Furocity staff 'joining forces' with Fur Affinity
Fur Affinity and Furocity owners Dragoneer and Gavin Daemonshyai have announced plans to share staff and resources between the two sites.
The two owners have worked together on FA: United, and according to Dragoneer they will "share responsibilities of the sites as equals (co-owners)", with Gavin's team bringing "coding expertise" and "improved administrative structure and coordination" to FA.
Gavin explained that while "the sites themselves are staying completely separate" (accounts will not be merged), Fur Affinity is gaining administrators and programming staff to implement requested improvements, such as the delayed summer update.
Fur Affinity also added a 12TB disk array this week, after running out of space for work.
Read more: Five Fur Affinity staff resign, some citing leadership failures
About the authorGreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)
a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
You wanted FA Gavin, you got it... PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER! Iddy biddy living space.
I dunno . . . judging by the hardware, there's plenty of room to expand to if they put disks in the servers.
"Iddy bitty living space" is a metaphor for being unable to get out and get some room to breath, as a quote from Aladdin.
(Not have to go *poof* what do you need? *poof* what do you need? *poof* what do you need?)
If they are under good enough terms to pull it off, then good, but it's yet to be seen. In this co-op (not a "merger") it seems to me one side is certainly getting more out of one side then the other. "Sharing Moderators" for example when one site has a 2 month backlog and the other is on its game as far as I know.
Well, maybe the staff just wanted a bigger challenge. Furocity fits the x-axis in this graph:
I'd be interested to know whether Gavin has the rights of a co-owner, as well as the responsibilities.
Bonus points for the Diseny's Aladdin reference, chap.
Okay, I was a bit worried about this whole thing. (I'm always a bit nervous about things I know becoming things I don't.)
It'll be good for FA to have some skilled coders and new administrators. With alk the down time FA gets, it'll be a breath of fresh air. Dragoneer was kind of vague about what's going on though. I think the announcement was a bit premature.
And despite this, FA will STILL be full of security holes.
FA could free up a good gigabyte of space just by deleting all of Rukh Whitefang's ultra-fundamentalist, ultra-homophobic bullshit. Getting rid of his stupid (and 100% non-furry) fucking interminable automobile photos, another 100 Mb or two.
I agree with the whole thing about things like food items and cars being banned, but then personal photos should probably be removed as well. If it's for furry art, make it for furry art. I never understood the car photo thing, and though I know friends who put the stuff they cook on their, I think there are plenty of other picture service places that those could be submitted to and linked to from your FA account.
This is the thing - is a site for furries to place all their creative material, or for furry-specific material?
When Inkbunny started, a number of furries tried to import photos of landscapes or their collections, only to be told to put them on Flickr or Picassa. Members have to remember that we are serving two groups - the content creators, and the content consumers - and that material on the site must be of relevance to both of them.
FA doesn't really have consumers per say. Though this co-op may be an attempt to gather a way to harness some.
Sure it does - everyone who goes there who isn't an artist/writer/musician, and most of those who are.
I don't think it's either; FurAffinity seems to be a social networking site in all but name.
I mean, yeah, there's some art (and some porn), but it mostly seems to be Facebook for furries; everybody's got an account because everybody's got an account.
Are you saying all music that isn't about an anthropomorphic video game character's inability to enjoy her sandwhich also be removed?
I don't think furry sites should host music either, unless it has some clear relation to anthropomorphic animals.
Meh. I think it could hold any content--within reasonable and legal rules of course. As long as the target audience is the furry community, anthropomorphics will make up the majority of it. Generally, the majority of a gallery of a furry artist will be furry related.
By the way, desiring_change (I know it's you because you copy pasted this from you shout on Dragoneer's page), your criticism of non-furry images would be a bit more warranted if you didn't have this in your own FA gallery http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5050223
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
I'd be perfectly happy to see my (few) non-furry photos of mannequins and delicatessens, etc, deleted. I'm prepared to make sacrifices for the good of the site, bring it on! I myself removed some 25% of my gallery just last month.
Do you think FA will adopt Furocity's "No Bestiality" policy? Gosh I hope so. *digits crossed*
I highly doubt it, considering it relates to feral animals:
If they do, I see Inkbunny getting a whole lot bigger overnight.
'Neer said they hadn't even discussed it. You'd think since they'd been discussing that for a year things like that where their rules differ, particularly when sexual/potentially illegal material is involved would have at least been brought up, even if not quite decided.
Post new comment