NATION

PASSWORD

Discussion: Rules Update- Reviving an old moratorium

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 26978
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:47 pm

Let's see, so given feedback thus far, how's this adjustment look? Re-worded some bits, added a couple points, tweaked the formatting a bit.
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.)

This would be a separate post added to the OSRS thread, with a shorter note in the OSRS proper noting to the effect that "pedophilia and related content is banned, see the linked post for full details" type thing, kind of like how the OSRS Commercialism point also links to the "Expanded Rules on Commercialism" for the full details.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003
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.
Ifreann wrote:Bring Reppy your signet rings, she is our Brony Queen now!

I believe in the magic of friendship, the wholly awesome bronydom, the conventions of fans,
the forgiveness of haters, the resurrection of faith in humanity, and love everlasting.

In nomine poni, et filly, et spiritus stable.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2020! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Graintfjall
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 30, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Graintfjall » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:55 am

Thank you for the clarification re: the WA, Reploid.

User avatar
Vivolkha
Diplomat
 
Posts: 576
Founded: Oct 15, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vivolkha » Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:34 am

Much better now, support in its current form.
My views are constantly changing; check the spoiler below for the most updated ones. Currently, this is an exclusively OOC nation.
Pro: Parlamentarism, atheism, EU, EU and UN reform, open borders, capitalism (generally), strong state, welfare state, authoritarian drug policies, abortion, nuclear power, space exploration, science
Anti: Religion, totalitarianism (includes Communism/Fascism by definition), Maduro & Morales, Trump, alt-right, right to discriminate, SJW, drug decriminalization, conspiracy theories, unregulated capitalism, monarchism, anti-intellectualism

Check out my Dispatch guides!
How to build a realistic totalitarian state | How to start with any nation type (UPDATED)

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6363
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:41 am

You have a small typo: ‘euphenisms’ should be ‘euphemisms’. With the GA clarification, I can’t see anything wrong with this ruleset.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
The Holy Therns
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27885
Founded: Jul 09, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Holy Therns » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:41 am

I have no further complaints, this adjustment is clear and covers everything problematic.
Those who want respect give respect
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
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60854
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:55 am

I like these. I’m also really glad that moderation took the time to listen and add suggestions from the players.
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6060
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:58 am

Reploid Productions wrote:Let's see, so given feedback thus far, how's this adjustment look? Re-worded some bits, added a couple points, tweaked the formatting a bit.
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.)

This would be a separate post added to the OSRS thread, with a shorter note in the OSRS proper noting to the effect that "pedophilia and related content is banned, see the linked post for full details" type thing, kind of like how the OSRS Commercialism point also links to the "Expanded Rules on Commercialism" for the full details.

Definitely better!
28 year old pansexual H. sapien male who likes naps, Stellaris and the PS1-era Resident Evil games.
Hey, it’s up to us to take our Umbrella.
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.1

PRO:
- Free speech
- Democracy
- Weapons Rights
- LGBTQ+ Rights
- Due Process
- Religious Freedom
- Choice
- Gender & Sexual Equality
- Racial Equality
- Workers Rights
- Universal Healthcare
- Secularism
ANTI:
- Fascism/Nazism
- Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
- Racism
- Sexism
- Xenophobia
- Homophobia
- Transphobia
- Ethno-nationalism
- Nationalism
- Racial Supremacy
- Conservatism
- Traditionalism
- Religious Extremism
- Laissez-faire capitalism
- Antivaxx
- Theocracy

Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 106614
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:38 am

Please change.

"Euphenisms and double entendres. PERMITTED.... mostly."

To

"Euphenisms and double entendres. PERMITTED.... mostly, except for Blaat."


No further comment.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
The New California Republic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28700
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:48 am

Reploid Productions wrote: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.

Yes this is much better, thanks.
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
South Odreria 2
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby South Odreria 2 » Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:54 am

I support this in its revised form.
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says

User avatar
Kylarnatia
N&I RP Mentor
 
Posts: 8434
Founded: Jul 07, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Kylarnatia » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:49 am

Reploid Productions wrote:
  • 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.


Within the sentence highlighted in bold, where it says "In those last two cases though, do avoid going into the specifics of the processes please!" - is that intended to refer to contraception methods and access, or is it meant to be referring to rape? If it's meant to be referring to rape and genital mutilation, you should probably switch rape and contraceptives around. If it did mean to include contraceptives, it should probably read: "In those last three cases..." or "In the latter few cases..." - since either way it seems a bit odd to exclude rape when asking people not to go into specifics.

