NATION

PASSWORD

Discussion: Rules Update- Reviving an old moratorium

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.
User avatar
Reploid Productions
Director of Moderation
 
Posts: 30507
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Discussion: Rules Update- Reviving an old moratorium

Postby Reploid Productions » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:46 pm

A long, long time ago on a forum far, far away....
(In other words, clear back on the Jolt forums somewhere in the vicinity of 12-15 years ago)

We had a moratorium on certain subjects, due in part to the very large tendency of such topics to attract a type of user we do not want on a website used in schools and possessing a large underage population. Unfortunately, this moratorium was poorly documented at the time, and between that and the subsequent loss of the old Jolt forums, it has since eroded somewhat. So we're looking to re-establish that old moratorium, but this time in a much better documented and readily available format, that can be linked in the OSRS for posterity.

Those subjects? Pedophilia and what we're now referring to as "pedo-adjacent" topics. We've already had some discussion backstage and are looking for additional feedback.
NOTE: While we (and most people) tend to just use the term "pedophilia", please understand that these restrictions apply to BOTH pedophilia AND ephebophilia.
  • Discussions about pedophilia/ephebophilia. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS. Discussion of such is simply not appropriate on a PG-13 website and is way too big an encouragement for the exact type of people we do not want here. This includes broad discussions about how such should be punished, as that inevitably turns into revenge fantasy gorn and attracts apologists trying to defend it. Specific news-worthy incidents can still be discussed (for instance, Epstein), but discussion needs to remain focused on the news event, not on "Well, was it REALLY pedophilia?" or "Was it REALLY that bad?"
  • Discussions/debate about "Is it really pedophilia/child porn when no actual children are involved?" BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS. Want to discuss the literary merits of the novel/film Lolita? Okay. Want to discuss whether or not erotic artwork/literature such as drawings, computer animations or fictional stories where no actual children are involved/harmed still counts as child porn? Sorry, while it could be an interesting subject of debate, it also invariably attracts the sort of people we do not want here.
  • Discussion/debate regarding age of consent laws, particularly lowering thereof. BANNED. Yes, we know several countries have their age of consent at 16 (or even lower in some places.) Our bar is set at 18, full stop. This will unfortunately also shut out other valid discussions such as "What about borderline cases between one party being over the limit and the other juuuuuust under it?", but such topics invariably attract the sort of people we do not want to be encouraging here.
  • Discussions/debates regarding the boundary between legal definition of a child/minor and an adult. Conditionally acceptable. Want to debate voting age? Military enlistment age? Entering a legally binding contract? Gambling/drinking age? Go for it. But as pertains to "can legally consent to sexual activity", see the previous point regarding discussions about age of consent.
  • Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS. This should go without saying, but given the number of times we've ended up catching people cybersexing, it clearly needs to be restated. This is a political sim game, we don't need to hear about how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes. This is a PG-13 site. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about your sex life or masturbatory habits.
  • What about those of us who RP "evil" nations or otherwise have under-18 characters in our nations? Conditionally acceptable. It's one thing to mention "My nation's age of consent is 16!" or "Our emperor is only 15!" or some such as simple trivia. It's another thing entirely to keep going on and on focusing repeatedly about underage characters engaging in sexual encounters, or excessive detail about corporal punishment such as spanking or torture such as whipping. That stops being "just RP" and very quickly shifts to looking like "trying to fly personal sexual fantasies under a thin veneer of RP". Broadly speaking, unless there's some actual narrative purpose (and no, "Look how edgy my nation is!" or "Look at my wank fodder!" is not narrative purpose) it shouldn't even need to be mentioned as having happened at all. If it's just there for no other reason than to shock or horrify people, then consider perhaps that it shouldn't be there.
Violations of the updated moratorium would be treated as PG-13 violations. As such, particularly egregious such violations could potentially come with an instant-DOS once moderation is aware of it. (And potentially a report to law enforcement.)

This is just a draft, a starting point from the team's discussions backstage. I'd like to think we've managed to hit all the necessary targets, but we want some fresh eyes on it for good measure.

