Furry Fandom and Drama General

1726769547129.png
Archive of whole tweet thread

The new Fur Affinity admins are already sowing discord in the furry community by making the controversial decision to...

1726769593800.png

Ban the babyfurs and diaperfurs from their website. Understandably, this is causing serious strife and concern amongst the furries. The pedophiles among them now want all FA staff banned from all furry conventions and intend to accomplish this with their intricate network of furry pedophiles who openly boast about infiltrating many furry convention staff teams. They're comparing this to an incident where a furry tried to get babyfurs kicked out of furry conventions only to be banned himself:

1726769686535.png

Even this Vaush viewer has been affected:

1726769748389.png

Thankfully, we all have Scooter Skunk asking the real questions here:

1726769827691.png

I seriously doubt the FA staff give a shit about this pedophilia across their website; they're probably being pressured by their financial overlords to push this shift so heavily and so suddenly. The GoFundMe for FA following Dragoneer's death was a massive success, and the new admin probably intend on riding this cash cow for all it's worth. Some pedos and their various flavors of cub porn will be sacrificed accordingly. And so it goes.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: pictures of the moon, RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink and 21 others
Harm said:
View attachment 6432872
Archive of whole tweet thread

The new Fur Affinity admins are already sowing discord in the furry community by making the controversial decision to...

View attachment 6432874

Ban the babyfurs and diaperfurs from their website. Understandably, this is causing serious strife and concern amongst the furries. The pedophiles among them now want all FA staff banned from all furry conventions and intend to accomplish this with their intricate network of furry pedophiles who openly boast about infiltrating many furry convention staff teams. They're comparing this to an incident where a furry tried to get babyfurs kicked out of furry conventions only to be banned himself:

View attachment 6432887

Even this Vaush viewer has been affected:

View attachment 6432897

Thankfully, we all have Scooter Skunk asking the real questions here:

View attachment 6432902

I seriously doubt the FA staff give a shit about this pedophilia across their website; they're probably being pressured by their financial overlords to push this shift so heavily and so suddenly. The GoFundMe for FA following Dragoneer's death was a massive success, and the new admin probably intend on riding this cash cow for all it's worth. Some pedos and their various flavors of cub porn will be sacrificed accordingly. And so it goes.
Click to expand...
I mean if it's a genuine care or just for the money, I don't care. All of those baby fur's are, at best, pedos in denial, but more often than not they're just pedos hiding behind their diaper fetish not actually showing little cub parts. Anything that makes them seethe and drives them away is good in my eyes.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: RefurbishedApparatus, Mister Baranavichy, Law and 15 others
Google.com said:
Wheres even the FA announcement for this, all I see is grifting over the death of obese furry jesus
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, I don't see anything on their website either, so that's very confusing. I took the tweet's phrasing of "shadow policy update" to mean that they updated the policy without making an announcement. However, that doesn't seem to be the case?

1726771063767.png 1726771080144.png
1726771106302.png 1726771123503.png

The most recently updated policy was their uploads policy in January, 2023. Maybe they're applying a new "interpretation" of the same policies which is resulting in the bans?

EDIT: Either way, I'm starting to see others on Twitter bemoaning the same supposed policy change:

1726771301257.png
Archive

This user is, understandably, insane:

1726771376235.png
Archive 1 | Archive 2

So that's crazy.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Space Lazer Shark, RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink and 14 others
Drunken Fox said:
I mean if it's a genuine care or just for the money, I don't care. All of those baby fur's are, at best, pedos in denial, but more often than not they're just pedos hiding behind their diaper fetish not actually showing little cub parts. Anything that makes them seethe and drives them away is good in my eyes.
Click to expand...
At this point I'm starting to believe that most cubfags, and by extension ARfags along with various other adjacent groups are mainly into it because they know that they can get away with it as long as they show no actual nudity or genitalia.

