Great. So a content warning seems to be the perfect middle ground, right?
We do not ask this of people who RP being criminals.
We don’t ask these players to hide that their characters are gangsters or in some cartel and such.
No one thinks these players should be punished.
Why? Because in actuality it is just an adult telling a fictional story with another for their entertainment.
But for some reason, when it comes to the topic of ageplay, people start making claims that it is supporting it or somehow more extreme than other RP.
Again, spider characters are more upsetting to me than any topic of role play. I am not out there complaining they should blur their pictures. So I shouldn’t have to come here to defend myself from the unreasonablness of others.
If those who felt like their should be a reason to have some warning has a logical reason for this beyond. “It makes me feel bad.” Then maybe there would be something to discuss about being fair, but as it is now, it’s just discriminating against one particular kink.
1 Like
How come on almost all platforms I’m on I always have some kinda disagreement with moderators 
I think you outline the critical misunderstanding here. It’s not about fairness in a thematic, narrative vacuum. We don’t ask this of people who RP criminals or gangsters because there is no social externality which exerts pressure on a community based on those. Ageplay, and that is the elephant in the room here, is substantively different because society, as a whole, handles the entire concept differently. It is not a philosophical issue, it is a sociological one.
We’re not claiming that it is distinctly extreme compared to other kinks in the abstract. We are saying there are pragmatic, grounded, tangible issues associated with it, caused by non-abstract societal factors, which cannot be unaddressed.
2 Likes
Because the objective of moderation is to enact governance of a community, and must, as a joint entity, balance groups which have intrinsically contradictory goals, desires and objectives. We are obligated to make choices which are opposed to portions of the community’s wishes, which will always cause friction.
I’ll add that it is not hard to create users. If it’s just, “Well a lot of people feel this way.” One can easily make it appear as if the site has a majority of ageplay users. Making a rule for the reason of, “Well a lot of users just want this rule.” Only encourages botting campaigns from the users in the minority. It wouldn’t be hard to have accounts made that play with each other and start to non stop complain that they feel they are being censored.
We should instead pursue reasonableness, not mob rule, especially here on the internet where mobs are cheap and free.
I agree, this is — stepping back from Wolfery for a moment — kinkshaming by any other name. Here, we are talking about how to address that, and simply standing proudly in defiance of this injustice is not a practical solution.
There has been a gradual exodus of players from the site, numerous threads equating kink to pedophilia, kinkshaming language in tags, and public discussions in-MU* that erode my confidence that Wolfery’s community is a safe place to engage in storytelling involving my feelings about my actual, lived experiences.
This is where maximal liberty got us. Refusing to compromise got us incessant harassment. The kink community has already solved this problem; we use content warnings universally. That we have not had the facilities to use them here is why we are having these problems.
2 Likes
If the elephant in the room is ageplay, please don’t skirt around that with a blanket rule that could negatively impact others. Address it directly.
And this is from someone who supports the idea of allowing consenting adults to pretend whatever they like, including ageplay.
As an aside, I do appreciate an attempt at a middle ground solution, even if I don’t agree with what that solution is.
2 Likes
That seems reasonable. But what would such warnings look like?
I don’t see why simply “I’ll download a plugin that hides the elements that have words in it I don’t like.” isn’t the answer to this?
It’s folks complaining about a problem they can easily solve themselves in under a minute.
Those complaining should be laughed at for such.
1 Like
Still feel like a content warning is the perfect middle ground here. Haven’t seen a comment on it from Fox though for some reason 
(or perhaps I’m blind or dumb)
While anyone can do that, plenty of people aren’t tech savvy enough to do so. I do think asking people who are uncomfortable with something to “figure it out” isn’t a good solution.
2 Likes
Fox has indicated that features to this end are in development.
1 Like
We are currently working to put together a proposed suite of content control tools which are at the intersection of ‘effective’ and ‘technically achievable’. Part of the purpose of this discussion is to determine, given the intended policy change, what measures are acceptable and effective, from a communal standpoint, to promote and support convenient and as autonomous as possible of compliance. In software engineering terms, we are in the requirements phase. Because the technical solutions are shaped by the policy, the policy naturally precedes requirements collection.
Now, this analogy might not land on those that are not american.
But here if one picks up a firearm and does not know how to operate it, even in exceptionally rare unlucky circumstances, (Like a misfire) should that device injure another, it is the operator at fault.
This is because it is obvious that such an item is dangerous.
Now, I can ask anyone, “Hey, if I take one guy with a gun and he tries to be maximally destructive, and one guy with a browser and he tries to be maximally destructive, who could do more damage to the world?”
The browser is an exceptionally powerful and therefor dangerous device.
If you don’t understand the nuances of RegEx implementations in JS and the varied interesting polyglots that exist, you absolutely SHOULD NOT be in something like a chrome browser. You are just putting yourself at risk, and if you are the sort that is doing such, your ignorance isn’t a reason other people who bothered to read should have to change their actions.
This is an entirely unreasonable set of expectations.
2 Likes
My proposed compromise is making use of the collapsible headings to provide content warnings with a minimum of technical labor. It is essentially what people in the kink community already do; we place content warnings prominently atop our stories, or gate our artwork behind an opt-in button with some sort of <5-word description of the content contained within.
Content warnings appropriately place the responsibility on the reader, as the writer has already done their duty by providing them. As I described before, this is normalized within the kink community; we are already doing this, and are looking for ways to do it here.
If the first rule in this plan were altered to permit this approach, we would not need anything more than that. If someone reports a profile for inappropriate content, the moderator can see that a reasonable content warning was provided, and remind the reader that it is their responsibility to curate what content they consume.
1 Like
Why? There’s no reasoning to why the expectation. Why is the maxim, “People should know how a dangerous device works to the point that it is not dangerous to the others around them.” unreasonable?
I quite like this proposal, and we will integrate it into our package proposal to Accipiter.
1 Like
Because allocating power only in the hands of experts leads to concentrations of both skills and experience into silos, which ultimately leads to unbounded and un-checked expression of bias.
1 Like