criticism and
toxicity and refusing to provide necessary materials for artists to do their
jobs will only make people more uneasy and unwilling to keep their galleries,
businesses, and livelihoods on-site.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT IS APPLIED TO AND UNDERSTOOD FOR ANTHROS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE FOR OTHERS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AUP 2.7 may work a bit more handily for your average drawn anthro, but other
body shapes are different as well as accounting for stylistic choices. The furry
community has experimented with a ton of different body shapes and anthro is
only one of a number nowadays. Semiferal and feral characters are the most
impacted as their proportions are the most widely varied between characters,
since they're further divorced from their real-life analogues. Understand these
changes and give more leeway for art that is under these categories. Semiferal
characters, for example, generally will be on two feet most of the time, same as
anthro, but have shorter, thicker limbs and larger heads in relation to their
bodies. This is a stylistic decision that affects, among other things, my teacup
gryphon version of Angel, of which I intend to get more NSFW artwork. I don't
feel safe uploading that NSFW onto the site and my gallery suffers for it, so I
am strongly weighing whether I should link my existing pieces to a gallery
offsite so I can ensure art of that version of Angel doesn't get deleted due to
AUP 2.7. That way, worst case, the thumbnail itself gets deleted and I risk an
infraction, but the piece itself stays visible regardless. I'm not alone in this
sentiment, though different users will have different means of handling the
issue in their own way. A lot of users completely unaffected by the change feel
the same way, and that's because they're concerned that any character that's
"small" or "cute" risks not only an infraction for themselves but for artists
who draw their characters as well. Likewise on the artist end, certain
characters are already considered "too dangerous" to work on and upload to FA,
restricting things based not off of what is or isn't cub, but also what is or
isn't potentially mistaken as cub based off of vaguely defined wording. Again,
visual definitions would help a ton so people know where the line is, even if
the administration will catch more flak for the guides.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MEDIA TRENDS DRIVE STYLISTIC DECISIONS, AND POLICY SHOULD ACCOMMODATE THIS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In general, media has trended towards presenting characters in both adult and
non-adult forms with larger heads, larger eyes, smaller bodies, and thicker
limbs. This so-called infantilization of popular media is a valid criticism, but
generally speaking, peoples' association of what counts or does not count as
adult in art changes over time, especially as art evolves and popular media
keeps pushing that change. As younger generations grow up with the media that
surrounds them and adopt the drawing styles that influenced them as children,
the definitions of generally acceptable proportions change over time. What a
60-year-old who's been in the convention since the beginning would think counts
as child or adult will differ from what the people in the community would
generally treat as child or adult. This is completely fine, and as time goes on
this definition will change more. However, right now, I'm concerned that there's
a severe disconnect between the younger and older voices of the community on the
matter of age. I would strongly consider taking the opportunity to consider
whether the people within the administration fit within the general demographics
they're handling within the furry community itself, and to adjust and
accommodate for newer opinions, styles, and paradigms on that matter. Setting
the standard based on what the staff thinks counts as adult or child stifles
stylistic intent from art styles that challenge or outright violate that
standard without intending to do so. I don't think policy should do that; it's
an art community. Let policy bend to fit the trends instead of forcing people to
bend their art styles to fit policy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNDERAGED BY THE COMMUNITY SHOULD FACTOR INTO DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNDERAGED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the most part, people see Pokemon interacting in art as comparable to
Pokemon interacting in Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games. In those you are a human,
generally presumed to be an adult, transformed into being a Pokemon. The games
typically represent children by their lowest stage of evolution, but likewise
adult or otherwise mature Pokemon are of many different ages. This is seen in
the anime as well in scenes between Pokemon. Generally speaking, most people do
not see Pokemon as maintaining a specific given age unless there are other
signifying factors- such as accessories that are common to differentiate OCs
of the same species of Pokemon- that signify age if a character's intended to be
older or younger. Common driving webcomics such as Oversexed Eeveelutions and
Wanderlust, among others, have driven interest and commonality within the
general Pokemon community. First evolutions and otherwise characters that are
typically no more than two feet tall are standard within many Pokemon
subcommunities, so characters that are commonly portrayed well above this height
that are also common, such as Lucario, Gardevoir, and Lopunny, are highly out
of place. Smaller characters like Riolu fit in for people who want to keep an
anthropomorphic character but still interact in this style of subcommunity.
Based on the rules, a large portion of this community cannot be drawn on-model
as they commonly feature first-stage Pokemon banned by the rules. I don't think
that people within these communities nor people outside of them looking in would
necessarily consider these characters to be underaged. On the flip side,
Pokemon that are commonly used in NSFW art are not harmed by this rule, such as
Kirlia and Gothorita, both of which are second-stage evolutions that both have
body shapes near-identical to prepubescent human girls. In these cases, there's
a very thin line between these characters and depictions of underaged characters
despite these characters being more mature versions within the rules explicitly
laid out in the update to AUP 2.7. The culture surrounding these characters
does include using them as stand-ins for prepubescent human girls in NSFW art.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OUTRO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please seriously consider this feedback and take these perspectives to mind. For
the most part, each one of us is not only representing our own complaints but
also making complaints that are representative of the communities to which we
belong that are impacted by these changes. I'm under no illusion that the policy
update to AUP 2.7 needs to occur but right now, as I've said many times already,
it really still feels like a shotgun is being taken to a problem that requires
a scalpel.


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠠⠀⠠⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⡀⠠⠀⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⠐⠀⠂⠂⢀⠁⠐⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠅⡂⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⠁⠂⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠁⠂⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠈⠐⠀⠀⠀⢂⠂⠢⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠠
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠈⠀⠐⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠡⠑⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠠⠐⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⢀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠠
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠠⠀⠄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠨
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠅⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠅
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠅⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢈⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠈⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠅⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠂⠀⠐⢀⠀⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢔⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠐⠠⡀⡀⠀⠠⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⠂⠐⠀⠁⠐⠀⠀⢀⠀⡀⠠⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠐⠐⠄⢄⢀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠈⠐⠐⠄⠤⠠⠠⠠⠠⠠⠄⠔⡀⡀⡀⡠⠠⠠⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⠄⠂⠂⠄⡀⡪⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠊⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠜⠐⠈⠀⠐⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠈⠠⠀⠀⢀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠐⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠂⠂⠐⢀⠀⠀⠀⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠁⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠈⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠂⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⡂⠀⠁⠀⠀⠈⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⠂⠐⠀⠄⠠⠀⢀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⡀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠐⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠐⠈⠀⢁⠈⠀⠁⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠁⡀⠂⠀⠀⠈⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠠⢀⢀⢈⠠⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠠⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠐⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠁⠂⠂⠐⠠⠂⠀⠠⠀⠄⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠌
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠠⠁⠀⠠⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠂⠀⠌
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠠⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠨⠂
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠐⠁⠊