>>35327638>The general rule of thumb when it comes to Pokemon fanart and the anthro rule Allow me to stop you there. You can't make up your own "general" definition of anthro. and FORCE your beliefs onto others, fortunately or unfortunately, because the "anthro."'s meaning is subjective and extremely divided among the population, with no chance of defining the general consensus of what's "anthro". There's no "general", as everyone picks your own constructed meaning of the term, including me and you.
With that in mind, why are we discussing what's and what's not, if we won't ever reach a balanced conclusion? The best tip for this is not to play, or in other words, simply not discussing about it, and leave the situation as what it is now.
>is that if a piece of fanart gives a Pokemon species human characteristics that it doesn't have in the seriesThat doesn't make sense. Pokémon officially has shares of human characteristics, and this appear for many times. Mewtwo and Meowth can talk, Pokémon are able to express through corpse movement to communicate (and also understand our language), the main games explain the relationship between Pokémon and human (especially that you couldn't almost distinguish between the two), the Mystery Dungeon games show Pokémon having many traits shared from humans, couple of Pokémon have shapes that has a strong resemblance to the human's body shape, Latias had a crush with Ash, and there's many other countless times of anthro. played a small or big role on the franchise. There's more evidences that proves this than evidences that prove anthro. and Pokémon are separated. Oh, and there is a Gardevoir thread that houses a couple of "anthropomorphized Pokémon" pics, and it's still intact.
My initial point still stands. If the higher staff will ban for anything that notes "furry", then they might as well delete /vp/, or/and prohibit certain Pokémon creatures to be posted, which this is illogical.