Otherwise, looks good! Glad I could contribute :)
The Ancient Empire of Kylarnatia // Imperium Antiquum Kylarnatiae
Lord of Gholgoth | Factbook (Work in Progress) | Embassy & Consulate Programme
N&I Roleplay Mentor specialising in PMT-FaNT, worldbuilding and storytelling. Any questions? Ask away!
NationState's friendly neighbourhood Egyptologist
Come one, come all to my Trading Card Bazaar!
"Kylarnatia is a rare Nile platypus." - Kyrusia


User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 55811
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:14 am

I like the revised form. Thanks for listening to us :)
Forumer mod, now a rocker mocker. Thank you Ringo
Heaven is other people
Behind the invisible hand of the market hides the iron fist of the state.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain
Silent is an anagram of listen.
Male. Please address me as 'he'.
Blaat - all fluff, all action
This is the 8th line. If your sig is longer than mine, it is too long.

User avatar
Souseiseki
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19101
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Souseiseki » Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:15 am

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.


again, why not just ban marriage discussions outright? moderation has historically banned discussions which are on the line and promote rule breaking. indeed this very thread provides multiple examples. there is absolutely no reason to allow them. there is no plausible situation in which a marriage discussion remains focused on "oh it's actually just about rival fiefdoms you see". for the vast majority of people the age of consent and age of marriage will be the same which makes it a proxy for the age of consent debate, and those few who do not believe this will be instantly questioned by those who which will make it a direct age of consent debate. why bother trying to create this contorted situation where you can discuss marriage except not really? i am seriously wracking my mind on this and would love some kind of direct comment - why is moderation taking such an odd position? there must be some discussion deep in the secret moderation cave where someone managed to make this make sense.

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 still seems gloaty to me. there is no need to state your official correct party line position, which is an invitation to quarrel on the very issue you are trying to ban quarreling over. ban discussions on the issue and move on. why not "Yes we know some countries have different ages of consent - we don't want to hear about it" or something along those lines? hell even throw something in there about "for legal reasons". anything that makes it sound like it's not just "well we think it's right and we make the rules so heh" which is a separate issue from "please don't talk about this".

Fahran wrote:
Souseiseki wrote:Snap
There absolutely is a correct opinion on this given the locales from which our posters come.


this argument does not work anywhere near as strongly in favour of your position as you appear to think it does. though, on point, i'd like to cite this as a direct example of how including direct references to the correct age of consent in the rules directly encourages debates over the age of consent.

(In those last two cases though, do avoid going into the specifics of the processes please!)


please elaborate. a discussion about female genital mutilation and circumcision/male genital mutilation will almost always descend to a point where they necessarily cover the exact details of how it is preformed and what the outcome is. does discussing how a mohel may make an incision on the penis and suck said incision break this rule? does commenting on how UK regulations accidentally classified genital piercings as genital mutilation count break this right? does talking about how female genital mutilation ranges from amputation of the labia and/or clitoris to the piercing of the clitoral hood while male circumcision usually covers the amputation of the foreskin break this rule? if so, just like with marriage, the discussions are so hampered that you may as well consider just banning them outright.

on this note, discussions about pornography and obscenity laws also regularly descends into specifics. you can have a discussion about whether porn as a whole should be legal or illegal, but once we get to the point where we're discussing whether or not australias restriction on the number of spanks within a film or the UK's constant quest to determine what can go in butts and under what circumstances have we gone past the line? and thinking more, talking about the legal definition of rape in the UK revolving around the requirement of a male penis to penetrate seems like a direct reference to tab A into slot B?

without any specific bar as to what "specifics" means it seems really vague and like it retroactively bans whole swathes of discussion that were previously either legal or not commented on. i have no idea how to interpret this rule.

"pedophilia and related content is banned, see the linked post for full details"


this seems like it has the same problem as the original post. several of these these rules are effectively irrelevant to pedophilia and related content, so why would you put them under "pedophilia and related content"? in the most extreme example, why would rules on double entendres go under "pedophilia and related content"? you're combining a crackdown on pedophilia and a tightening/clarification of PG-13 rules into the same post which, while very loosely related, are not the same thing. if anything, this whole thing should be "PG-13 and sexual content" with "pedophilia and related content" as a subheading of that. or they should be two separate headings. and while i'm being tetchy i would also suggest making it "pedophilia, age of consent and related content" because it works better and avoids the implication that age of consent = pedo. this is one of the consistent biggest problems i see with these rules - taking like three different things that smushing them into one thing.
ask moderation about reading serious moderation candidates TGs without telling them about it until afterwards and/or apparently refusing to confirm/deny the exact timeline of TG reading ~~~ i hope you never sent any of the recent mods or the ones that got really close anything personal!

signature edit: confirmation has been received. they will explicitly do it before and without asking. they can look at TGs basically whenever they want so please keep this in mind when nominating people for moderator or TGing good posters/anyone!
T <---- THE INFAMOUS T

User avatar
Ghost Land
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1087
Founded: Feb 14, 2014
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Ghost Land » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:28 am

I also support and have no problems with the revised version.
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
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17570
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 am

More rules just makes the existing rules more complex in my mind, and just makes it more likely that users will run afoul of it. Unless it is streamlined with what exists now or addresses new problems that are commonly occuring, it shouldn't be done unless the majority of the userbase wants it.

