Content, Clarity, and Consent

81

You believe that, and I may or may not agree.

I don’t care what any of us think. What I care is what the law says, and, well: ((excerpt from Criminal Code))

163.1 (1) In this section, child pornography means

** (b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;*
** (c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;*

1 Like
82

That you live in a tyranny that censors fictional stories that harm no one is no concern of mine.

1 Like
83

Yeah, a fictional fox character isn’t a person.
All the persons on this site are 18.
Is batman a person now? Is he paying his taxes?

2 Likes
84

  1. You and I agree that they aren’t. Legally, that’s only the case until a court decides different.

  2. Strawman Fallacy. Error, Error.

85
  1. fallacy fallacy. Error, Error
86

Debating the nature of governance is far outside the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that the effectiveness of an reductionist approach to policy is categorically ahistoric.

87

…but it may be of concern to the service and its staff, unfortunate as that may be.

2 Likes
88

In online spaces i’ve only seen it end up well

89

Canada does legally define what constitutes as a person. And fictional characters don’t meet that.
There’s a reason you can still buy Lolita in that country.
One has to be born to be a person. What you are talking about literally doesn’t apply.
As someone who has to deal with these sorts of hosting problems, I happen to know that Canada has much friendly hosts for cub content than the US does. This doesn’t make sense to me.

2 Likes
90

I hesitate to sound like a broken record, but I do want to remind everyone in the discussion that the philosophical standing of fantasy, and the morality there of, are not what we are here to discuss, and have little to no bearing on the situation on the ground, vis-a-vis social pressures.

4 Likes
91

There is a point at which you folks are forced to make a difficult choice as to which demographic is more protected by Wolfery. To favor the plurality is to cater to the least common denominator, those nations in the world where conservatism has successfully installed censorship into law. To favor the marginalized is to give up the opportunity to serve users from such nations.

This is not a choice I envy, and I dread the honest reality that one day Wolfery may ask me to stop presenting my identity in part because some country I do not live in made a law that I do not approve of written by a politician I did not elect.

2 Likes
92

Fair, we are still left at.
Is it okay to single a group of players out, simple because a different group of players is uncomfortable around them.
And if it is, does that not encourage players to complain about feeling uncomfortable around any content they don’t like to encourage its censoring?
Do we pick mob rule, or do we decide there is some greater principle we’d all like our rules to serve and try to live up to that? (I’d offer consent as a good principle to serve if we go such a route.)
I don’t see how making every user who engages in ageplay change their behavior is a somehow “more fair” than telling those who object to the content to just download an addon that blocks it.
Why cause a larger group of players to change their actions for another group who can’t be bothered to spend a minute to fix a problem they are apparently so incensed by?

2 Likes
93

I guess I’m asking, why isn’t, “Go download an element blocker” not the answer? Why even have this whole discussion?

94

I do not think it is unreasonable for someone to ask me to cover my genitals in public, and likewise I do not think it is unreasonable for someone to ask me to CW the kind of content that is not generally understood to be appropriate in a given context; that is, in Wolfery, our definition of public context includes sensuality, but not most kinds of kink.

Kink is an intrinsically sticky issue, even for kinksters. We all have highly specialized and extremely specific interests, and for those who are not particularly interested in kink, there is still a subjective space to reckon with. That is why we use CWs, and why I am pleased to see Fox embrace my proposal here.

I am satisfied with this outcome, provided Wolfery insists upon this position as the fine line in the sand and does not erode our liberty in the name of foreign policy; if Wolfery chooses instead, one day, to ensure maximal accessibility by restricting which kinds of content are written here, even in private, then maybe I find somewhere else that does not serve nations where such content is illegal.

I suspect we are not likely to go that route any time soon. There is still a lot of room left to fall, and frankly I think these rules are quite gentle.

1 Like
95

I hate to do this, but I have to get back to CT scans soon, so a quick overview, because these are important and legitimate questions:

“Is it okay to single a group of players out, simple because a different group of players is uncomfortable around them.”
No, but societal pressures can force a group to be de-facto singled out, and there are operational consequences for not responding to that situation

“And if it is, does that not encourage players to complain about feeling uncomfortable around any content they don’t like to encourage its censoring?”
This is one of the side effects of a non-ideal social order, and will happen. We do our best to sort the signal from the noise, and sort complaints into ones with important consequences from ones which are power grabs.

“Do we pick mob rule, or do we decide there is some greater principle we’d all like our rules to serve and try to live up to that? (I’d offer consent as a good principle to serve if we go such a route.)”
As mentioned, mob rule and responsivity to constituents is a complex slope, and we try to balance that, too. Ultimately, principles are often messy, and require prioritization and balance, because they’re not objective. Our technical approach is looking to mesh consent at a high priority with safety and comfort.

“I don’t see how making every user who engages in ageplay change their behavior is a somehow “more fair” than telling those who object to the content to just download an addon that blocks it.”
Either one is mandating a behavior change. In terms of pragmatism, we seek the solution which has the minimum behavioral impact which meets the objectives. In the latter case, failure of a single user to comply exposes those operational consequences.

“Why cause a larger group of players to change their actions for another group who can’t be bothered to spend a minute to fix a problem they are apparently so incensed by?”
From one side, this can be phrased the other way, from the other side, it can be posed in the exact converse- debates about group size are ongoing, and not leaning into that too much is part of avoiding mob rule. We are trying to evaluate from both sides for the minimum cost solution.

