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
The tl;dr of my opinion on the matter is that user-configurable content warning tools would be the optimal approach for this. A lot of what I wish to say has already been covered, but I will add two points to the discussion.
Allowing users to curate their experience and requiring them to have to willingly opt-in to viewing an about section, profile picture, tags, or entire profile that contains content they object to and have configured not to see places the onus upon them to say “Yes, I understand I may see something I object to, but if I click this button, I have only myself to blame.”
I also understand the real-world contentions and stigmas around certain kinks, but I think closeting those kinks causes more harm and damage than good. I’m a firm believer that exploration of kink in a safe, consenting environment with other adults that wish to explore it in a similar fashion is never a bad thing. Fiction allows us to explore aspects of ourselves that we cannot in real life, and that’s going to look different for everyone and include things that you personally find objectionable. Preferences are subjective after all.
3 Likes
Every policy choice will step on someone’s toes. Our job is to step on as few as possible. Legalistic constructs based on pure logic and numbers do that poorly.
I’m glad to hear that, now to make your life a little more difficult. (I’m genuinely sorry, but it’s important.)
Lets define human. Where’s the line that the Wolfery staff are willing to issue bans for people doing the above?
Human characters with cat ears (neko)? Great, however, still risking a criminal sentence for us.
Anthros that look like humans but with cool skin colours (Chunie’s art style)? Probably okay.
I know it’s hard to define, it’s an argument as old as the concept of Furry is. However, when it involves the risk of a prison sentence…
Honestly my thoughts on most rules restricting existing things (IN ONLINE SPACES) are that their better left alone, not to be touched.
Less rules > More rules
There is no nation that I am aware of that will punish you for accessing a website where some random selection of users are posting illegal content. Safe harbor laws are international; it is Wolfery that is at risk, and only if it fails to adequately address certain legal complaints that they will be made very aware of.
Less rules are inherently more extreme rules.
1 Like
Mob rule. Very nice. I’m not opposed to mob rule. I just don’t think it encourages good behavior, because it means being loud and complaining is how you effect change, and therefore encourages folk to be loud and to complain.
The line between mob rule, and listening to your constituents, is so blurred it can only be described as a gradient.
2 Likes
Literally what do you mean?
1 Like
Roleplaying a character railing a line of coke is literary freedom.
Roleplaying a character killing another through any means is literary freedom.
Roleplaying a character who’s under the age of majority engaged in acts explicitly defined, by law, as illegal to create in any form of media, is not literary freedom. It is the creation (and, for those around the writer involved, consumption), of Ch*** Po*****aphy.
That’s what my issue with this is. I love Wolfery, I love most of the people here. I’m also opening myself up to a criminal conviction if a court ever decides that what a small minority of users of the site write, counts as the above terminology.
2 Likes
Within policy, there are certain grounds you must cover. To have fewer rules, the rules you do have must be broader in extent to cover more of those key bases. Rules are complex, and extending them between two points does not just expand them horizontally, but in other dimensions as well. Ultimately, fewer rules means rules which are overly broad because they are not fine tuned to deal with nuances.
The stories I tell about my real, lived experiences are not child pornography.
1 Like
Yea that still makes no sense
Less rules just mean less rules, don’t think it’s any deeper than that. Adding more to an existing rule is basically just adding another rule, really.
Which means more rules. So still - Less rules > More rules
1 Like
National rules can be very wildly. I live in a sub nation inside of a state in the US.
The amount of national rules most every website breaks is insane.
I myself can go to jail if I use the dice roller and don’t get a standard distribution after I roll. shrug
I don’t think we can go trying to make the myriad of places we are from happy unless we want to change this place to a cooking recipe website.
I don’t see Lolita banned as a book in any European country, so I doubt the writing here is anything that objectionable.