I have a couple questions about The Fur Den

[Lucifur]

Was reading through the CoC, and a few things don't seem to make sense.. specifically:

 

1) (A very minor nitpick) "iii: Pictures directly on The Fur Den forums. We have limited bandwidth with our provider, and pictures eat up bandwidth quickly."

 

Are you saying that the board software actually retrieves the picture linked, stores it on the server, then serves it to the person viewing? This is the only way it could possibly eat up your bandwidth.

The way html works is that the board script sends the image's URL to the person viewing it, and instructs that person's browser to download and display the image... there is no bandwidth hit on your server at all, unless I'm seriously missing the point here.

 

2) All the "XXX Verboten" stuff. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with your stance on it, but I am curious as to why... is your hosting company that prudish? This site is, by its very nature, an adults-only site. I would wager a guess that the majority of denizens here have a sexual, fetishistic connection with fur. This involves the pursuit of images, videos, etc., and I get quite frustrated when I excitedly open a link promising 'hot woman in fox fur' only to find it deleted because someone deemed it 'too dirty' or whatever. I realise also, that by its very nature, this forum is a target from the get-go (peta, alf, etc) but does your host seriously have a zero-tolerance policy? There are thousands of webhosts out there. Just sayin'

 

Please don't read this post the wrong way, I only bring these things up to clear up some things I don't understand about the place. I think in general the admins and mods have done a great job here, and I enjoy hanging out, (and you can't beat the price ) but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this place is over-moderated.

[ReFur]

Hi, Lucifur.

 

First, THANK YOU, for reading the code of conduct.

 

On your first question. AK, of Technical Admin, will need to address this.

 

On the second part, if you scroll down to the bottom of the forum, you will see a forum call Melody temp forum.

 

Melody is the site where we use to reside with a Wool Forum. Shortly after we left, the site was shut down for the very reasons we have been discussing. The Wool Forum is using our forum as their temporary home until they have their new site up.

 

We as a team of MODs support the rules the Admins have given us. It is what we all do to keep us from being kicked off the site, as well.

 

It is also part of every member's responsibility to uphold these rules as a part of their membership here.

 

If you have been a member long enough, please go to the Gallery, you should find some great erotic pictures there.

 

If you came here looking for more "hot" pictures there are plenty on other sites. If you go to our links page there are several sites listed.

 

Hope this helped. And, hope you enjoy what we have to offer: Which is the love of fur.

 

Linda

[AKcoyote]

First, Linda, thanks for the well written response.

 

Lucifur,

The original reason for the "no images in posts" rule was very limited bandwidth when we were a part of Melody. Before that rule was in place the Melody site was often down for a week or more each month due to exceeding allowed bandwidth. The problem is the way many hosting companies compute bandwidth. They include the size of files (text or images) retrieved from off-site locations when the offsite content is displayed as part of a page retrieved from the hosted site. I know that sounds crazy, but that is the way things are.

 

Yes, we have a higher bandwidth allowance with our current host, but this is a much bigger website and we are not finished building it yet. We have decided to continue that rule until the site is complete and we see what our peak monthly bandwidth usage will be with all applications available. There are two more reasons for continuing the ban on images in posts: 1) many users still have relatively slow dial-up connections to the net, and for them, images can be very slow to download and thus waste a lot their time online if they are not interested in viewing the image. and 2) we do not want to detract from our Gallery which contains almost 4000 furry images and where members can upload any fur image that meets our rules.

 

We have partially relaxed the no images rule in that we allow members to include a reasonably sized fur image in their signature.

 

The "no X or XXX" rules are in part because this is a fur site, not a sex site. The even more important reason for no XXX is the fact that because of the anti-porn laws in the US, ISPs (including our host) are very quick to remove websites that contain any sexually explicit or child exploitation material to avoid the extreme penalties dictated by the current laws. Thus if we seem a bit extreme in our policing the site, please be aware that is the only way we can be assurred that this website will not disappear without notice. We have put far too much effort into getting this site this far to risk being shutdown. The Melody site was shutdown permanently because of one complaint their host received.

 

In summary, we do not over-moderate, we are merely trying to insure the survival of this website.

 

Furry regards,

AKcoyote

Tech admin for TheFurDen.com

[Lucifur]

Linda: Thanks for the response, although you only re-stated your stance, and didn't answer any of my points...

 

AK: Wow, the picture/bandwidth thing is pretty messed up. So, to get this straight, off-site content linked from here counts as bandwidth used? What is the difference (to your host, that is) between having a typed URL (which, when clicked on, opens off-site content) and an URL which is designed to display offsite content on the page? If I'm not totally confused here, clicking a link in a page would still give you the bandwidth hit, seeing as your site would be the referrer. In any case, what your host is doing to you (with counting linked offsite content as part of your used bandwidth) is dishonest, and probably illegal. It's akin to your electricity company charging you extra for using batteries.

Other than that, I kind of agree that trying to open a page in the forum with a bazillion pictures inline is a P.I.T.A., even with broadband

 

As for the XXX thing...

1) This is a fur site, yes. And the sex side of it is *part* of that. Even Yahoo and MSN have 'adult content' sides to them, why couldn't you have an age-verified adult section? Oh, right, because...