EDIT: Current draft:
NOTE: While we (and most people) tend to just use the term "pedophilia", please understand that these restrictions apply to BOTH pedophilia AND ephebophilia.
  • Discussions about pedophilia/ephebophilia. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS.
    Discussion of such is simply not appropriate on a PG-13 website and is way too big an encouragement for the exact type of people we do not want here. This includes broad discussions about how such should be punished, as that inevitably turns into revenge fantasy gorn and attracts apologists trying to defend it. Specific news-worthy incidents can still be discussed (for instance, the Epstein case), but discussion needs to remain focused on the news event, not on "Well, was it REALLY pedophilia?" or "Was it REALLY that bad?"
  • Discussions/debate about "Is it really pedophilia/child porn when no actual children are involved?" BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS.
    Want to discuss the literary merits of the novel/film Lolita? Okay. Want to discuss whether or not erotic artwork/literature such as drawings, computer animations or fictional stories where no actual children are involved/harmed still counts as child porn? Sorry, while it could be an interesting subject of debate, it also invariably attracts the sort of people we do not want here.
  • Discussion/debate regarding age of consent laws, especially lowering thereof. BANNED.
    Yes, we know several countries have their age of consent at 16 (or even lower in some places.) Our bar is set at 18, full stop. This unfortunately shuts out other valid discussions such as "What about borderline cases between one party being over the limit and the other juuuuuust under it?", but such topics invariably attract the sort of people we do not want to be encouraging here. Debates regarding marriage age are tapdancing right on the line; acceptable when focused on the "entering a legally binding contract" angle as noted in the next point, not acceptable when it's focusing on the sexual consent angle. If you're not sure, better to simply avoid it.
  • Discussions/debates regarding the boundary between legal definition of a child/minor and an adult. Conditionally acceptable.
    Want to debate voting age? Military enlistment age? Entering a legally binding contract? Gambling/drinking age? Go for it. But as pertains to "can legally consent to sexual activity", see the previous point regarding discussions about age of consent.
  • Discussions about the details of sexual mechanics. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS.
    This should go without saying, but given the number of times we've ended up catching people cybersexing, it clearly needs to be restated. This is a political sim game, we don't need to hear about how horny you are, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes. This is a PG-13 site. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about your sex life or masturbatory habits.
  • Discussions where sex is mentioned/relevant. PERMITTED.
    Merely mentioning that sex is a thing is perfectly alright and just about inevitable when discussing topics such as sex education, relationships, abortion, rape, contraception methods and access, genital mutilation debates and so on. (In those last two cases though, do avoid going into the specifics of the processes please!) So long as it's not going into the details of Tab A into Slot B or skirting into age-of-consent grounds or otherwise going into non-PG-13 territory, we're not interested in stomping out all mentions of sex.
  • Euphenisms and double entendres. PERMITTED.... mostly.
    Most of us are either adults or at least older teens. The occasional wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke isn't going to get you slapped. Much like swearing, it is somewhat situational and can become problematic when done in excess. If it's not being done to try and sneak around the other rules or previous points above the occasional lewd joke isn't going to give anybody the vapors.
  • What about those of us who RP and have under-18 characters in our nations? Conditionally acceptable.
    It's one thing to mention "My nation's age of consent is 16!" or "Our emperor is only 15!" or some such as simple trivia. It's another thing entirely to obsessively detail and focus on underage characters engaging in sexual encounters, or on corporal punishment and/or torture being practiced on a minor. That stops being "just RP" and very quickly shifts to "trying to fly personal sexual fantasies under a thin veneer of RP". Broadly speaking, unless there's some actual narrative purpose (and no, "Look how edgy/crazy my nation is!" is not narrative purpose) it shouldn't even need to be mentioned; if it's just there for no other reason than to shock or horrify people, then consider that it likely shouldn't be there at all.Thanks Kylarnatia for the wording on this one!
  • What about the WA? Are we still allowed to make proposals on topics such as child exploitation? Conditionally acceptable.
    The GA works much like in-game daily issues do. Sometimes the daily issues tackle hard topics like the above, and so does the WA. Much like the dedicated roleplaying point above, as long as debates steer clear of turning into an NSG style debate violating the above points, there really shouldn't be any particular impact on WA proposals. We'd probably be looking askance at and likely acting on a nation trying to submit a blatantly pro-pedophilia proposal, but to date that hasn't exactly been an issue in the WA.
Violations of the updated topics ban would be treated as PG-13 violations. As such, particularly egregious such violations could potentially come with an instant-DOS once moderation is aware of it. (And potentially a report to law enforcement.)


