Discussion: Rules Update- Reviving an old moratorium

[Reploid Productions]

Ideally, one can talk about relationships without going into any particular detail on the sex had in those relationships. People manage to do so all the time with regards to straight relationships, I sincerely doubt it's any more difficult to discuss homosexual, poly, or other non-"standard" relationships the same way.

[Fahran]

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.

^ This to be honest. The side-discussion, which wasn't properly speaking about sex at all, was initially meant to serve a more illustrative purpose before it swung into a discussion on polygyny as practiced among religious fundamentalists and in the developing world. I regret the role I played in that occurring since it largely seems to have distracted from the more articulate points Celt, Gren, and I were making.

In any case, I think this moratorium represents a good step forward when it comes to protecting underaged users of the site, who represent a substantial portion of our community, and more robustly adhering to the stated PG-13 standards. My own principal concern on this issue has more so been angled to out-of-character remarks that seem aggressive and predatory, including effective admission to criminal acts, but I can appreciate how debate on those topics, as well as adjacent topics, might attract predators to this site. So I have no issue with the Moderation Team taking a sterner approach to it. I think it might also be worthwhile to consider certain innuendos directed at members of the site as trolling as well.

I do agree with USS Monitor and The New California Republic that wholesale bans on the discussion of sex, at least without further definition, might unnecessarily restrict conversations pertaining to morality, contraception, LGBT+ issues, and whatnot. While I definitely appreciate that people shouldn't be engaging in graphic discussions about sexual acts or erotic role-play at all, as has been the case for years, I do think that drifting into the topic of sex and sexuality in a limited, vague, and argumentative way can serve to facilitate conversations on political topics. I think it's sufficient to insist that children should never feature in these arguments at all. As I said before, I think the main thrust of these policies should be to protect underaged users and uphold NS's existing standards.

[Fahran]

Snap

With all due respect to you Souseiseki, this is a line of argument that I have no issue with banning. There absolutely is a correct opinion on this given the locales from which our posters come and the moral boundaries that could be pushed if we countenance even the slightest exception to the rule laid out in the OP. Given we've had some issues with this as a community, freeze peach becomes a secondary concern. That said, I don't think we should normalize accusing people or countries of pedophilia either. It's not an argument that should happen at all if it creates an environment that's unsafe for users.

[The Free Joy State]

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...

I have to admit, while I am in full support of clearly laying out the no paedophilia rules, this has been concerning me.

The abortion debate mentions safe sex, and also sometimes veers into rape as a time abortion is necessary (without being graphic, in the sense of preventing re-traumatisation). Additionally, the thread (when discussing why full abortion bans are harmful) has sometimes discussed specific cases of minors who died in childbirth, as a result (in a non-prurient manner, linking to news reports and aid agencies, not to anything salacious); would this specific instance now be banned under the new ruling?

I'd like to know so that, if that is the case, I may abide by it.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I think some of this is worded way too broadly. You can certainly have PG-13 level discussions of sex without being explicit or attracting pedos and their sympathizers into NSG.

[Torisakia]

But she's not actually a child! She's really 500 years old! She just looks like she's 7! You know how it is.

In seriousness, the fact that we have to reiterate this to people really says a lot about the society we live in.

[Wallenburg]

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.

People are pointing out concerns with the current draft. It's ultimately up to you what you want to be within or outside of the site rules, and we're just pointing out where it's unclear how this would affect real, ongoing discussions.

After all:

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.

Ideally, one can talk about relationships without going into any particular detail on the sex had in those relationships. People manage to do so all the time with regards to straight relationships, I sincerely doubt it's any more difficult to discuss homosexual, poly, or other non-"standard" relationships the same way.

If even the very staff setting this moratorium can't easily settle on how relationship discussion interacts with it, then how are your average posters going to do so? We can't make specific edit recommendations if nobody knows how the current draft works in the first place.

