so going by the words initially, the skin was eventually accepted? i think it's unreasonable to expect staff to be consciously aware and able to identify these things. they flagged the skin as potentially containing religious content, and the artist clarified. no harm?
not sure of staff's intentions but a lot of these rules seem to me as more "better safe than sorry" in how much broader they are. it sucks but i can understand why. if anyone was around for early furvilla i think they might understand too. there are just a lot of really bad faith actors when it comes to pet sims, furry/furry adjacent content and characters who are depicted as children
i think staff knows and acknowledges that most FR players are normal and do not have bad intentions. it sucks but i do think some of these rules are for the better especially when it comes to this topic. although i can agree they could be worded better or go into more detail about what exactly is defined as "lolita" etc
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: hatchling skins
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 02:21 am (UTC)(link)not sure of staff's intentions but a lot of these rules seem to me as more "better safe than sorry" in how much broader they are. it sucks but i can understand why. if anyone was around for early furvilla i think they might understand too. there are just a lot of really bad faith actors when it comes to pet sims, furry/furry adjacent content and characters who are depicted as children
i think staff knows and acknowledges that most FR players are normal and do not have bad intentions. it sucks but i do think some of these rules are for the better especially when it comes to this topic. although i can agree they could be worded better or go into more detail about what exactly is defined as "lolita" etc