I just can’t take sentances like that seriously though 
Also humor no matter what is ma motto
I do understand why it doesn’t feel fair to you, but I also see why it doesn’t feel fair to them, either. With regards to the attacks, we are threading a very fine needle on the distinction between allowing people to express their belief in those connections, and the expression that moralizing arguments are not welcome or appropriate in this context.
I can entirely understand the tendency to interpret the legalizing arguments regarding definitions of material as a personal insult, especially in this context where legal, moral, social, and psychological motivations are extremely convoluted over one another.
The core trouble is that the issue is being framed as a right to exist in the space. We, the moderators, are not in the business of attempting to change people’s minds on the moral and philosophical underpinnings of people’s behaviors. Our aim is to establish standards of behavior which are supportive of a community which is as beneficial as possible.
There is an implicit request that Wolfery staff engage in efforts to convince people to change their outlook on ageplay. That the fact that people opposed are opposed may believe the things they say, and that holding beliefs that are perjorative is actionable.
I will say this with an uncommon level of authority: we are not here to police people’s perspectives. We are not therapists, pastors, advertisers, or activists. We do not, and will not, take efforts on any front to enforce or influence people’s social or political standing. Our job is to stop behaviors, possibly caused by those outlooks, which harm people.
On that front, the idea that a person holding a belief which, if vocalized, would cause harm to someone is actionable is operationally (not morally or philosophically, I stress) the same as holding a belief that someone’s interests mandates their exclusion. One side wants the other to not be there, and that side wants them to not be who they are.
I agree in the difference in perspective, but the key point of that is in the distinction between acceptance and tolerance. We would like if all users accepted one another, but this is goal is one that is vastly out of our power. Our jurisdiction is tolerance, and it is one that we enforce with the hope that creating a space of tolerance is conducive to growing acceptance.
I would like to believe that our users can learn to understand the value in acceptance of those around us regardless of our individual moral comprehension of behaviors, and understand that intervention is intended to create respectful boundaries where we do not step on one anothers’ outlooks while mitigating behaviors that cause harm.
I should be the last person to appear in this thread but geezies. You can’t even imagine how hard the team worked trying to come up with some solution that would work and the time it took them to make sure that it would be reasonably acceptable to the populace. They try to keep the door open, they try to make sure to include every opinion and to keep this discussion civil. It’s thoroughly disappointing to see such “feedback” in the thread and it makes everyones’ arguments sound less grounded, whichever side you tried to support.
Can you behave like an adult in the comments and respect the others, please?
4 Likes
My reply post above was sent a bit early due to an inadvertent ctrl-enter, apologies for not addressing other replies later on, but to be honest it got so long that the thread diverged a bit from the topic anyway.
As a result I never quite got around to saying that while I don’t hate the original post’s concept, it needs - aside from a means of auto-switching - far more clarity on exactly what is and is not allowed; in particular, what constitutes “details”. For example, are clearly-marked external links to F-list OK in About? How about link blocks like this? Does it matter if the linked resource also requires acceptance to view content and offers filtering, as IB does?
Art: General, Mature (slit), Adult (egg).
(([Mature correction; horizontal, no anus.]))
Avatar - Profile - Halloween special.
Similar norn: Realistic, toony, detailed.
I do also have a question as to whether the staff would consider these particular custom tags acceptable for the tag block, the first of which ironically I have only ever had experience of on Wolfery from someone whispering me in Station Park:
spaying
Removal or disabling of ovaries and/or uterus. Wouldn’t do this to others but perhaps OK to her in a medical scene?
oviposition
Laying and bearing eggs, be they natural, donated or artificial. Or not laying, as a more durable toy.
The other aspect is whether staff consider whispers between characters who happen to be in the Town of Sinder to potentially constitute an offence under 2. I’m guessing not, but the rule could be construed in such a manner.
I am deeply troubled by the fact that our right to exist is not a given, and that threatening that right to exist in discussions about site policy is acceptable behavior, and that the ultimate goal here is to create an environment where our existence is tolerated but humiliating and dehumanizing attacks on our character and identity are both permissible and prevalent.
I understand that the moderation team is in an extraordinarily difficult position, here, and that this is complicated by the fact that some of that team would also like us not to exist. I have demonstrated how this behavior is unjust when directed at virtually any other demographic, and the response has been uncompromising that we must continue to endure this abuse.
It is not being interpreted as a personal attack; it just is intentionally a personal attack. The language that is often used in these discussions is vile. If the moderation team cannot at least commit to addressing that rampant vitriol — and I see here that you are unable to provide that assurance — then I cannot in good conscience continue to look to the moderation team as a source of…you know, moderation.