[USS Monitor]

Snap

With all due respect to you Souseiseki, this is a line of argument that I have no issue with banning. There absolutely is a correct opinion on this given the locales from which our posters come and the moral boundaries that could be pushed if we countenance even the slightest exception to the rule laid out in the OP. Given we've had some issues with this as a community, freeze peach becomes a secondary concern. That said, I don't think we should normalize accusing people or countries of pedophilia either. It's not an argument that should happen at all if it creates an environment that's unsafe for users.

Even in Western countries where many NSers live, the laws on marriage and age of consent can vary between jurisdictions. Gio wouldn't need to put stuff about the US in their sig if it was a settled issue.

If a subject is too uncomfortable for the site to tolerate a two-way debate, then it shouldn't be discussed at all. Just because one side is very uncomfortable with the debate doesn't mean it's some unanimous thing that everyone agrees about.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

Or, maybe -- if drafts related to sex (we have any number on safe sex, abortion, LGBT+ etc.). and discussions related to sex education and on-topic, non-prurient discussions, for example in the abortion thread, will still be allowed -- perhaps it could be worded like this:

Discussions about personal sex habits. 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.

Perhaps, then "discussions indirectly related to sex" (such as sex education) could be a separate, conditionally acceptable, listing as long as they are not graphic, prurient, stay well within PG-13 lines, don't fall afoul of one of the other rules and are directly related to the discussion at hand.

I think this would make some users in NSG (including me) less concerned that relevant topics could get caught up with things that I think most people would agree should definitely not be on NS.

[Fahran]

Even in Western countries where many NSers live, the laws on marriage and age of consent can vary between jurisdictions. Gio wouldn't need to put stuff about the US in their sig if it was a settled issue.

I'm aware. The age of consent around where I live is seventeen. It's sixteen in a lot of the regions of Australia, the mythical land of Max Barry. The issue is that we have to set a boundary somewhere given that some places have ages of consent that are considerably lower, some states in the US allow what amounts to child marriage, and that countenancing such discussions at all tends to attract predatory folks to the site. It's a legal and moral minefield all things considered.

If a subject is too uncomfortable for the site to tolerate a two-way debate, then it shouldn't be discussed at all.

I completely agree with this point. Hence...

"That said, I don't think we should normalize accusing people or countries of pedophilia either."

A moratorium on all discussions of this nature effectively preempts the problem.

Just because one side is very uncomfortable with the debate doesn't mean it's some unanimous thing that everyone agrees about.

It's not just that I'm uncomfortable with the debate. It's that we have a couple instances of people in their early thirties and above arguing that relationships with extremely young children and adolescents should be legal or that erotica/pornography portraying children should be legal. I think it behooves the community here and the Moderation Team to snuff out anything that might lead to such discussions when we have significant population of users under the legal age of consent. It's not safe. It's criminal in quite a few places. And it's just a whole bunch of trouble we as a community don't need.

[USS Monitor]

Even in Western countries where many NSers live, the laws on marriage and age of consent can vary between jurisdictions. Gio wouldn't need to put stuff about the US in their sig if it was a settled issue.

I'm aware. The age of consent around where I live is seventeen. It's sixteen in a lot of the regions of Australia, the mythical land of Max Barry. The issue is that we have to set a boundary somewhere given that some places have ages of consent that are considerably lower, some states in the US allow what amounts to child marriage, and that countenancing such discussions at all tends to attract predatory folks to the site. It's a legal and moral minefield all things considered.

If a subject is too uncomfortable for the site to tolerate a two-way debate, then it shouldn't be discussed at all.

I completely agree with this point. Hence...

"That said, I don't think we should normalize accusing people or countries of pedophilia either."

A moratorium on all discussions of this nature effectively preempts the problem.

Just because one side is very uncomfortable with the debate doesn't mean it's some unanimous thing that everyone agrees about.