Image
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku
Last edited by Reploid Productions on Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 20 on March 23, 2023!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3875
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Honeydewistania » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:48 pm

Mods banned sex :o :o
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Director of Moderation
 
Posts: 30507
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:Mods banned sex :o :o

I mean, technically that's been banned from day 1 under the "no obscene content" from the FAQ, but clearly it needs re-stating given how many times we keep catching people trying to use NS as a hookup site. :P
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 20 on March 23, 2023!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Zeritae
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Jun 10, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Zeritae » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:55 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Mods banned sex :o :o

I mean, technically that's been banned from day 1 under the "no obscene content" from the FAQ, but clearly it needs re-stating given how many times we keep catching people trying to use NS as a hookup site. :P

This isn't NationDates? Darn!
The United Republic of Zeritae Please don't send me telegrams - not A NA nor A.
Zurkerx wrote:
Agarntrop wrote:snip

One already exists: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=484632&start=25

And seeing we're over the page limit, I #ilock now. We can't let the umm, super virus get out now.
The Iron Wizards of Blacktower wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Direct the what what what what what again? I'm utterly baffled at what this has to do with the goodness of Friends With Benefits

Become enlightened through sex.
NS Stats are used.

User avatar
Hammer Britannia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5381
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hammer Britannia » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:11 pm

I have a question about the whole "What about those of us who RP "evil" nations or otherwise have under-18 characters in our nations?" rule. You say that being edgy is not a narrative purpose. I would like more clarification on what "Edgy" means in this circumstance. Does it just apply to the whole PG-13 rule (Sexual/Graphic Violence) or would me saying "My nation uses puppies as target practice" be considered against the rules as well?
All shall tremble before me

User avatar
The Yellow Emperor
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Apr 06, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Yellow Emperor » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:14 pm

Curious whether certain content of the Wuxia genre falls under the identification of "Edgy"? Wuxia is in short, a martial hero fiction from Chinese novels, especially Xianxia content (Immortal Hero genre). Curious for further information on particular content (Note, this particular concepts fall under certain Chinese mythologies).

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Director of Moderation
 
Posts: 30507
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:17 pm

Hammer Britannia wrote:I have a question about the whole "What about those of us who RP "evil" nations or otherwise have under-18 characters in our nations?" rule. You say that being edgy is not a narrative purpose. I would like more clarification on what "Edgy" means in this circumstance. Does it just apply to the whole PG-13 rule (Sexual/Graphic Violence) or would me saying "My nation uses puppies as target practice" be considered against the rules as well?

Again, it would be a matter of degree. "We use puppies for target practice" is one thing, but odds are there's no particular reason you would need to keep going on and on and on in detail about actually doing so. Odds are going into excessive detail about how breeds are selected and the graphic details of the aftermath of the practice sessions isn't going to be a necessary component to most storytelling.

The main thrust of this moratorium is focused on sexual topics however.

The Yellow Emperor wrote:Curious whether certain content of the Wuxia genre falls under the identification of "Edgy"? Wuxia is in short, a martial hero fiction from Chinese novels, especially Xianxia content (Immortal Hero genre). Curious for further information on particular content (Note, this particular concepts fall under certain Chinese mythologies).

I'm not personally familiar with the genre, but the main thrust of this moratorium is not about being edgy, it's about prohibiting sexual and sexual-adjacent subjects, particularly where minors are concerned and providing the mod team clear guidelines from which we can handle certain currently borderline cases more easily.
Last edited by Reploid Productions on Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 20 on March 23, 2023!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Hammer Britannia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5381
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hammer Britannia » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:18 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
Hammer Britannia wrote:I have a question about the whole "What about those of us who RP "evil" nations or otherwise have under-18 characters in our nations?" rule. You say that being edgy is not a narrative purpose. I would like more clarification on what "Edgy" means in this circumstance. Does it just apply to the whole PG-13 rule (Sexual/Graphic Violence) or would me saying "My nation uses puppies as target practice" be considered against the rules as well?

