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.
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
Because there are underaged characters who are able to keep it in their pants in public, or who never engage in anything sexual. What you propose will prevent these characters from even having sfw rp.
Because asking for the conditional of [Cub] + [anything else sexual] is a far more complex setup than [cub] yes/no? Again, it also means cubs who aren’t sexual in public but are in private would be included.
1 Like
Because there are underaged characters who are able to keep it in their pants in public, or who never engage in anything sexual. What you propose will prevent these characters from even having sfw rp.
Because asking for the conditional of [Cub] + [anything else sexual] is a far more complex setup than [cub] yes/no? Again, it also means cubs who aren’t sexual in public but are in private would be included.
Yes. People who choose to use the block function do so because they get the heebie-jeebies from an underage character whose profile makes it clear they engage in sexual roleplay elsewhere. They already don’t want to RP with those characters. Again, I ask, what is the objective in wanting to keep said characters visible to people who would choose an option that would block them, other than making them wish they could? This wouldn’t change the reality of the roleplay situation at all, the people such a feature would be for are the people who are already doing the avoiding.
1 Like