I'm fine with this website being more tame broadly speaking, (like the Neopets website for example) but do have some skepticism as to how valuable the K-12 category really is to this website. Has it been verified that actual schools use Nationstates for anything? If I were a school, I wouldn't. Schools usually want to do their own in house thing from my experience, where they can have more situational awareness of what goes on and to have full control over it.

This website might do better just requiring all users to be 18+ and to ditch the under 18 demographic, or to go the Neopets route where the focus is more on the kid demographic with adult participation being optional. But I don't see it as very feasible to want to juggle both routes because in those circumstances, making this place tame enough for those underage will get priority out of necessity to the detriment of what the 18+ crowd will want in terms of allowed discussion.

Politics is more of an adult genre anyways. Adults are the ones who govern, vote, pay taxes, and etc. The only youth I really foresee debating are those who're apart of something like IB or AP at the high school level.
Last edited by Saiwania on Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28700
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:52 am

Saiwania wrote:More rules just makes the existing rules more complex in my mind, and just makes it more likely that users will run afoul of it. Unless it is streamlined with what exists now or addresses new problems that are commonly occuring, it shouldn't be done unless the majority of the userbase wants it.

Actually it's more a reiteration/clarification of the rules, rather than making new rules...

Saiwania wrote:Has it been verified that actual schools use Nationstates for anything? If I were a school, I wouldn't. Schools usually want to do their own in house thing from my experience, where they can have more situational awareness of what goes on and to have full control over it.

*Cough*: https://www.nationstates.net/page=educators
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
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11484
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:03 pm

Souseiseki wrote:this argument does not work anywhere near as strongly in favour of your position as you appear to think it does. though, on point, i'd like to cite this as a direct example of how including direct references to the correct age of consent in the rules directly encourages debates over the age of consent.

With all due respect and upon further consideration, I'm going to double down on this point and recant the more conciliatory tone I adopted while discussing this with Monitor earlier. I think the Moderation Team should absolutely oppose any argument about lowering the age of consent below eighteen and should absolutely support any and all activism that falls within the rules opposing child marriage and child pornography, which won't really be debates given the moratorium. I'm thinking specifically of activism in signatures and the like. We have had multiple issues on these forums with people ostensibly advocating for the sexualization of minors, including very young children, and, out in the world at this very minute, children are subjected to abuse, both because of similar arguments and because activism against those conventions is not vocal, concerted, and powerful. I don't think it's ham-fisted or excessive to condone activism against what amounts to child abuse. As I've said, there is a morally right position on this issue and I don't think shying away from it benefits users of this site who are under eighteen. It's not the people implicitly arguing in their sigs that child marriage should be illegal who are creating an unsafe environment on NS. It's the people who see that implicit argument and go "um ackhtually" who are the issue.
Last edited by Fahran on Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Souseiseki
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19101
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Souseiseki » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:25 pm

Fahran wrote:
Souseiseki wrote:this argument does not work anywhere near as strongly in favour of your position as you appear to think it does. though, on point, i'd like to cite this as a direct example of how including direct references to the correct age of consent in the rules directly encourages debates over the age of consent.

With all due respect and upon further consideration, I'm going to double down on this point and recant the more conciliatory tone I adopted while discussing this with Monitor earlier. I think the Moderation Team should absolutely oppose any argument about lowering the age of consent below eighteen and should absolutely support any and all activism that falls within the rules opposing child marriage and child pornography, which won't really be debates given the moratorium. I'm thinking specifically of activism in signatures and the like. We have had multiple issues on these forums with people ostensibly advocating for the sexualization of minors, including very young children, and, out in the world at this very minute, children are subjected to abuse, both because of similar arguments and because activism against those conventions is not vocal, concerted, and powerful. I don't think it's ham-fisted or excessive to condone activism against what amounts to child abuse. As I've said, there is a morally right position on this issue and I don't think shying away from it benefits users of this site who are under eighteen. It's not the people implicitly arguing in their sigs that child marriage should be illegal who are creating an unsafe environment on NS. It's the people who see that implicit argument and go "um ackhtually" who are the issue.


the point of this rule, ostensibly, is to avoid attracting the kind of people who like to talk about this topic by banning discussions of these topics. your desire to use moderation as the ultimate weapon and bring on a new era of signature campaigning is directly contrary to this. and that is my point. while it's great that you think you've come upon the objectively morally correct position on the issue and i empathize with how frustrating it can be to have most of the west be unable to see something that seems so clear to you, the one stop rules shop does not seem like the appropriate place to inject or promote activism on a subject that is supposed to be getting banned.