Again, it would be a matter of degree. "We use puppies for target practice" is one thing, but odds are there's no particular reason you would need to keep going on and on and on in detail about actually doing so. Odds are going into excessive detail about how breeds are selected and the graphic details of the aftermath of the practice sessions isn't going to be a necessary component to most storytelling.

The main thrust of this moratorium is focused on sexual topics however.

Alright, I just wanted some clarification on that. Thank you.
All shall tremble before me

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:23 pm

This is an excellent direction. I have to imagine that the concerns I and other posters brought up in the aftermath of the closure of the RWDT were a likely catalyst for this, and I thank you for taking our comments seriously rather than dismissing them out of hand due to their source. I do feel like there are some remaining loose ends with regards to this subject, in particular the suggestion I made previously about how moderators should openly acknowledge and apologize for certain errors they made in the past. This is, however, an excellent start on repairing relationships with the community and healing the wounds caused by past inadequacies, and I have absolutely no objections to adding this to the official rules.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Aeritai
Minister
 
Posts: 2208
Founded: Oct 25, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aeritai » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:48 pm

A excellent move by the Moderation Team!
Just call me Aeri
IC: This is a fantasy medieval nation full of deer people... Yes you read that right, deer people
I am a Human Female

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 30747
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby USS Monitor » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:24 pm

I think my biggest concern is how much mission-creep happens, particularly when it comes to things like RP, debate of news stories, or discussion of existing laws.

If someone's debating a news story and the debate wanders, that's a lot different than a user who came here for the purpose of promoting pedophilia.

If an RPer has a large and varied body of work with occasional sexuality, that's different than someone who just wanks and does nothing else.

If you allow debate of news stories, then debate of existing laws will come up in that context, even if you don't allow people to start generic age of consent threads.

Stuff like cybering and porn and generic age of consent threads were already banned, so I guess I'm a little confused about how much this is just documenting existing rules and how much it is expanding them. This could be a harmless thing chucking out a couple of squiffy people that had flown under the radar, or it could become another prop for someone's mental gymnastics routine as they look for ways to find everything offensive. If it's mostly just locking NSG threads that are heading awkward places, that's not a big deal. If there's a red-text bloodbath every time a debate about the news expands into a broader discussion of legal/ethical principles, that seems bad for the community.

Could we get some clarity about what the methods of enforcement are going to be, e.g. when you would lock the thread vs. when you would warn/ban/DEAT the player?
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
19th century steamships may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 1895
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby SherpDaWerp » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:52 pm

Nothing from me about the actual rules, but on word choice - "Moratorium" refers to a temporary ban.
moratorium
noun
noun: moratorium; plural noun: moratoria; plural noun: moratoriums
a temporary prohibition of an activity.

Moderation seems to like using "moratorium" on indefinite bans - the C/CLT thing, for instance. In that instance it was fair enough, as it was originally a temporary block that was extended to infinity, but here, saying "moratorium" just sounds like you're only temporarily prohibiting pedophilia, which has always and always will be banned.

Moratorium is a nice-sounding word, but maybe it should be "prohibition" or "ban" instead.
Last edited by SherpDaWerp on Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Became an editor on 18/01/23 techie on 29/01/24

Rampant statistical speculation from before then is entirely unofficial

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 63226
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:47 am

So ummm, sometimes I use double entendres, euphemisms and such things.

Example: viewtopic.php?p=37312577#p37312577 a perfectly fine post about foods, but well, one could read something else in it.

What's the line on that?
The Blaatschapen should resign

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 am

Just to clarify where the edges of this are: where would Giovenith's sig (the "#EndChildMarriage In the U.S. #18NoExceptions" line) fall in the "Discussion/debate regarding age of consent laws, particularly lowering thereof" bit? It's about moving the age of consent (to marriage) up, but it is the sort of thing that could prompt discussion with people arguing in the other direction.
Last edited by Salandriagado on Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:32 am

Reploid Productions wrote:Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS. This should go without saying, but given the number of times we've ended up catching people cybersexing, it clearly needs to be restated. This is a political sim game, we don't need to hear about how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes. This is a PG-13 site. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about your sex life or masturbatory habits.