2) The US has strict anti-pornography laws?! There are *thousands* of hard-core porn sites on the internet, and quite a lot of them are hosted on US servers. How do they circumvent this?

3) Don't get me wrong! I'm not some compulsively masturbating porn-hound. The thing that really set me off about this is goldsable's link getting the axe. Because the woman in the clip talked about sex. Dirty sex. (yes, I saw it) I wouldn't even consider that mildly pornographic, I've seen much dirtier stuff on Bravo. She wasn't even naked, for god's sake!

[gets on soap box] Moderation is something that is necessary on a forum like this, for sure. But there comes a point when one must say "This is getting ridiculous" [gets off soap box]

 

Anyway, thanks for clearing those things up, AK. I guess the old standby of PM-ing someone for a link if you're interested is a workaround. Although, in a perfect world, responsible and law-abiding denizens should not have to worry about censorship.

 

Sincerely,

Lucifur

[Worker 11811]

I have dial-up. I hate waiting for pictures to download before I can read a page, especially when other posters comment on said pictures. Basically, I am shooting blind until the entire page comes through.

 

If there is a link, the page loads faster and I can see the comments made by others, thereby giving me what I need to know in order to decide if it's worth waiting for the picture to download.

 

Second, you MUST realize that what you post or view on the internet is NOT private! Anybody with the right knowledge can tell what you do or say on the net. You'd be better off shouting your message from the rooftop.

 

I KNOW that there are people here and on other websites who do not like the scrutiny brought on by being associated with a website that sponsors porn.

 

Personally, I LOVE a good, sexy picture but I do NOT want my friends and family and ESPECIALLY my employer to get the idea that my favorite website pushes smut. When I want smut I will go get smut. There's plenty of it out there. It's easy to find.

 

Consequently, I have NO PROBLEM with the "No Porn Clause" of the Code of Conduct.

 

Besides, the proscription on explicit materials forces you to be more creative! Take, for example, O.F.F.'s thread entitled, "What if??"

 

There's not a single mention of an explicit act but, AFAIC, there is PLENTY of creativity!

[Guest]

I do not find porn offensive. But my girlfriend doesn't like the "machinery in action stuff" or crude stuff...even talking or words.

 

It would put her off...and I fell many off...joining. Already I think it was S/C that stopped her getting involved.

 

So if you want to attract more women here...and remember most women in fur are classy...then we have to have some restrictions.

 

It is a site for appreciation of fur...not porn.

 

I have no obejection when it is tasteful...my girlf loves Miss T's work. Even hardcore domme stuff with fur is just play really lets' be honest...it is theatre; plays up to the imagination. But porn is different. It has it's place...but that isn't here unless it is clearly marked with a warning.

 

there is a massive difference between erotic shots and porn too.

 

Just my two cents worth.

[White Fox]

Others have hit this topic so well that I will not go there a great deal. But, I want to bring out one sentence by Worker...

 

I do NOT want my friends and family and ESPECIALLY my employer to get the idea that my favorite website pushes smut. When I want smut I will go get smut. There's plenty of it out there. It's easy to find.

 

Yes, this is a fetish site, but fetish is NOT porn. We are a classy fetish and fashion site!

 

Both Touch and Worker have summed this up so well no more comments are needed.

W

[AKcoyote]

Lucifur,

 

As I stated previously, the bandwidth thing with offsite images included in posts is crazy and illogical, but a fact we need to live with. We do not yet have an accurate handle on just how our host computes bandwidth used, but I think it is safe to assume it is similar to what was experianced with Melody's host.

 

I, and I think most of the staff (admins and mods), dislike censorship as much as you do. It is unfortunate that a few ideologues have been able to enact legislation that turns the idea of protecting kids from exploitation into extreme anti-porn censorship. As long as the current laws are in place and most hosting companies overreact to any form of porn content complaint, we will be forced to be extremely vigilant to prevent being summarily shutdown. Tis better to be a bit too strict than risk losing this site completely. Our host appears to be more flexible than Melody's host was, but even so, their terms of service clearly state NO PORN.

[FurLoverinFL]

Lucifur, Lucifur, Lucifur do you actually think that things get banned because a mod or admin doesn't like a particular link? We have a job to do here and as has been said by many others, it centers around the fact that our host will shut us down for X/XXX material. You may be interested in knowing that, except in a very blatent case, no one mod or admin removes a link in a vacumn. The link was temporarily removed until other mods and admins had the opportunity to view it and determine whether the removal was appropriate. In this case, removal of the link was appropirate.

 

Removal had nothing to do with the photos or videos. I removed it because of her description of sexual acts.

 

I've seen much dirtier stuff on Bravo.

I've watched Bravo many times and have yet to hear anyone discussing what they are going to do with their "toy" or where guys can drop a load.

 

Frankly, if she had simply posted something along the lines of "check out my hot sexy fur vid", there wouldn't have been any issues (well, other than the usual debate over whether or not she's attractive! )

 

Your questions bring to mind an old member of ours. Perhaps you remember Braahp (not sure if I spelled his name correctly, I apologize to him if I didn't). He complained about the "censorship" on this site as well. To his credit, he went out and set up his own fur website and put up a lot of the photos that were not permitted here. Long story, short - his host shut down his site in less than 2 months...

 

FLinFL