From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Addition of "Spinoff communities" section[edit]

I moved the mentions of LOLfurries and Furmont to their own section in this article. They don't belong in the "history" section because those communities are not a part of the site proper, in my opinion. They *were* created because Furtopia was lacking the particular sort of discussion they cater to, though, so I've called them "spinoffs" for the time being. Hope that this works. --Scani 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deeper into these criticisms[edit]

Many members have expressed that the moderators are simply to strict, but some members go a little bit deeper. Some claim that long term members or good/personal friends of the staff can slip past rules. Also that the staff breaks its own rules (i.e Administrator Benjamine has been reported to flame other members, reporters, to name a few, are Furtopias own moderator Savaaha, Feldy-MDR, Jerreh). Furtopia has been criticised to actually support nazism, as members with homosexual, questionable content (i.e. sexual situations featuring cubs) on there websites, despite not breaking any rules, have there websites deleted by the admins. This however is not directly nazism, but more of a form of homophobia. Also, babyfur or infantilist members, aswell as homosexual members, and members even suspected to be homosexual (i.e males who act efemeninate) are often banned despite not breaking, and even on occasion, helping enforce rules. A member whos name is not wished to be revealed reports being banned when coming back from a date, to find that he is banned under the reason "none".

Above was moved from the article to here - These are serious accusations. Such accusations should be accompanied with direct references to evidence, or not placed on the page. The word of an anonymous user is worthless in this regard. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm some of these criticism, as several staff members are breaking the rules, and are not persecuted for that. Also, while politeness is enforced among regular members, the authorities can do whatever they want, to the point of flaming, both on- and off-site.
For deeper criticism, irrational phobia of Something Awful (interrestingly, none of the other trolsites is forbidden, just this one) is an interesting subject, as well as perceived incompetence of mod (blanking of off-topic posts, rather than splitting them) as well as bloated rules with obsolete parts, sugestions falling on deaf ears (a large number of topics in the suggestion box haven't even been answered) and inconsistency, as exhibited by the banning of word 'nigger' on the IRC network, while performing any other racial slur to go unnoticed. People who point out this inconsistency, as well as dare to criticise the forums are usually kicked or outright banned.
So much for a family friendly forum.
Mikael Grizzly 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not been a member of this community for some time but the topic of Something Awful is off-limits (they claim it feeds the trolls.) --Scani 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a phobia. And it's the trolls' victory, seeing how the authorities are abolutely terrified of the slightest mention of SA. Well, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist, eh? As I said, interrestingly all other troll portals aren't censored (Portal of Evil, CYD etc.)... hypocrisy. Mikael Grizzly 09:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Could it be in response to something particularly bad, like a featuring as a Awful Site of the Day? That could be pretty devastating for a community not able to defend against it. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm browsing SA right now, and the only thing I found was this:
Not exactly top-notch humor or good natured, but I fail to see the point in banning the whole subject of SA there. True, trolls on IRC and forums were present, but for God's sake, it's the authorities' job to pick trolls out and leave regular members alone. Caving in because of them is not the option, plus it makes us look real, real bad.
Which brings me to another point - the stiff power structure. Now, I am a moderator at the NMA ( forums, which are about two times larger than Furtopia's. Now, after two mods of FT were discharged under dubious charges against them, it's down to 3 admins and 7 moderators to oversee the boards. NMA, which is two times larger, but has a lesser number of boards for simplicity's sake, has 7 admins, 5 supermods and 14 regular mods, giving us a total of about 26 staff, compared to Furtopia's 10. The distribution of power was made, so that the possibility of power abuse was limited, time of response lowered and to make the board management easier.
Apparently, Furtopian administration does not care about aforementioned points, or is willing to share the power. Proof? No other admin was appointed since the beginning of the new boards, compare this to three appointed at NMA in the bast two.
I may be attacked for pointing this out, but be assured, that what amount of Trolls Furtopia takes care in a year, we have to take care in a month or less. Plus, it helps to have clearly defined rules. Mikael Grizzly 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I know this is an older discussion, but I just noticed the numbers mentioned and feel compelled to point something out. What I wanted to mention is that more moderators/admins does not necessarily make for a better run community. It can easily lead to infighting, politics, and other nastiness. Having less staff does not automatically make Furtopia better or worse than any other community. --Douglas Muth 17:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, however, all it takes, is willingness to distribute the power and try out new mods. If they prove to be good, then it's okay. If not, then they are kicked out. The NMA is (again) a good example of how this system works and allows for professionally run fora. I, for one, was asked by an admin to lead the polish newsposting section and then promoted to a full NMA newsman/moderator. Another one simply volunteered for moderatorship and was given it, as he has proven himself to be a trustworthy, elegant poster. Also, it would allow the mods to post actively (I've seen Sporty Fox complaining that he can't post, because he moderates) and give them less workload. And if there is infighting, this means that the infighters really don't have anything better to do in their lives. Mikael Grizzly 17:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I found furtopia to be unfriendly as well. Someone on chat verbally bullied another fur who was feeling down off the channel, and when I asked the bully to leave, I myself was banned to protect the bully. I left furtopia after this. --Chibiabos 13:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

Just recalled one thing... Peaches has left Furtopia, because RenelKat was fired under very shady circumstances.

