Talk:Furality Online Xperience

Controversies - Remuneration

Refer to discussion User_talk:Spirou#Furality_Inc_-_Remuneration_Controversy [1] Overtake983 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

Controversies - Remuneration Part II

I intend to insert the following text to summarize the January 2024 remuneration controversy.

In January 2024, controversy emerged regarding the disclosure of Furality's FY2022 Form 990, which revealed that the Chairman of the Board of Furality Inc had received $39,000 in remuneration. This contradicted previous statements on the organization's website asserting that it operated on an "all volunteer" basis and that "board members are not compensated". Subsequent clarification provided by the DevOps Director of Furality (Alofoxx) clarified that the remuneration was attributed to the Chairman's responsibilities as Creative Director and not as a member of the Board.

This I feel, strikes the right balance on the topic, presents the facts neutrally. and is summarily brief enough such that it prevents skewing the tone of the article. I invite any interested party to suggest edits prior to me doing so. Overtake983 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Controversies

Another controversy rewrite posted here for consideration. Re-written to comply with NPOV and stick to what can be substantively proven by available sources.

In December 2023, an individual identified as Jinxy_VR anonymously submitted an entry for Furality’s Community Showcase, which was showcased at Midwest Furfest 2023. The submission stirred controversy amongst those familiar with Jinxy_VR, due to allegations related to grooming/paedophilia associated with the individual. Consequently, the submission was removed from the video uploaded to YouTube, reflecting the community's response to the situation.

Part of me wonders if the name of the person is even relevant in the context of the article, though it might help provide scale. Overtake983 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2024 (EDT)

No, this is a user issue, not the con's. Just because it was submitted to the event's showcase does not mean they are also culpable (why would they?). Following this logic, Midwest Fursfest would also be tagged (they showcased it first), the provider he used to upload the image (they provide a means of uploading such media), the maker of his PC (the device that allowed it to do the deed), etc... This is reaching a little too much. - Spirou (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2024 (EDT)

@Spirou I actually fully agree that Furality has very little to answer for on this matter, and indeed it seems the 'controversy' was limited to only a few people on Twitter (5~ unique users vs 15,000 MFF / Furality attendees each event) - However, you left the controversy in the article after editing and inline tagging it, but the wording implies wrong doing on the part of Furality. This proposal was my way of acknowledging your decision to leave it there, whilst still addressing that the current wording violates NPOV, is laden with bad faith assumptions and assumes wrong doing where there are no references to substantiate such an assertion. If your edit was not intended as an endorsement of that wording / controversy, then we can we reach a consensus to remove it entirely instead? Alternately, the wording above is a night and day improvement over what is currently in the article in terms of NPOV. Overtake983 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2024 (EDT)

If I left that wording in, it wasn’t intentional, probably a revert in between two user edits revisions (not the first time). You seem more spot on how the editing is going, so I will leave it up to you to edit your suggestion in, and thanks for pointing this out. - Spirou (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2024 (EDT)

Alright. Having considered this I decided to go ahead remove the controversy in question from the article on the basis that the available evidence indicates this controversy was microscopic in scale, not really news-worthy in terms of substance, and is not actually related to the online convention the article is about. Others are welcome to edit it back in, but if you do so, please take note of my proposed wording above to ensure NPOV is not further violated. Overtake983 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2024 (EDT)