No, I realize that. It’s not about that, it’s about not silencing either side.
Oh, to I’m saying silence both!
I heartily approve of this outlook- if you are overwhelmed, exhausted, or out of breath, please take a step back for your mental health
4 Likes
Understandable. But this feels a little too ‘middle of the argument’.
Yeah, I was gonna say, that’s too much of a “Stop the Count!” approach.
(I may be a little late, but I would like to add my thoughts on this.)
All of this is quite unnecessary.
We’re all adults playing pretend. Characters do not equal real people being subjected to things that would indeed be unacceptable in real life.
Wolfery is here so we may have a safe space to indulge in things like that without hurting anyone. Writing is the better alternative than IRL harm.
I think drop-down sections in easily viewable places (such as in the About & LFRP) and opt-in content selections are a painfully obvious and easy way to go.
And why censor LFRP? Isn’t it there entirely so that folks can find other folks with similar interests? What if someone is looking for, say, noncon? Or a feral buddy to play with?
Quite silly.
Anyone can learn to use drop-downs. No one should have to edit things out of their About section and stop using LFRP.
There should be something like, perhaps, a section in User Settings where you can enable what you want to see and disable what you don’t. I’m not sure how that would be implemented in technical terms, but tech isn’t my job.
This thread has blown way out of hand. Can’t we head back to ways of refining these rules Raeth has posted, rather than arguing about morals and individual preferences?
I stand by drop-downs in About and LFRP with clear warnings which people can choose to look at.
I stand by leaving LFRP as it is.
I also stand by the fact that we are all adults capable of choosing what we each individually prefer and choose to see.
Let’s be constructive about this again.
4 Likes
I mostly, if not fully, agree with this.
This thread has exploded beyond what the focus was.
People keep bringing up that friends of theirs had left the site because of problems around profiles and seeing more than they want.
But keeping this up, even if mods are thinking it’s still respectful and in the bounds of the rules, is just sowing distrust in active, current users on any side of this argument. Which will lead to the exact same thing, people leaving the site.
It really can’t be this hard to find a decent middleground to this all, right?
In my opinion, the changes seem fine. I think drop-downs are a good solution rather than just having to outright censor a profile in areas.
If someone see’s an ageplay related oc, see’s a clearly labelled drop down, and then clicks it? That’s more on them for ignoring the obvious warnings, than on the ageplay OC’s.
Even if you add big, flashing warnings to a profile with an ageplay tag, those same people will most likely click past it anyway, and complain about the explicit nature of things.
–Despite my typing not being the best, this is not me advocating for a bright flashing warning as a solution, contrary to what some might have read it to mean. It was meant as an example, that some people will subvert and avoid the systems implimented to help protect them, and then complain about what they see. –
I do think censoring LFRP is a little silly.
Why not just- have the LFRP text on someone’s profile collapsed from the moment you open someone’s profile? As of right now, clicking on someone who is LFRP, the text is right there, at the top of their profile, and open.
If their profile irks you, you wouldn’t even have to read the LFRP.
8 Likes
On the contrary, I think the idea of having a default block function you would have to intentionally choose to disable on profiles with a cub tag would be a better idea than flashing warning. There’s a psychological aspect to being able to pretend the content you find deeply disturbing doesn’t exist, and ‘out of sight out of mind’ is the best way of going about it. I continue to believe this is the best implementation.
1 Like
I like to feel like I am a part of this community. I’ve hosted my fair share of events and plan to host more. I’d rather not like to feel shadowbanned because I have certain tags and people just don’t trust me to behave. A block function is probably the worst possible outcome, especially one that is on by default.
3 Likes
It’s not “all ageplayers”, just sexualized cub characters. People who object to said content would not positively interact with said characters to begin with, so this spares both sides the trouble.
1 Like
Or it forces people who sometimes engage in ageplay from the adult angel to closet their interest because people who would otherwise interact with them will say ‘I don’t care if it’s cub or any ageplayer, block them all.’ I have seen people who say that on their negative tags, but I also believe I have seen those people interacting with Waku. I could be mistaken, I am sure she would know better.
1 Like
That’s a question of implementation. If the auto-block feature only extends to characters with a “cub” tag + any sexual tag, then adult characters will remain unblocked, leaving only the cub characters free from the scrutiny of those opposed to that kind of RP.
1 Like
A lot of people with that tag use it because they like interacting with those kinda characters, even when their character is an adult
I’m saying there should be a tag specifically for characters that are cubs to facilitate filtering out of said characters for people who do not wish to witness such content or characters, as it’s a uniquely common point of tension and distaste.
1 Like
That’s the thing - hardly anyone uses ‘cub’ as a tag as it’s not present as a default tag. Characters like Waku’s who are explicitly OK interacting with those [pretending to be] underage often use ‘ageplay’, as do some of those intending to be depicted as underage - an issue I brought up before. That’s probably why it wasn’t suggested as a solution, though it could be part of one (this is how IB essentially does it).
Which is why adding it as a default tag is implied here.
1 Like
I absolutely agree.
The point is not to make ageplayers not exist for all intents and purposes. It ought not be on-by-default shadow banning.
How about non sexualized cub characters? Where are they in this scheme?
1 Like
Actually, yeah I’m retracting my neutrality on the opt-in vs opt-out versions of the idea; it ought to be opt-out for sure.
And frankly, I’m now leaning more in favour of tagging specific content as potentially objectionable over the idea of mass ignoring people with certain tags.
The content labeling thing is harder to implement but makes it less of a ghetto for ageplayers, and dang it I’m not wanting to make Wolfery aggressively unpleasant and quiet for us.
Content can be objectionable. People being objectionable is a problem to me.
1 Like
It’s not so much the people being objectionable as it is to the character content. That alone can be triggering. I just want a solution that will work for my friends - and remember, Yule is one of them.
1 Like
I’m also confused as to why some are so desperate to not be put on an ignore-list by people who don’t want to RP with them in the first place. What is the benefit of not letting people filter character profiles they feel averse to? Do you think they’ll magically start to like sexualized cub characters through continued exposure? These are people who already don’t want to RP with you, especially if we go with the option of them having to specifically choose to blacklist people with a combination of a new “cub” tag + any sexual tag.
1 Like