It's not just that I'm uncomfortable with the debate. It's that we have a couple instances of people in their early thirties and above arguing that relationships with extremely young children and adolescents should be legal or that erotica/pornography portraying children should be legal. I think it behooves the community here and the Moderation Team to snuff out anything that might lead to such discussions when we have significant population of users under the legal age of consent. It's not safe. It's criminal in quite a few places. And it's just a whole bunch of trouble we as a community don't need.

If we end up going the "neither side is allowed to argue it" route, that's fine. But it would mean stuff like Gio's sig needs to go, just to avoid sparking those debates.

[Mackjaracotavon]

The fact that things like this moratorium need to be brought back up every so often with mixed results (and lots of red text towards those who ignore or outright defy it) says a lot of things. I could argue about it, and about who does it, but I shall respectfully refrain from doing so. Still, I appreciate that the mods are bringing this up at all, given the fact that people under what the mods define as the legal age of consent frequent this site, which also says a lot of things (mainly positive, in regards to the mods' retaliatory actions against predatory behavior and 18+ content). I hope that this is the last time this moratorium needs to be brought up, but we shall see if the vast majority of the site adhere to it.

All that said, the topic of sex and legal minimum age of consent is and always has been a powder keg; politically, morally and socially. I cannot help but fully support the mods' current stance on it.

[Grenartia]

Perhaps, then "discussions indirectly related to sex" (such as sex education) could be a separate, conditionally acceptable, listing as long as they are not graphic, prurient, stay well within PG-13 lines, don't fall afoul of one of the other rules and are directly related to the discussion at hand.

I think this would make some users in NSG (including me) less concerned that relevant topics could get caught up with things that I think most people would agree should definitely not be on NS.

I think this is the best possible solution.

[Vivolkha]

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:

Or, maybe -- if drafts related to sex (we have any number on safe sex, abortion, LGBT+ etc.). and discussions related to sex education and on-topic, non-prurient discussions, for example in the abortion thread, will still be allowed -- perhaps it could be worded like this:

Discussions about personal sex habits. 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.

Perhaps, then "discussions indirectly related to sex" (such as sex education) could be a separate, conditionally acceptable, listing as long as they are not graphic, prurient, stay well within PG-13 lines, don't fall afoul of one of the other rules and are directly related to the discussion at hand.

I think this would make some users in NSG (including me) less concerned that relevant topics could get caught up with things that I think most people would agree should definitely not be on NS.

I think this is a good idea.

[Salandriagado]

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.

It seems to me that it's impossible to give a useful suggestion to refine the drafted standards without knowing what the intent is supposed to be, which is what those questions are for.

[Reploid Productions]

Long day at work, so I haven't had a shot at an in-depth review of the latest just yet, but the gist from what I've looked at seems mainly focused on the "Discussions about sex." point. Besides formatting bits like putting the Ominous Colored Text AFTER the descriptions, would it help some to shift the wording on the bolded header to be more along the lines of "Discussions about details/mechanics of sex activities."? Because the main point as per the description on that one is less about "no talking in abstract terms about sex or situations tangentially related to sex such as rape or abortion" and entirely "we really don't need to hear folks talking about the details of putting Tab A into Slot B." Plus that covers both "personal sex habits" as well as all the related "not personal habits" places where people might start going into unwanted details.

[The Free Joy State]

Long day at work, so I haven't had a shot at an in-depth review of the latest just yet, but the gist from what I've looked at seems mainly focused on the "Discussions about sex." point. Besides formatting bits like putting the Ominous Colored Text AFTER the descriptions, would it help some to shift the wording on the bolded header to be more along the lines of "Discussions about details/mechanics of sex activities."? Because the main point as per the description on that one is less about "no talking in abstract terms about sex or situations tangentially related to sex such as rape or abortion" and entirely "we really don't need to hear folks talking about the details of putting Tab A into Slot B." Plus that covers both "personal sex habits" as well as all the related "not personal habits" places where people might start going into unwanted details.

I think that would be helpful. For me, it creates more clarity on the revived rules, and less uncertainty about firmly PG-13 discussions that are relevant -- but which are related to sex-adjacent topics.

