Hi! I rarely use this account at all, but I feel that for the sake of preservation, I should say a few short things about the policy update.

Firstly, let me open by clarifying that I think this is a step that does need to be taken to an extent. Especially given how the United States is increasingly cracking down on internet restrictions, creating a clear “underage content is not allowed” statement is not just very warranted; its the right thing to do. I’m glad the stance is being taken.

However, the way in which this content will be restricted, mostly pertaining to removal, is a concern. The way FA wishes to approach this is extremely broad based on more recent clarifications from FA staff. Effectively, all Pokémon creatures that have a cutesy or chibi appearance allegedly necessitate removal of the piece entirely. Some people believe that this only applies to “baby” or first evolution Pokémon, but as evidenced with Lucario being removed due to their height (3’11”), this is not the case. This, while following the general public perception of these designs, is never how they were represented in canon nor how most owners of these sonas see their characters. These designs were chosen for being cutesy, not for being underage.

This is, of course, a slippery slope. What stops someone from just saying that the character is adult despite showing many signs to the contrary? I sympathize with this concern greatly, and mostly agree with it! Its a valid concern. However, simply deciding from face value that a design necessitates age, especially if that design is from a series that never intended to be a shorthand for “this character is a child physically/mentally”, is likely a step too far. But that brings up another question: what step is just far enough to make sure bad actors don’t have a shorthand for finding a very particular type of content? The unfortunate answer is that its incredibly situational. There is no easy indicator that solves this right away within the first millisecond of scanning the content. However, FA is specifically basing their moderation decisions off of a rigid guideline. Art does not have a “you must be this tall to not be a child” bar. Instead, if someone looks and acts like a child, then they’re for all intents and purposes a child. The entire issue stems from the fact that FA seems to not regulate with evidence to the contrary in mind for whatever public perception is of the character.

This is where my primary sona, Dahtin, comes in. Dahtin at their base design is a short teal gecko, based on the African Fat-Tail and Leopard Gecko species. The art style they are primarily depicted with is chibi. They are somewhat chaotic but good-natured, so any art down the pipeline with them might tap into that. However, Dahtin was always designed to be an adult in all of their depictions, no exceptions. Their array of their spots is not that of a juvenile gecko, being further spread out rather than striped. My depiction of them at 2’8” was mostly because I wanted a smaller sona, not because they are coded to be a child, so I quite literally scaled up the average adult length of a leopard gecko by 4 times. The larger head in proportion to their body is because of the chibi style, and their tail is fully matured. The only reason to suspect that Dahtin would be a child would be because someone cannot separate a character from the style they are drawn in and, frankly, being completely unaware of geckos as a species.

I hesitate uploading any commissions I get of Dahtin as a result, however, because I do not want FA to brand my primary sona as a child due to a manual review based on human proportions. Without naming names, I wonder how this will affect the more popular Kobold commissioners since they would be similar to Dahtin in this predicament for both style and personality portrayed. Many Pokémon artists are rightfully worried that years of their catalog will be scrubbed because FA is judging maturity for fictional, non-human species on human proportions. Even so, I can’t imagine this is the intention.

Mainly wanted to blog my thought process on this. Hopefully I’m misunderstanding something critical, because it doesn’t sound great, even if I firmly agree with why they are trying to take this stand.