This is what I was thinking too, yeah, as well as letting the user select whether they wanted to see a content warning blackout they could dismiss or have it hidden entirely.
I donāt know if thatās harder to implement code for or not, but in the long run does sound simpler for administration over having to expand the list every time something new comes up. Sounds good to me.
The issue thatās come up with this kind of idea before is, well, if someone is into <x> and you find that abhorrent then likeā¦ Do you want to know about that before you get involved or only after?
Itās a significant reason weāve not really gone for such an option for tags previously.
1 Like
I do want to mention that Iām currently looking through the github repository for the client to see if I can spot where things may be able to be implemented.
Last thing I want to do is slam a 5 ton basket of feature requests down on Acciās plate and say āWe have ideas for ya!ā with no help. ^^;
1 Like
I think having a blacked out tag that you can click on to see if its one of your hard limits is a fair compromise? Like, thereās a lot of power in being able to just opt in to the knowing and not having it just there when you click on a profile in the online list.
If you know a blacked out tag is extreme, and you know it could potentially be a hard limit, then you have that much more information before you expose yourself. Which can only be a good thing, right?
2 Likes
I mean, I feel like the point of a spoiler is diminished when thereās no information of whatās behind it. You either click everything and see things you donāt want, or you click nothing and get surprised.
Something like
Tag name: Ageplay
and then the description is spoilered. You know if you want to see whatās behind it or not.
But simply having a default for anything considered an extreme could be a simpler solution. Default ones arenāt under scrutiny.
1 Like
I know this is a bit of feature creep, but I could see two solutions here:
One, if itās potentially triggering a trauma response to see the item, then it gets classified as something else entirely and given a different overlay, maybe big caution bands or something.
Or if thatās too much and potentially dangerous itself, do we want to hide it entirely by default? Make it so those tags must be opt-in to see either uncovered or with an overlay?
The major concern I see there is do we then also want to give players the option to hide/mute other players that have that tag, or allow them to interact without seeing it? I lean more toward giving the player more control, but that definitely needs concensus.
1 Like
Iām going to be honest, hiding players entirely over a a listed kink really only applies to a subsection of people who are into ageplay, the ones who are underage (Though I have seen people who donāt even want to talk to those who arenāt underage if they like it too, I suppose) Pretty much all other kinks except ferral are activities and not identities.
Itās the identity people want to avoid. You can enjoy rape or vore without it having to come into play in a scene. But if your character is underage, well, thatās not an avoidable kink.
1 Like
Yeah, this is a sticking point I completely forgot to bring up. Itās not the adult characters people are wanting to blanket-block. Itās the damn cubs I donāt wanna get within a mile of seeing. But both an adult character and a cub would have the same tag. The current tag system is insufficient for that sort of purpose.
2 Likes
Should we consider the adoption of an [underage] tag for underage characters to allow for that sort of filtering?
1 Like
That could be misinterpreted as saying the player is underage. āCubā would clarify. Also makes clear that underage human characters are just a no-go.
4 Likes
Good distinction, and much better approach
My suggestion? Start the new user experience on the train itself, rather than on Sinderās Station Platform 1.
Give players the option to choose where they want to start, whether Sinder (social, low roleplay potential), Lamplight (ageplay specific), Umber (criminal and dark underbelly play), or Eisenhorn (gay kingdom).
By sending people to a specific area first, and outfitting their stations with similar initial spaces to Sinderās platform 1 (perhaps a new line? The white line?) to make sure they learn the very basics, we limit the number of people who start their Wolfery experience in a place where they might not find what they want, see what they want to see, and/or flashbang others with what they donāt want to see?
Downsides: Station park is always busy, and thatās (sometimes, when busy == talking rather than lurking) a nice thing to greet new people with. Other stations, not so much.
Edit to add: I know this isnāt a tool, itās a system/introduction change. With that said, I feel it would help to alleviate some of the issues weāve discussed in the other thread, while also helping to increase population counts in Non-Sinder locations, given enough time.
3 Likes
I think that would have to be accompanied with more areas connected to the trains themselves. There are a lot of areas you canāt default teleport to or take the train. Though that could have other benefits as well.
1 Like
If were doing that I think, for some, it might be better to divide it a little further into Teen and cub. (granted, 18 and 19 still count as teen and not underage teen.) Though, I suppose that could be confused with RL age? But you canāt sign in without agreeing the user is at least 18.
I know thereās a distinction for me at least, and I imagine others.
1 Like
I wanna chime in again and state that one of the RPers I mentioned who left, when told about this discussion, reacted with excitement, then disappointment when I more completely explained the measures being discussed, but said that they would be fine with having ageplay be restricted to a different realm.
So consider that a vote in favor of that particular implementation.
1 Like
I like this idea combined with the previously mentioned idea earlier in the thread of having realm separation. Keep the global user list, but allow users to filter that list by realm. That way, if there is a realm someone knows they are not interested in, they donāt have to see it. Not sure how hard that would be with realms being separate instances.
All of that combined with some additional filtering tools involving tags to filter out certain kinks would go a long way to bridging the gap of differing opinions in the other thread. If I could simply hide all the characters with the tag ācubā, for example, thatād be great.
Again. Realms are not going to be like areas. They will not be āconnectedā to Wolfery. They are completely separate instances. You will not see people on other realms but that isnāt a user or content separation thing, itās more like how you canāt see people on F-List on Wolfery.
If someone makes a new realm, thatās going to be a wholly different thing with a different mod team and new rules. The only rule carryover will be the Mucklet ToS.
4 Likes
I have family obligations today that will keep me away from my desk, however I have continued collecting information, feedback, and tool suggestions from the other thread. As soon as I can present it here in a more condensed format, Iāll update the OP.
I also wanted to say that the more we learn about Realms and the separation as such, the less I think of it as a viable solution for the issue. Thatās not to say it isnāt a solution, but I worry that fracturing the player base is not ideal and that it will lead to a weaker community with deeper cliques. I also worry about the moderation and operational overhead for multiple instances. Servers and bandwidth cost money and mods are volunteers, itās a hard thing to ask them for more when they do so much already.
Yeah, thatās what Iām trying to get across. A realm (as currently designed) isnāt like a region/area/etc.
Youāll be able to have your own! But thatās a paid feature thingy.
1 Like