The moderation team is faced with a number of social problems and also a big, fat legal problem that any site catering to the kink community in whole must address. There are places with laws that are very explicit about what is allowed or not, and it does not require a lawyer to figure out the implications of such laws.
Wolfery is currently in violation of some of these laws, and the only way they can resolve that legal challenge is by banning the topic outright or banning all connections from those places. There is no middle ground to explore here; one day a strongly-worded letter is going to arrive in Accipiter’s inbox, and we are all going to have a very bad time.
In the meantime, we are looking at a social challenge. It is one that requires two key measures to address in the way most people here are hoping for: First, some kinds of kink content must be contained — as is already a long-standing part of Wolfery’s rules — to areas that do not restrict them, as Sinder does. And second, the moderation team must draw a line in the sand indicating that these kinds of content are both permissible and protected, and that users who take issue with this are in disagreement with Wolfery’s principles. Content warnings, coupled with a moderation team that is committed to the safety of kinksters as much as the safety of other users, address both of these requirements.
A not-insignificant fraction of the community does not support this outcome, but has been rather quiet in this particular thread; in the past, conversations about this topic have devolved into pearl-clutching and kinkshaming. This places the moderation team in a difficult position, because both sides are incredibly polarized; any decision at all will result in an exodus of one demographic or another as their sense of comfort with this community is eroded. The question the moderation team must answer is whose comfort Wolfery’s principles value more. They are understandably reluctant to answer that question directly. I would be, too.
But we have their actions to show what their essential beliefs are, even if things may look very different when the freight train that is reality comes slamming into this little island we have built for ourselves. They have taken great pains over a great deal of time, in spite of constant lashing out from every invested demographic about this topic, to ensure that all* kinks have a place in Wolfery. That place may not be Sinder Park, where we understandably have a more vanilla baseline, but there is a place for such things.
The easy solution would have been to ban unpopular and polarizing kinks. They have not done this. This is telling.
But other users’ comfort still matters, and so we have measures, as proposed with this thread, to better enforce the rules that were already in place. This is essentially a more robust implementation of our current rules; the only real change is that all content, not just actual roleplay, is subject to an area’s restrictions. The rest is just clarification of intent.
I do not think it is realistic to expect Wolfery’s staff to cling to their principles for the sake of only a handful of its community members when the law comes knocking; blocking an entire nation from accessing the community is a far more deleterious decision, and while I appreciate that we have moderators who support kink in all its flavors, including the ones they do not like, I also do not expect them to ban entire innocent swathes of their community when they can just politely ask the, like, ten folks who are actually writing this stuff with any regularity to stop.
There are many of us who crave that liberty, even if we do not exercise it personally. And there are many of us who support that liberty, even if it is not their thing. Our investment is largely hypothetical, and the moderation team probably has a much clearer idea of just how much of this community is exercising that liberty. This gives them numbers, more or less, to weigh against one another.
They have seen the outcries and the exoduses, and at some point the cycle has to stop, or else the community will tear itself apart from both ends. Cutting their losses one way or another means excluding some demographic. A compatibilist approach is, itself, alienating to both extremes. There is no answer here that does not exclude someone, so we start asking ourselves questions like, “How many are we willing to lose for the sake of our principles?” and “Given the balance of equities, which decision favors the greater good?”
Those of us who see the writing on the walls are already starting to reach out for off-site contact information and looking into or creating alternative venues. We still have our unsteady peace here, though, and so we continue to invest ourselves in this community. I trust that the moderation team will continue to carry us forward, but we have seen them discuss this topic frankly in-MU* indicating that we are running up against wall, here.
I do not think it is fearmongering to see these circumstances and to say with confidence that things are probably not going to go the way we want, in the end; it does not take a social scientist to figure out where this ship is sailing.
So, we take the wins we can while we can. I think these rules are a unilateral improvement, not a loss to anyone, provided we have adequate accommodations to address the chilling effect folks are concerned about regarding the draft of the first clause. Fox has indicated that this will be adjusted accordingly, and I am satisfied with that. It looks like most folks here are.
Clarity regarding what, exactly, constitutes forbidden content is clearly needed, for several folks have shown anxiety about how this will impact tags and LFRP messages. This warrants an adjustment of Sinder’s rules, particularly, which in the past boasted some pretty kinkshamey language, and has since been corrected. I see no reason to doubt their ability to address this problem adequately on that front; every action they have taken so far about this topic has been exceedingly careful and principled and responsive.
*I suspect this superlative is not strictly true, but the forbidden demographics in question do not seem to be represented at all in conversations like these. If they are present, they are not speaking up.