96

What are we to make of a fictional species with a 20-year lifespan, where being 12 means you’re past your mid-life crisis? That might sound odd from a human perspective, but that’s the point: we often bring too much human bias into fictional spaces dominated by anthropomorphic characters. We forget we’re writing fiction, not mirroring reality.

I’m not inherently comfortable with age play myself, but we must acknowledge that in a fictional context, especially between two characters of who’s players both are considered adults by the laws of their countries, “age” becomes speculative, like any other character stat. It’s no more real than a character’s strength score or magical ability.

That said, I don’t claim to have a perfect answer on how this should be handled. But I do feel some of the conversations around this topic have become unnecessarily harsh and lack nuance.

The deeper issue isn’t the content it’s the access. There’s currently no reliable way to keep underage users out aside from them admitting to being underaged and other users reporting, which doesn’t always work. I’ve seen minors return after being reported, without consequence.

I understand the pressure to align with broader societal expectations, but at times it feels like Wolfery is trying to court the wrong audience. This is a space rich in storytelling and adult content. Visitors should understand that erotic and mature themes are part of the world they’re entering.

For those citing laws, remember: your nation’s legal code isn’t universal. What may be illegal or taboo in one country might be irrelevant in another. And not every fictional interaction has a real-world counterpart.

I worry that what starts as an effort to make some users more comfortable might snowball into exclusion where anyone who pushes boundaries or explores niche interests’ risks being silenced by a loud minority (or a single person posing as one). That’s a dangerous path. It risks turning Wolfery into a place where creative freedom is limited by groupthink and fear of appearing “noncompliant.”

So the core question is this:

Is the goal to attract a broader audience by narrowing the scope of content to become more “family friendly”? Or is it to make Wolfery a safer, more open space for a mature, creative community that understands the difference between fiction and reality?

We need clarity. We need compassion. But most of all, we need to protect the spirit of fiction, because without that, what are we even doing here?

2 Likes
97

Wolfery is never going to be the common definition of ‘family friendly’ - all mucklet instances, in fact since the ToS currently is 18+ only.

1 Like
98

Okay, I’ve had some more time to sit down and think about some things and have a little bit more to add. None of this is intended to sour or shut down the conversation, but rather to add to it.

To reiterate to my prior post, I think content warning controls being available to users will satisfy this - both for those that want to keep specific content in their profile and those that don’t want to see it. I saw it mentioned earlier as well about an “awakening queue” for players and characters that are offline a long time to agree to and consent to changes, which I think is a good idea. I know it would potentially be asking a lot, but if a character logs in within an area like Sinder where content restrictions are going to be placed, they should potentially be moved to a “Safe Room” where they get details about the changes and are allowed to change profiles or details without being subject to people reporting them.

I think that the idea here of separate profiles is a serviceable solution, but I could see the situation where a user legitimately and accidentally forgets to swap it out, especially if it has the same preview image. If this is going to be the standard go-to answer for the rule changes, then I’d like to see consideration into an “Auto-Swap Profile” option for areas that will change your character’s profile to an appropriate one that adheres to area rules when you enter.

I feel this needs a bit of clarification due to technicality and the definition of “area” versus “room”. Does this include private rooms, like an apartment in the Prism? If apartments are now ( or always were ) off-limits to this content, will players be given the option to sever their existing apartment from the prism so they can place it somewhere outside Sinder?

The more I think about this rule, the more and more I dislike it. “Solicitation” and “engagement” is highly subjective, and I worry that with the example of ageplay it would be used as a justification to report characters for simply existing in spaces because “that should go in Lamplight or elsewhere, not the park”, even if the player in question is adhering to the area rules.

I worry that this section - “Please note, this is not intended to restrict Tags, unless custom tags are overly explicit” - will come into conflict with some individuals that will argue that a minor character with the ageplay tag is inherently soliciting that type of RP and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere in Sinder.

Okay, that’s a lot to chew on, my apologies, but I hope I laid out my concerns concisely.

2 Likes
99

I would agree that the rule could use some clarification on where precisely the line is.

Beyond that, I also think that the idea of having people have to filter the LFRP text isn’t very welcoming - LFRP is suppose to facilitate people who want certain types of RP to find each other and do so; it’s actually a tool that helps people ‘keep it in private’ with the hard-kink roleplays and should be able to function as such. The alternative is… what? Forcing anybody who wants to find others to engage in ageplay or other hard-kink stuff to congregate in an OOC Lamplight redlight district to discuss it at all?

We are all, after all, adults who have already said yes to being exposed to kink, explicitly, by joining a place that allows this potentially offensively-themed roleplay at all. Somebody who raises issues with it after having explicitly said ‘yes’ to the disclaimer is, in a certain sense, acting in bad faith.

More explicit tools for ‘content warnings’ would be nice, but we already have things that would be useable for the same purpose: collapsible sections in descriptions and abouts. Perhaps in the interim before more purpose-built tools are built we could just ask people to use those for hard-kink discussions?

4 Likes
100

Non-sexualized underaged characters will be allowed in the park under this.

The intent of the solicitation clause is (somewhat simply) to be mindful of who you’re making sexual solicitations to, i.e. don’t make explicit advances on someone with a red ageplay tag.

Use of built-in tags will be allowed, especially the ageplay tag if for no other reason than as an opt in/out indicator.

I understand the concern about creeping rules but we’re trying quite hard to set clearer lines.

1 Like