Discussion: Rules Update- Reviving an old moratorium

[Giovenith]

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.

It's been argued that marriage falls under, "Discussions/debates regarding the boundary between legal definition of a child/minor and an adult," and that it is possible, when careful, to discuss marriage without discussing sex. As well as what you pointed out about how it's meant to argue moving up instead of down.

If people do feel strongly enough that it is unfair though, I am willing to remove it as a show of good faith.

[The New California Republic]

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.

Yes, but a clarification that such aforementioned discussions such as safe sex etc are not banned still needs to be spelled out.

[Souseiseki]

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.

wasn't this moratorium reinstated with a sticky in NSG shortly after certain posters were DOSed a few years ago? i could have sworn it was. if so, where did it go and why was it apparently allowed to disappear with no fanfare? frankly this whole thing is a shock to me, since i was under the impression it was already the case.

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?"

this is giving me flashbacks to how the advocating death rule hilariously tagged pro death penalty posters in threads about murders. a thread about a crime is inevitably going to end up covering what people think should happen to said criminal and, then, inevitably end up covering what people think should happen to other criminals of the same nature. how far down the punish/rehabilitate hole are we allowed to go before it becomes banned? and in terms of discussing pedophilia in general, if someone starts asking why people commit such crimes or talks about the different kinds of people that commit those crimes is that banned? to be honest i'm not really sure kind of content you'd even expect for 95% of threads about incidents of child sexual abuse in the news if discussing pedophilia is banned and discussing how to handle pedophiles is banned. this also makes me think about how threads about adult rape are handled. wouldn't/shouldn't they end up having similar on the same rules if we're saying this is a PG-13 thing?

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?

reppy said discussions about sex, so people read that and started talking about discussions about sex. if she wanted people to exclusively discuss the issue of discussing or depicting sex with people under 18 then she should not have included an extra bullet point that was not specifically exclusively about discussing or depicting sex with people under 18. if half of the thread seems to consist of people talking about non-minors in a thread was supposed to be about minors then either the post was not clear or the post went beyond its original intentions.

also, your post came off as very rude and condescending. was that intentional?

[Ansarre]

Is this in relation to something that happened? Grooming on NS????

[Katganistan]

also, your post came off as very rude and condescending. was that intentional?

I cannot control how you perceive a perfctly polite post.

[Praeceps]

I think this would be a good change and would help to improve community safety—thanks for bringing this up and considering these changes.

[Serrus]

Is this in relation to something that happened? Grooming on NS????

Nah, it's just that kids use the site, and as such apparently the sticky about "PG-13, people..." wasn't enough to get that through some people's craniums. As for me, I have no issue with this.

[Ansarre]

Is this in relation to something that happened? Grooming on NS????

Nah, it's just that kids use the site, and as such apparently the sticky about "PG-13, people..." wasn't enough to get that through some people's craniums. As for me, I have no issue with this.

Yeah lol I understand why they'd have it, just seems odd they'd bring it up by itself out of nowhere.

[Cekoviu]

Is this in relation to something that happened? Grooming on NS????

It appears to be catalyzed by a particular incident involving a particular user, but I wouldn't expect any transparency from the actual mods on this, so anything anyone says with reference to this would be speculation (some more credible than others).

[Dreadton]

Some regions are big "Muh Free Speech" and wont report anything rule breaking. So lets ask, is there an affirmative duty to report? Penalties if they fail to do so and can be shown they were aware of such conversations?

[Vivolkha]

The proposed moratorium is very broad, as other posters have indicated. However, it's also hard to balance with "attracting people that shouldn't be on the site", so it might be for the best. As it stands though, I'm somewhat reluctant to support it.

[Wallenburg]

How will this affect the ability of the General Assembly (and I suppose the Issues game) to address policymaking regarding these things?

[Kylarnatia]

• 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.