Then what is this doing pinned, as a letter from the mod?:;act=ST;f=12;t=15953

Mikael Grizzly 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to remain a good explanation of how things work on the mod's side of things. I'm sure if Peaches wanted it down they could contact the administrators themselves, but that would be up to them. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For me it's a bad joke now. Very, very bad joke. She was a competent mod, and was essentially forced to leave. I ask WHY is it flagged as a letter from a mod, while the moderator left that position? Mikael Grizzly 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're asking the wrong people. This page is for discussions about the content of the article. We are not representatives of Furtopia. I would suggest that you send a private message to one of the current moderators or administrators about it if you want an official answer. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
However, to make a truly solid article, we need all the information possible... and this is a small bit of it. On a related note, I doubt I'd get an answer, especially good natured.Mikael Grizzly 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the thread (which extends over several years), it seems like quite a few moderators have weighed in there, so it seems perfectly reasonable that they kept it up, if only to ensure that their own posts were read as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations, and major claims on the front page that are not cited[edit]

So, I could probably be considered biased because I'm an active member on this website so I wanted to get the opinions of unbiased wikifurs. It seems to me that there are things on the front page that, while they may or may not be true, are unnecessary and really require citation if they're going to be there.

For example, information about spin-off communities is really more a part of those communities histories and probably isn't so major an aspect of this website that it should be mentioned at all, none the less take up half the history section. It also lacks any citation / sources.

There are also some absolutely absurd claims in the discussion page likening Furtopian staff to Nazis. It's really rather disgusting and in my view slanderous. Claims are made in the discussion page that babyfurs were banned and their websites were removed... There are three cubs in IRC staff and at least one in forum staff. There are openly gay forum staff members.

There is a claim that SA is singled out as the only troll website that members are not allowed to talk about. While i fail to see how this Is relevant, i can provide a link to the rules which say that discussion about any troll website is banned.

I guess my point is, would it be possible for us to clean up this page and the discussion to some extent? They really seem more like attacks and/or personal rants some of which Godwin's law really ought to be invoked.

--Alsek 03:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Umm, are you looking at an old or cached copy (see the history)? I'm not finding what you're talking about in the current version of the article. As for the claims above, that is why they were removed here for discussion. We generally do not limit what is up for discussion, except where it comes to personal attacks against other editors, or revealing personal information. If the claims had been substantiated, they would probably be in the article; that they are not suggests their worth. (That said, from my personal experience, the Furtopia forums are more strictly moderated than other furry forums.) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for your quick response. They are more strict than other forums as the forums are meant to be family friendly, but that's a far cry from claiming Nazism, homophobia, or being anti babyfur, all of which i could easily disprove with sources and seem rather slanderous to me.
As for the actual article, you're right. I saw the reference to lolfuries and thought the worst of it was still there. Still, The third paragraph in the, "History," section lacks any sources, and it seems like a conflict that no uninvolved party would rightly have the answers to. Posting it here without any citation puts readers in the position to make a judgement on their own about something they would not be able to find information about. It's a bad first impression to give because it currently reads as though WhiteSheperherd jumped the gun and accused an entire community of something they did not do. --Alsek 03:56, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, that's because he did, as I recall. He apologized afterwards, as noted. The references you are looking for are in the WikiFur News story linked at the side. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:00, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Read the email. What WhiteShepherd was basically saying was, "I was talking about the group of people who actually did this, i'm sorry if you took that to mean the whole site." Which is very, very different from, "I'm sorry. I falsely accused you all." This interpretation would be supported by the quote from RabbidRick, an administrator from lolfuries, in the side article you're referencing.
"This site is on temporary (possibly permanent) suspention. I thought I made it clear that the fact that other people on here (including some of the admins) would condone stuff like vandalism did not sit well with me, at all. It is childsh to try and destroy someone else's hard work and the fact that everyone seemed to be supporting them makes me think this site existed for all the wrong reasons." [sic] --RabidRick
He made that post after shutting down the website because of how large scale the involvement was in his view. That being said? It's also completely irrelevant. The sources in the old news article are all broken links, and there are no sources cited in the furtopia article. Accusations without sources should be removed. The is no way a normal user could make judgement about this on their own from the material provided. Also, i can't speak for how things were, "That long ago," but you might consider visiting the site again sometime. My understanding is that things have changed significantly from the, "Wild Days." --Alsek 23:11, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

Defunct links[edit]

As Furtopia no longer provides webhosting, there will be a number of defunct links to remove. See* for results of a search. -- Sine 14:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)