That’s basically why I think it might be a solution to the problem, because as the other thread shows neither group seems all that happy about a moderation team that they don’t feel has their backs (in terms of wholehearted support), while internally it appears to be leading to division or at least people stepping back as well.
Regarding payment: I don’t know if @Dalton_Raccoon can pay, but I could. I can arrange a server if that makes it easier. But I don’t know if such a split would be what he wants, or the majority of Lamplight visitors want. Having some of the tweaks I mentioned above to make it into more of a linked confederacy of realms (akin to moving from one Discord server/guild to another) would probably help.
2 Likes
You touched on a lot of the other concerns I had with this - namely that I think it’d be best for all who would be affected by it to have the chance to voice their opinion on it.
I also worry though that it may lead to the false perspective that cub characters, even SFW ones, would only be allowed on the Lamplight realm. Along with that, I worry that if you have a SFW version of a cub character on other realms and a NSFW version on Lamplight, it could lead to false reports by bad actors with lurker characters in the Lamplight realm.
The latter of course is a moderation issue and already covered by the rules with regards to being kind, no witch hunting, etc, but I think it’s a concern that has to be considered with that solution.
Genuinely, I don’t like the idea of splitting everybody up into their own little invisible-to-each-other bubbles; it feels like losing out on the big advantage mucks have over content-specific discord and telegram groups: the cosmopolitan feel. If I wanted to ONLY meet people who are into “kink x” I could do that over on any one of a dozen other places.
I agree with the general sentiment that more definition of what, exactly, constitutes ‘hard kink’ is needed.
2 Likes
Ageplay is the sort of particularly contentious topic that requires unique treatment not just to protect others, but protect you. I feel like making cub characters only visible on an opt in would shift the conversation from “I don’t really feel comfortable either” to “dude, you clicked on the button labeled ‘shit you don’t like’ and are mad you got what was advertised, this is your problem”. I’ll feel comfortable when the implementation is such that the reaction of 90% of non ageplayers to someone complaining about the ageplay is to point and laugh at them for just doing this.
2 Likes
In line with my statements in the other thread about “not bending to hard liners”, I think splitting people into invisible-to-each-other bubbles is bending too far towards people who want that blanket ban of ageplay.
By which I mean, it’s neglecting the people who have decided they can live with the decision the mods have made to allow it, even if behind spoiler-tags. It… oh god, I’m pulling out the cliche ‘this is why we can’t have nice things’ line, aren’t I? What I’m saying is don’t overly punish the people who remain and have said ‘okay’ to court the people who never will!
Having sections of the ‘who list’ be dedicated to certain places/themes isn’t quite the same thing…
1 Like
Being able to click a button and be fully immersed in the fantasy that the content you deeply dislike doesn’t exist is deeply satisfying, actually. With one quick navigation to a menu, reality can just be whatever they want. Anyone who clicks that button was never gonna have a positive interaction experience with you anyways, so I don’t see the problem.
1 Like
So if a person can click a button that hides kid characters if they don’t like to see them…
IS any moderation of kid-descriptions, kid-tags, and extreme RP actually warranted? If it is entirely, entirely opt-in?
I get where you’re going with this, but I already experienced the problem on F-List of running out of room on my standard block list (300) just blocking underaged characters spamming lolicon eicons in the ads and search. Also, new ones are made all the time.
But if there were a system to just automatically hide that stuff from a person’s view in perpetuity, not just greying it out and leaving constant reminders of its presence but actually hiding it from view, that would require a lot less moderation, yes.
I understand this concern, and I’d like to offer another perspective which may explain why I’m biased toward the tag filter solution instead of strictly separate realms.
I know of at least three role players who I’ve spoken to about Wolfery and tried to get them to try it out, but since they can’t filter out non-con content, they have been uncomfortable with engaging with wolfery as a whole. In two of these cases, it’s sadly due to past experiences that have left them with trauma.
I think it’s a good thing to give people the ability to curate their experiences in order to avoid things that cause them pain or discomfort, and I don’t think it’s overly unreasonable to require those seeking more unorthodox content to have to opt-in to see it.
1 Like
See, here’s the thing.
I prefer being moderated to being entirely sequestered. Frick, man, I don’t want 3 year old loli nymphos running around either.
1 Like
I think it still would be, but at that point the moderation can shift to what is agreed upon by that group.
The only exception I could see would be images, since that’s a bit of a sticky wicket that Acci has already had to tumble with. I don’t think that policy change would get rolled back since it was put in place to protect the platform as a whole to my knowledge.
1 Like
To clarify, when I said it would require less moderation, I meant it would require less or no NEW moderation rules, e.g. the things being discussed for enforced dropdowns and profile switching and the like. This would require the absolute least change in your own profiles and behaviors.
1 Like
So, theoretically, let’s see if I have your vision right.
The mods come up with a certain set of ‘hard’ tags that … if you’re a character of a certain type, or looking for a certain type of roleplay, you have to use them; that’s a rule.
Say, for sake of example:
Cub
Violence
Emotional abuse
You tag yerself that if you’re venturing into those RP topics. Everybody else clicks or doesn’t click a button saying "i agree to see cub violence emotional abuse.
And it functions like… ignoring them?
1 Like
Sorta, yeah. It also makes the site’s stance clear by implication. “If you don’t like it, just don’t look at it. Don’t make it their problem, don’t make it ours.”
I suppose I’m pretty agnostic about this idea vs. the idea of spoiler tags.
I feel like this is a better plan than mere spoiler tags because it more effectively leverages “out of sight, out of mind”. It lets a person forget the content that offended them is even there.
One quick caveat.
I would actually prefer the onus to be the other way around. One should have to announce their disagreement on seeing that kind of content. It should be an opt-out, not an opt-in. As it would be a conscious departure from something the muck allows…
1 Like
Unfortunately I think the onus will have to be on opting-in in order to help prevent pain or discomfort for those with trauma responses to specific content.
That’s something I sorta disagree with - I bet a lot of people who get spooked off of the site do so early on after seeing the extent of the (perceived) problem. If it’s opt-in, then what they don’t know truly cannot hurt them. But this is a minor sticking point that really only impacts join rates and not whether people I already have friendships with come back. And we all know where my priorities are.
1 Like
Yah, i’m not wed either way. Up to the mods what they want the ‘default’ experience to be. It would simply be disappointing if they want the ‘default’ experience to exclude stuff.
1 Like