I feel as though this could drive the intended point home without getting caught up into other topics (ex.: "What constitutes an acceptable and well-roleplayed "evil" or "edgy" nation?") which just ends up distracting from what the main point is. I understand why "evil" nations are drawn up as a particular example, but regardless of whether a roleplayer is aiming to be a "good" or "evil" nation (many choose to be neither or choose to present it as a matter of perspective), under-18 characters potentially exist across all of them, so it should be clear that this point applies to all of them, so I don't think singling out "evil" nations in particular at the beginning adds much.

I would probably revise this point to something like the following:

• What about those of us who RP with 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.

Minor changes, really, but hopefully a little more succinct.

[Graintfjall]

In no way trying to get around this or anything, just purely asking for the sake of clarity.

The WA sometimes has debates relevant to these topics. Obviously the WA sits at an awkward intersection, with some players roleplaying and some players constitutionally incapable of remaining in-character.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=290663
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=384899

Would it still be OK to pursue proposals such as this, or would you rather we didn't?

[USS Monitor]

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.

The problem is not what the primary aim of the rule is. It's how the stricter mods are going to be enforcing it 6 months from now after they've gotten used to having it on the books. There have been past cases like the ban on "REEE" memes where mods took a well-intentioned idea (to prevent trolling of autistics) and turned it into something unreasonable because enforcement was too heavy handed.

I have not gotten an answer to my question about what enforcement would look like. Are we talking "the Desmond thread should have been locked sooner" or is it going to be substantially easier to get redtexted?

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.

It's been argued that marriage falls under, "Discussions/debates regarding the boundary between legal definition of a child/minor and an adult," and that it is possible, when careful, to discuss marriage without discussing sex. As well as what you pointed out about how it's meant to argue moving up instead of down.

If people do feel strongly enough that it is unfair though, I am willing to remove it as a show of good faith.

Are you OK with people arguing in support of the existing laws, in states where it is possible to marry younger than 18? I think most people would agree that there is such a thing as being too young to get married but people can disagree in good faith about exactly where the line is. And people can disagree in good faith about how much you should defer to local ways of life.

You should allow both sides of the debate or neither side. (I don't mind if you want to keep your sig and allow both sides of the debate, but you gotta make sure the other mods are OK allowing that debate.)

[Reploid Productions]

And this is why we want to get some feedback before making it official. Some really good points brought up about things like bawdy jokes or arguments about safe sex discussions (which would also go hand in hand with arguments regarding sex ed I imagine.) We can certainly look to refine the point to more clearly delineate where it crosses from okay to smackable and how it pertains to stuff like RP and the WA. Marriage is one of those topics that kinda tiptoes riiiiight up to the line, but you could probably argue marriage age in terms of "can enter a legally binding contract" without talking about the sex side of it. But that is a tricky one that would need to be handled carefully.

Some regions are big "Muh Free Speech" and wont report anything rule breaking. So lets ask, is there an affirmative duty to report? Penalties if they fail to do so and can be shown they were aware of such conversations?

Ideally we would prefer it if people reported, but "failure to report something" has never been a rules violation in of itself and is unlikely to ever be made one. For one thing, it's incredibly difficult to prove that someone did in fact see $thing, knew $thing was actionable, and knowingly refused to report $thing. Making "failure to report" a rulebreaking thing itself would be far to rife for potential abuse. RMBs are public though, so even if no one in a region reports it nothing is stopping random passers-by from seeing it or acting on it with a report themselves.

The main goal of the adjustment is to minimize topics that have a bad habit of attracting pedophilia-supporters/apologists and to give us clearly established grounds for smacking in situations that have been presently too borderline to effectively act on; so enforcement would be focusing primarily on that. The occasional double entendre is typically not going to turn into a protected debate that encourages the presence of people we don't want here. Suggestions for fine-tuning the wording are absolutely welcome; like I said at the start, this is still a rough draft that needs fine-tuning.