The Abortion thread has very frequent mentions of safe sex in a non-explicit manner, I assume that wouldn't fall foul of this new rule? It's just the "no exceptions" statement is a bit concerning, as it makes it seem like mentioning/advocating/discussing contraceptive use even without going into detail would get caught in the dragnet too, as it very much is a discussion about sex...
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Ghost Land
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1475
Founded: Feb 14, 2014
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Ghost Land » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:53 am

I think banning all discussion of sexual topics, as this seems to be saying, is a bit overkill; abortion discussions often do involve discussion of safe sex, and gay/lesbian marriage and issues threads pertain to a particular sexual orientation. This rule would also ban all discussion of criminal cases involving rape or sexual assault, which are sadly common and even happen among high-profile people. At least as long as I've been on the site has always been, to quote the OSRS:
Offensive Material: As mentioned previously, we use the US movie rating "PG-13" standard. Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both will result in moderation intervention.

There's a big difference between making a comment like "I'm so horny" or "I want to do <X sexual act> with <Y person>", and having a civil, non-explicit discussion of sexuality as it ties into another issue. The former goes beyond the bounds of normal social etiquette even if not graphic, while banning the latter would just reduce people's ability to discuss and understand these topics, and I would imagine there would be quite a bit of scrubbing of RMBs and telegrams because these are things people are passionate about. Besides, mild sexuality often is hinted in PG-13 rated television and movies; watch any episode of Friends or That '70s Show and you'll see what I mean. I suggest a revision to "Discussion of safe sex, sexual orientation-related issues, etc. where they pertain to existing discussion are okay, but discussion of being horny, whom you did it with, whom you want to do it with, favourite sex toys, favourite sexual acts/positions, particular kinks or fetishes, or detailed description of your own sex life or masturbatory habits is prohibited."
Last edited by Ghost Land on Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Forum account/puppet of 60s Music.
Originally joined 24 April 2012.
All lives matter. Race, age, and gender are unimportant.
Me OOC
Awesome/Funny Quotes
Right-wing libertarian
This nation reflects the OPPOSITE of my views.
Pro: Donald Trump, tougher border laws, 1st/2nd Amendments, benevolent dictators, libertarianism, capitalism
Anti: Democratic Party, The Clintons, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, abortion, gun control, #MeToo, communism, racism and racial nationalism, affirmative action, SJWs

User avatar
The Holy Therns
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30591
Founded: Jul 09, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Holy Therns » Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:05 am

For the most part I'm down with this but discussion about sex at all feels too far. Being graphic, yes. But like, making a casual reference to being sexually active or making a double entendre, that's a little far isn't it?
Platitude with attitude
Your new favorite.
MTF transperson. She/her. Lives in Sweden.
Also, N A N A ! ! !
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜

Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.

User avatar
Ghost Land
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1475
Founded: Feb 14, 2014
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Ghost Land » Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:16 am

The Holy Therns wrote:For the most part I'm down with this but discussion about sex at all feels too far. Being graphic, yes. But like, making a casual reference to being sexually active or making a double entendre, that's a little far isn't it?

This is my point exactly. The rating standard is PG-13, not TV-Y. Besides, there are some dirty minds that can read double entendres into anything.
Forum account/puppet of 60s Music.
Originally joined 24 April 2012.
All lives matter. Race, age, and gender are unimportant.
Me OOC
Awesome/Funny Quotes
Right-wing libertarian
This nation reflects the OPPOSITE of my views.
Pro: Donald Trump, tougher border laws, 1st/2nd Amendments, benevolent dictators, libertarianism, capitalism
Anti: Democratic Party, The Clintons, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, abortion, gun control, #MeToo, communism, racism and racial nationalism, affirmative action, SJWs

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 63226
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:19 am

Ghost Land wrote:
The Holy Therns wrote:For the most part I'm down with this but discussion about sex at all feels too far. Being graphic, yes. But like, making a casual reference to being sexually active or making a double entendre, that's a little far isn't it?

This is my point exactly. The rating standard is PG-13, not TV-Y. Besides, there are some dirty minds that can read double entendres into anything.