and it should be very obvious that people are going to go "hold on here a minute" when someone implicitly or explicitly accuses of them being an enabler, supporter and proponent of child abuse. that's something that really tends to annoy people. really rustles their jimmies. in fact, it seems like the kind of thing that would lead to constant questions and arguments about something the moderators ostensibly say they don't want there to be discussions about. which makes it something that shouldn't be there. and that doesn't make them "the issue", it means that creating a situation where people are allowed to say or imply that someone's country (e.g. britain) is a child marriage loving land where child sexual abuse is legal without impunity and the people of that country have no recourse but to ignore it, nod sagely or take red text was silly.
Last edited by Souseiseki on Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ask moderation about reading serious moderation candidates TGs without telling them about it until afterwards and/or apparently refusing to confirm/deny the exact timeline of TG reading ~~~ i hope you never sent any of the recent mods or the ones that got really close anything personal!

signature edit: confirmation has been received. they will explicitly do it before and without asking. they can look at TGs basically whenever they want so please keep this in mind when nominating people for moderator or TGing good posters/anyone!
T <---- THE INFAMOUS T

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11484
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:43 pm

Souseiseki wrote:the point of this rule, ostensibly, is to avoid attracting the kind of people who like to talk about this topic by banning discussions of these topics.

It's to avoid attracting a specific subset of those people, namely people who try to normalize the sexualization of minors. The opposite side of that particular debate isn't the problematic side. They're not the ones who, on the extremes, pose an active danger to the community and to specific persons. They're not the ones who have inspired multiple reports for making inappropriate comments. We don't have to worry about them interacting with minors and we don't have to worry about their particular attitudes and paradigms regarding minors.

Souseiseki wrote:your desire to use moderation as the ultimate weapon

I have no issue with completely suppressing the opposite side on this issue given that school children use the site on a semi-regular basis.

Souseiseki wrote:and bring on a new era of signature campaigning is directly contrary to this.

I'm not proposing to bring on a new era of signature campaigning. I'm merely asserting that we shouldn't suppress signatures that propose banning child marriage when they aren't problematic in the same sense that someone arguing in favor of child porn being legal is. Those signatures already exist. My entire point is that they're not the issue and we shouldn't pretend there's any moral or rules-based equivalency between people who ostensibly think children as young as nine should be sexualized (there's a pending report on one such case at the moment) and people who think marrying children to much older people should be illegal. And I'm tired of pretending that there is and obfuscating the issue to be "fair."

Souseiseki wrote:and that is my point. while it's great that you think you've come upon the objectively morally correct position on the issue and i empathize with how frustrating it can be to have most of the west be unable to see something that seems so clear to you, the one stop rules shop does not seem like the appropriate place to inject or promote activism on a subject that is supposed to be getting banned.

Except we're discussing precisely what should be banned at the moment and I've laid out precisely why we should ban the one thing and not the other. One behavior is a lot more problematic than the other when you have a site where school children and minors as young as fourteen regularly participate in discussions and debate with people above the age of eighteen and below the age of ninety. It doesn't serve the community at all to countenance "maybe sixteen year olds should be sexualized." It does serve us to have people with signatures taking moral stands against child abuse - as in the case of the signature we were discussing.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 12314
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:58 pm

The revised rules look good. Thanks for the clarification!
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Dolgo
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: May 05, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Dolgo » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:23 pm

Reploid Productions wrote: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.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku


Based and PG-13pilled. I don't even want to know what kind of biological hazards moderation has to deal with.
official motto Nod Seppar Grast
in English "Life Before Profit"

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53990
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Big Jim P » Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:22 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


8) :D

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 26978
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:41 pm

Big Jim P wrote:
Reploid Productions wrote: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


8) :D

Yeah, but I assume you and Roan don't engage in erotic roleplay on-site anywhere. :P
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003
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.
Ifreann wrote:Bring Reppy your signet rings, she is our Brony Queen now!

I believe in the magic of friendship, the wholly awesome bronydom, the conventions of fans,
the forgiveness of haters, the resurrection of faith in humanity, and love everlasting.

In nomine poni, et filly, et spiritus stable.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2020! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53990
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Big Jim P » Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:55 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
8) :D

Yeah, but I assume you and Roan don't engage in erotic roleplay on-site anywhere. :P


Assumption confirmed. :lol:

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37391
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby New haven america » Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:06 am

So what if we're talking about something involving sex organs, but not sex?

Like, a while ago in the Trans thread there was a fairly tame discussion over biological sex, and it mentioned sex organs/hormone glands and/or lack thereof. Like Eunichs being castrated, or some men/women never going through puberty despite still having working bits, etc...

Is that still ok?
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dummie, Google Adsense [Bot], Ioudaia, Poland-Kaliningrad, Westinor

Advertisement

Remove ads