I do not know what this means for folks telling these kinds of stories on Wolfery, but I know at least that our time here is limited, and that it will not be pleasant. So now we just wait for the other shoe to drop.
1 Like
Nah
I just can’t take anything (most) of the moderators are saying here seriously. “Being left alone’ is itself a mandate on behavior” and “Less rules are inherently more extreme rules.” are the biggest examples.
Also every mod here sounds like a broken record. So no, I will approach this with the upmost whimsy.
Like, seriously. Some y’all be saying things equivalent to what the e6 mods be sayin
Your right to exist is assumed, your right to not have people believing otherwise is not.
Threatening people is not acceptable, and threats are against policy, and are disciplined. Determining whether a statement is a tangible threat or a perceived one is a delicate task.
Part of the issue is that this topic is so contentious, that in many cases voicing either outlook is considered an attack. I understand that you believe that these statements are intentional attacks, but I disagree.
Our outlook here is that tolerance is the best possible outcome. People in favor of ageplayers will have to tolerate that some of the userbase despises them, and people opposed will have to tolerate that people on the platform engage in a behavior they find immoral. Considering that the crux of the argument here is an anti-ageplay perspective is something you consider inherently immoral, and want formally abolished, I feel like tolerance is a reasonable expectation.
2 Likes
And by taking every opportunity to post a random gif and make fun of folks makes it difficult for ANYONE to take you or your opinion seriously. You do yourself and your point of view a disservice by resorting to such antics.
2 Likes
Okay but I like antics, antics are fun
This is not a topic for which whimsy is acceptable, and further commentary which is mocking, irreverent, and/or unhelpful will result in a suspension.
1 Like
1 Like
And they make you look like you are not mature enough to participate in a website or discussion meant for 18+ aged individuals. These are the tactics of children, not an adult.
1 Like
If a user showed up saying that enough trans people are pedophiles to warrant the exclusion of trans folks from the platform, they would not be long for Wolfery.
If you want for this space to be tolerant, the people in it actually have to tolerate us. Calling us pedophiles is not tolerance.
2 Likes
Idk what spaces you hand around, but literally all the internet spaces I hang 'round this is normal behavior.
If you aren’t staying on topic, please keep your comments to yourself.
1 Like
Chocobocobobocobo has been suspended for 24 hours. This conversation is serious, and people across the range of positions all stand to lose things they care deeply about. This is not a place and time to fuck around.
13 Likes
Seriously, how many times to I have to suggest that folks in favor of ageplay NOT be idiots and make a huge mess out of things? I don’t care how hurt you feel that folks don’t want you around. Yes, it sucks. But know what? You’re still around for the moment and the more of an effort you make trying to say it’s not fair, the more difficult you make it to try and keep the kink allowed at all. And again, I say this as someone who WANTS TO KEEP AGEPLAY in Wolfery.
Stop shooting yourselves in the foot by whining about how much it hurts to be put into the corner, because if the VAST MAJORITY OF SOCIETY had their way, that corner would be nuked out of existence. It’s getting to the point where the idiots are going to make the mods change their mind and just say ‘fine, you don’t want to be hurt, go somewhere else so you don’t feel hurt’.
If a user believed such, but did not act on it behaviorally, they would be allowed to remain.
If a user says that they believe that a behavior one engages in is indicative of, or equivalent to, another behavior, the question comes down to intent and context.
People stating their positions on moral equivalences in a conversation like this is acceptable. People broadcasting it out of this context is not, and we police that.
The purpose of this policy is, I reiterate, to create a separation in which people who feel morally compelled to say something do not have the prompting to speak, and the people who would be hurt by their statement do not hear them.
To summarize, calling you pedophiles as an ad hominem is unacceptable, saying that they believe in a connection between that identity and ageplay, in this context, is acceptable. Putting that kind of inflammatory rhetoric in a profile is not acceptable.
Tolerance is compatible with disapproval. It is made easier with social systems that reduce contact between mutually disapproving groups.
It is not ‘whining’ to expect that others joyfully engaging with storytelling in the same venue as us treat us with respect. You may bear all of the privilege in the world and so perhaps this is some nothingburger of a request to you, but I grew up gay in the nineties and trans in the aughts, and I have had enough of “just be quiet and let them shit on you”.
1 Like
I do hear where Fox is coming from here, but I am no longer comfortable having this discussion. I leave it to you all to work something out that approximates justice. I know that is all there is, an approximation, but if I am not even welcome to advocate for my peers who are reading this anxiously and for myself, then I see no reason to continue.
I must see to my friends and family; this entire ordeal has been exhausting to endure for many of us.
4 Likes