Please stop :blush:
The Blaatschapen should resign

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36918
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:12 am

Perhaps reading what Reppy said rather than trying to come up with a billion "exceptions" that don't have anything to do with discussing or depicting sex with people under 18 would be more fruitful?

And considering the amount of inappropriate sexual content we need to deal with DESPITE putting into the rules quite some time ago that erotic RP is prohibited in the forums, in rmbs, in telegrams -- the prohibition against RPing/depicting sex should not be a shock to anyone.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:13 am

Further to what I said earlier, it is hard to read the intent of Moderation regarding the no discussion of sex rule that is proposed. I'm hoping that they don't intend it as it is currently written word for word i.e. "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS.", as implementing that would result in a large number of discussions as well as gameside stuff that has forumside elements becoming verboten, such as but not limited to: discussions on the morality of sex before marriage which happens from time to time in various General threads, the importance of contraceptive usage emphasised in the abortion thread and others, discussions of draft issues that may relate somewhat to sex in the Got Issues section of the forum, draft World Assembly resolutions that make reference to sex-related matters such as contraception etc.

It's good that this rule clarification is just a draft, as I think it needs a lot more time in the drafting room before it is ready for release...
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:19 am

Katganistan wrote:Perhaps reading what Reppy said rather than trying to come up with a billion "exceptions" that don't have anything to do with discussing or depicting sex with people under 18 would be more fruitful?

We are giving feedback on the basis of genuine concerns that people will get caught in the "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" dragnet. And they are entirely justified in their concerns, as interpreting the text as it currently stands, someone could get reported for advocating safe sex as a counter to unwanted pregnancy, and the poor Mod responding to the report would have no choice but to hand out warnings on the basis of the text as it currently stands. I don't think that's what Moderation wants, is it?
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Valrifell
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31063
Founded: Aug 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Valrifell » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:34 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Katganistan wrote:Perhaps reading what Reppy said rather than trying to come up with a billion "exceptions" that don't have anything to do with discussing or depicting sex with people under 18 would be more fruitful?

We are giving feedback on the basis of genuine concerns that people will get caught in the "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" dragnet. And they are entirely justified in their concerns, as interpreting the text as it currently stands, someone could get reported for advocating safe sex as a counter to unwanted pregnancy, and the poor Mod responding to the report would have no choice but to hand out warnings on the basis of the text as it currently stands. I don't think that's what Moderation wants, is it?


In context I thought it was quite clear that they were aiming more at cybersex on NationStates than discussions about sex wholesale. The blurb actually makes it quite clear.

I think that it's going to be limited to stuff like:
how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes.
HAVING AN ALL CAPS SIG MAKES ME FEEL SMART

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35483
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:39 am

Valrifell wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:We are giving feedback on the basis of genuine concerns that people will get caught in the "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" dragnet. And they are entirely justified in their concerns, as interpreting the text as it currently stands, someone could get reported for advocating safe sex as a counter to unwanted pregnancy, and the poor Mod responding to the report would have no choice but to hand out warnings on the basis of the text as it currently stands. I don't think that's what Moderation wants, is it?


In context I thought it was quite clear that they were aiming more at cybersex on NationStates than discussions about sex wholesale. The blurb actually makes it quite clear.

I think that it's going to be limited to stuff like:
how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes.

Sorry but "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" is too broad in its current state. Even a couple of former Moderators have flagged up concerns in that department...
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20358
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:53 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
In context I thought it was quite clear that they were aiming more at cybersex on NationStates than discussions about sex wholesale. The blurb actually makes it quite clear.

I think that it's going to be limited to stuff like:

Sorry but "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" is too broad in its current state. Even a couple of former Moderators have flagged up concerns in that department...

Perhaps just rearranging the paragraph structure, as the "Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS" does sound quite concerning until you read the context after said rule, which I think makes it quite clear that safe sex in the abortion thread isn't the intended target of said rule.

Had the context come before the large red text ruling, perhaps it wouldn't sound quite so broad. For example:

Discussions about sex. This should go without saying, but given the number of times we've ended up catching people cybersexing, it clearly needs to be restated. This is a political sim game, we don't need to hear about how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes. This is a PG-13 site. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about your sex life or masturbatory habits.
Ruling: BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aason, The Campbell Nation

Advertisement

Remove ads