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.
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
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.
2 Likes
I still don’t see how this isn’t just encouragement for one to start botting complaints about how the warning feel like censorship and just being louder than the other complainers.
If you all make others change their actions based on complaints. I don’t see how this doesn’t become a bot war.
Three hours at work without checking the forums, and hot diggity dog gahad damn. Good to see people are still active and opinionated on here.
With that said, holy hell does this ever feel like tiptoeing across the line to protect the feelings and wishes of those who’s activities make it illegal for some of us to merely access Wolfery in our home nations.
When it was merely ageplay with various anthro and feral characters, there was less of an issue. Good luck finding a court willing to define something that is primarily animalistic as being a portrayal of a ‘person’ (or whatever terminology your local laws use), as that would have opened a MASSIVE can of worms across the legal system.
I have now seen human ageplay profiles. So that slight chance of being kept safe from certain laws has gone right out the window.
I honestly don’t have issues with the three rules as spelled out. Rule one isn’t great, but it’s not a difficult change, there’s very evidently a difference between ‘About’ and ‘Description’ when discussing a character, as much as certain people don’t seem to agree. What I do worry about, though, is the seeming expectation of character profiles. Considering that I’ve only been around for… oh, twenty odd months now, and only found out about 'em yesterday in a discussion with certain other writers, what are the odds plenty of people won’t do that because they don’t know it exists either?
1 Like
Because we make our judgements based on a careful reading of user feedback, social input, and, yes, feelings rather than a spreadsheet.
And, really, these days an effective botting approach to this uses AIs, and if the AI makes a good point, it’s probably worth listening to and considering anyway.
If you see this, report it, it is not allowed.
6 Likes
That’s fine, but that’s the same logic that let folks beat up gays 70 years ago when it was okay to hate them.
I live in a town that is all muslim. Is it okay for me to hate jews then?
I don’t see how this isn’t discriminating against folk for other’s feelings. It sounds like you’re saying that’s what it is, and I don’t see how that is in any way good. Feelings are fickle and change often. Doesn’t seem like a way to build a lasting anything.
1 Like
Good. This is a very good rule.
1 Like