[Outer Sparta]

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:

Or, maybe -- if drafts related to sex (we have any number on safe sex, abortion, LGBT+ etc.). and discussions related to sex education and on-topic, non-prurient discussions, for example in the abortion thread, will still be allowed -- perhaps it could be worded like this:

Discussions about personal sex habits. 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.

Perhaps, then "discussions indirectly related to sex" (such as sex education) could be a separate, conditionally acceptable, listing as long as they are not graphic, prurient, stay well within PG-13 lines, don't fall afoul of one of the other rules and are directly related to the discussion at hand.

I think this would make some users in NSG (including me) less concerned that relevant topics could get caught up with things that I think most people would agree should definitely not be on NS.

How have sex education threads fared in the past? Were they mostly productive or did they get swiftly locked for non PG-13 content?

[Reploid Productions]

Or, maybe -- if drafts related to sex (we have any number on safe sex, abortion, LGBT+ etc.). and discussions related to sex education and on-topic, non-prurient discussions, for example in the abortion thread, will still be allowed -- perhaps it could be worded like this:



Perhaps, then "discussions indirectly related to sex" (such as sex education) could be a separate, conditionally acceptable, listing as long as they are not graphic, prurient, stay well within PG-13 lines, don't fall afoul of one of the other rules and are directly related to the discussion at hand.

I think this would make some users in NSG (including me) less concerned that relevant topics could get caught up with things that I think most people would agree should definitely not be on NS.

How have sex education threads fared in the past? Were they mostly productive or did they get swiftly locked for non PG-13 content?

Eh, kinda a toss up. Sometimes they stay focused on the matter of sex education, sometimes they go sideways into non-PG-13 excess and need a lock. Not really sure there's a dominant tendency with that subject. Seems to really depend on the quality of the opening post setting the tone I think.

[Outer Sparta]

How have sex education threads fared in the past? Were they mostly productive or did they get swiftly locked for non PG-13 content?

Eh, kinda a toss up. Sometimes they stay focused on the matter of sex education, sometimes they go sideways into non-PG-13 excess and need a lock. Not really sure there's a dominant tendency with that subject. Seems to really depend on the quality of the opening post setting the tone I think.

I guess it's definitely a case-by-case situation. Is the moderator team looking to keep the current policy towards sex education or tweak things?

[Reploid Productions]

Eh, kinda a toss up. Sometimes they stay focused on the matter of sex education, sometimes they go sideways into non-PG-13 excess and need a lock. Not really sure there's a dominant tendency with that subject. Seems to really depend on the quality of the opening post setting the tone I think.

I guess it's definitely a case-by-case situation. Is the moderator team looking to keep the current policy towards sex education or tweak things?

We haven't really talked about sex ed, to be honest. Personally, as long as it doesn't stray into arguing that it's okay for teens to have sex (age of consent, there) or going into particular detail about any sex acts, I don't think there's really much need for any change there.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

All looks good to me. I've been assuming these rules for years, it's actually good to see how my imagination matches the detail.

Using Epstein as an example might not age very well. If a poster hasn't heard of Epstein they might take it wrong.
Maybe "the Epstein case" or similar?

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.

Is the last example the ONLY boundary discussion forbidden? Giving 3 examples For, establishes that there are a range of acceptable subjects. By contrast 1 example Against suggests no range.

If none of this is helpful, just ignore me.

[-Astoria-]

I see not much wrong with this.

Not /s, in case you were wondering.

[Euroslavia]

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.

Over time, we have actually made the rules shorter and more "to the point". The current version was basically a project I took on, in hopes that The One Stop Rules Shop wouldn't be too intimidating for most players to even look at. I definitely see your point. This might be a topic for another thread, but perhaps we can take the rules that mean the most in each forum, highlight them, and sticky them to the top of each individual forum (Like we have with NS General, where there are a few rules that most should pay attention to in a sticky).

[Ethel mermania]

Reads OP.

Ok.