"SFW Fetishes" are an absolute scourge on society, I swear.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink, Coo Coo Bird and 14 others
Harm said:
Now that you mention it, I don't see anything on their website either, so that's very confusing. I took the tweet's phrasing of "shadow policy update" to mean that they updated the policy without making an announcement. However, that doesn't seem to be the case?

View attachment 6432986 View attachment 6432988
View attachment 6432991 View attachment 6432992

The most recently updated policy was their uploads policy in January, 2023. Maybe they're applying a new "interpretation" of the same policies which is resulting in the bans?

EDIT: Either way, I'm starting to see others on Twitter bemoaning the same supposed policy change:

View attachment 6433002
Archive

This user is, understandably, insane:

View attachment 6433006
Archive 1 | Archive 2

So that's crazy.
Click to expand...
048eac6cb7c2a282ee3a775b60907b1c.png
cb86213fc3f0b3c847dcafccedb335c2.png

From the FA discord yesterday.

Don't worry guys we will find out the story in about 2 weeks once they are finished writing their statement, the staff at FA work very hard guys.

So according to them nothing has happened, everything is the same, it is just sctizo shit fetish people making shit up. Shame would have been a great change.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink, Coo Coo Bird and 9 others
I can't find any evidence of this "policy update." The Upload Policy page claims the last update was in 2023. I cannot find anything in there that would prohibit AR or any other pedo diaper bullshit that wasn't already banned. I think this is the typical diaper furry persecution complex.
 
  • Late
Reactions: Nimbat Out Of Hell
Google.com said:
View attachment 6433019
View attachment 6433020

From the FA discord yesterday.

Don't worry guys we will find out the story in about 2 weeks once they are finished writing their statement, the staff at FA work very hard guys.

So according to them nothing has happened, everything is the same, it is just sctizo shit fetish people making shit up. Shame would have been a great change.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the additional context. I'm not in their server, so I didn't realize there was any addressment in there. That combined with this screenshot I found on Twitter helps piece it together:

1726772317644.png
Archive of Twitter Source

The fine nuances in pedophilia artwork on a dog porn website. Babyfurs can't upload any "dirty diaper" porn or anything that "puts emphasis on or draws the viewer to look at a character's genitals" when they have "child anatomy." The babyfurs are upset because this isn't explained on the website and according to new admins are only being moderated en masse because there's a massive backlog in general of report tickets which weren't being answered at all.

EDIT: Here's an alleged ban message someone claims to have received in regards to this "not-update":

1726772807244.png
Archive

So either these babyfurs are lying or they're admitting that they cannot exist on FA unless they're depicting childlike characters involved in sexual or fetish activity.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink, Coo Coo Bird and 11 others
>the fetishes based on sexualizing toddlers is being ba-
Harm said:
Appreciate the additional context. I'm not in their server, so I didn't realize there was any addressment in there. That combined with this screenshot I found on Twitter helps piece it together:

View attachment 6433060
Archive of Twitter Source

The fine nuances in pedophilia artwork on a dog porn website.
Click to expand...
Fuck off. I do recall one instance of a babyfur artist getting banned for drawing toddlers, but my point stands, fuck off with this halfway nonsense of banning babyfurs but not banning diaperfur artists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawdler
Google.com said:
View attachment 6433019
View attachment 6433020

From the FA discord yesterday.

Don't worry guys we will find out the story in about 2 weeks once they are finished writing their statement, the staff at FA work very hard guys.

So according to them nothing has happened, everything is the same, it is just sctizo shit fetish people making shit up. Shame would have been a great change.
Click to expand...
Guess I should delete that Community Feature Submissions post then? That or clarify that it's only rumors that the Jannies are denying.
 
Harm said:
The pedophiles among them now want all FA staff banned from all furry conventions and intend to accomplish this with their intricate network of furry pedophiles who openly boast about infiltrating many furry convention staff teams.
Click to expand...
I love seeing all the closet zoos and pedos moronically expose themselves whenever they feel targeted by such news. It’s hilarious.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Space Lazer Shark, RefurbishedApparatus, ivoryink and 13 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back