[USS Monitor]

The main goal of the adjustment is to minimize topics that have a bad habit of attracting pedophilia-supporters/apologists

Does this mean the standards for RPs about characters above the age of consent will be substantially unchanged?

I support Kylarnatia's proposed change to the part about RP.

[Souseiseki]

nationstates mods furious as forum poster of questionable inclination argues that 1x year olds should be able to take drugs, fight in wars, vote, transition gender, get married, get castrated, be imprisoned for life, get executed, gamble, smoke, drink and get euthanized with the subtext that they can also transitively consent to sex but cannot be banned because he has masterfully avoided the S-E-X word.

which i guess is my way of saying that "maybe we can just discuss marriage but only if we pretend it's a contract completely separate from the notion of sex" is silly. ban it. absolutely no one seriously buys that and the implications of the hypothetical guy going around arguing that 12 year olds can get married are obvious and don't go away because all parties involved have agreed to pretend its purely a discussion about the tax implications of marital status. and then obviously it would be ludicrous to say "we have decided that 18 is the right age so the 18gang are allowed to go around accusing other countries of supporting child marriage and/or child rape without repercussion and you get banned if you disagree" so give that the boot too.

with the rest of the positions i suppose they're not intrinsically tied to the concept of sex like modern marriage is to the point where you can argue they're completely separate things that can be argued in a vacuum. and you could go over whether or not that is all day, i'm not gonna go full NSG in moderation, but the key point is that they wouldn't blatantly attract crypto-pedos in the same way that marriage discussions would. well, most of them wouldn't.

pedophilia-supporters/apologists

this is interesting, though. ask enough people and you'll find everyone from psychologists to interpol being labelled "pedophile apologists" so i am always very :thinking: when someone starts talking about "pedophile apologists". it always seems to get very vague very fast. as an example, since moderation's bar is "set at 18, full stop" does this imply that the de facto or de jure stance of moderation is that anyone that thinks the age of consent is fine at 16 or 17 are now "pedophile apologists"? i know countless americans for whom that is a solemn belief. did that get slipped in? because with all this age of consent and marriage age stuff it seems like it's not just "please don't talk about this it attracts weirdos" but that there is also some air of "please don't talk about this it attracts weirdos, oh and btw here is our correct opinion and we will be much more lenient or maybe even let it pass if you're arguing for the correct opinion". there's also the issue of how people of certain positions tend to assume that literally everyone that disagrees with them is some sort of "pedophile apologist", though i suppose if the topic as a whole and anything tangential to it is just outright banned that becomes a lot less relevant.

[South Odreria 2]

So the polyamory thread and the earlier one about the morality of casual sex would both be forbidden?

[Reploid Productions]

So the polyamory thread and the earlier one about the morality of casual sex would both be forbidden?

We're looking for feedback on the current draft, and suggestions for changes and refinements to better tailor the revised standards to enable discussions while curtailing the sort of material that attracts undesirables. Not an endless parade of "What if-" or "What about-". If you have suggestions to better refine the drafted standards, please share them.

[Grenartia]

So the polyamory thread and the earlier one about the morality of casual sex would both be forbidden?

The polyamory thread isn't about sex. It is about relationships. That should be obvious to anyone who is trying to talk about it in good faith.

[Aclion]

I thought this was already the rule.

edit that said if this is how you intend to post them in the stick you might want to make them shorter, few enough people read the rules as it is.

[Diarcesia]

Just dropping by saying that I really appreciate Reppy bringing a potential rules update for discussion and comment.

[Cekoviu]

I thought this was already the rule.

edit that said if this is how you intend to post them in the stick you might want to make them shorter, few enough people read the rules as it is.

It's their fault if they refuse to read the rules in full. The rules should not have to be weakened for that reason.

[South Odreria 2]

So the polyamory thread and the earlier one about the morality of casual sex would both be forbidden?

The polyamory thread isn't about sex. It is about relationships. That should be obvious to anyone who is trying to talk about it in good faith.

Is this a joke or