NationStates

Hopefully even after the revision the moratorium will still reduce the amount of inappropiate content in NS.

I would assume legitimate criticism against the Catholic Church's, or any other organization's, handling of the sex abuse scandals would be fine under these rules, but what about jokes and quips relating to it?

Dylar wrote:I would assume legitimate criticism against the Catholic Church's, or any other organization's, handling of the sex abuse scandals would be fine under these rules, but what about jokes and quips relating to it?

To the first I believe is ok per the example of the Epstein debacle. For the second I believe those are now verboten.

Thermodolia wrote:

Dylar wrote:I would assume legitimate criticism against the Catholic Church's, or any other organization's, handling of the sex abuse scandals would be fine under these rules, but what about jokes and quips relating to it?

To the first I believe is ok per the example of the Epstein debacle. For the second I believe those are now verboten.

Not necessarily. If it is packaged as a euphemism or double entendre then it'd likely be fine according to the text as now written.

Dolgo wrote: I don't even want to know what kind of biological hazards moderation has to deal with.

You really don't.

Dylar wrote:I would assume legitimate criticism against the Catholic Church's, or any other organization's, handling of the sex abuse scandals would be fine under these rules, but what about jokes and quips relating to it?

Would there be a change in rules at all? "Catholic priests are paedophiles"-jokes would, I assume, be too far removed from something like an actual discussion about sex (Though it might be trolling or baiting, I guess).

"Catholic priests are pedophiles" jokes already falls under trolling, so....

Reploid Productions wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:

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

Shudders at some of the terrible roleplay I have seen.

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.

Everything is a hookup site if you're bold enough to ask for the digits.

With regard to pornographic RP, I think the main issue is that people don't tend report it unless it's extremely egregious, especially in the case of threads associated with closed-world regions or RP communities.

New haven america wrote: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?

Or, as mentioned previously, circumcision threads we get from time to time.

Diopolis wrote:

New haven america wrote: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?

Or, as mentioned previously, circumcision threads we get from time to time.

It shouldn't be a problem as long as the discussion doesn't go into excessive detail about said organs, same as when discussing topics where sex may be involved. If we were trying to hardcore sanitize you wouldn't even be able to mention penises or vaginas and so on at all. There's also a world of difference between, say, discussing "the long-term harm caused by genital mutilation because the damage to the glans leads to-" and "PUSSY GOT WRECKED!" Definitely an area where phrasing is absolutely important and definitely better to keep the language clinical where possible.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Or, as mentioned previously, circumcision threads we get from time to time.

It shouldn't be a problem as long as the discussion doesn't go into excessive detail about said organs, same as when discussing topics where sex may be involved. If we were trying to hardcore sanitize you wouldn't even be able to mention penises or vaginas and so on at all. There's also a world of difference between, say, discussing "the long-term harm caused by genital mutilation because the damage to the glans leads to-" and "PUSSY GOT WRECKED!" Definitely an area where phrasing is absolutely important and definitely better to keep the language clinical where possible.

That makes sense.
I do appreciate what the mods are doing here- better to paint a broad brush and keep unsavory types out than to use an overly narrow brush. Probably overly broad, but better that than overly narrow.

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

I'd suggest a title change here to Discussions about sexual acts. As previous posters have noted, there are topics where sex is involved but the mechanics of such are not crucial to the debate (sex ed, abortion, pregnancy, etc), and these could be dealt with in a separate rule where such discussions are conditionally acceptable.

Discussions about sexual acts, though, can be quite happily binned.

Krytenia wrote:

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

I'd suggest a title change here to Discussions about sexual acts. As previous posters have noted, there are topics where sex is involved but the mechanics of such are not crucial to the debate (sex ed, abortion, pregnancy, etc), and these could be dealt with in a separate rule where such discussions are conditionally acceptable.

Discussions about sexual acts, though, can be quite happily binned.

This is the current version of the guidelines under discussion [/notamod].

I only mention it, because you seem to be quoting the original ones.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Krytenia wrote:I'd suggest a title change here to Discussions about sexual acts. As previous posters have noted, there are topics where sex is involved but the mechanics of such are not crucial to the debate (sex ed, abortion, pregnancy, etc), and these could be dealt with in a separate rule where such discussions are conditionally acceptable.

Discussions about sexual acts, though, can be quite happily binned.

This is the current version of the guidelines under discussion [/notamod].

I only mention it, because you seem to be quoting the original ones.

... I should probably do it like they do in the WA and edit the OP to include the current version of the draft.

...or not, so people can see the revisions it went through with everyone's input.

Katganistan wrote:...or not, so people can see the revisions it went through with everyone's input.

You (or rather Reppy) can put old drafts in spoilers like people in Got Issues? do.

The Free Joy State wrote:This is the current version of the guidelines under discussion [/notamod].

I only mention it, because you seem to be quoting the original ones.

...and that'll teach me to stop reading on Page Three. As what I've suggested appears to already be there, and I can't see any glaring issues, I shall shut up and find a nice corner in which to sit and listen.

Reploid Productions wrote:Discussion/debate regarding age of consent laws, especially lowering thereof. BANNED.

[...]

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.

Above quote edited by myself for brevity. I do not have a problem with the wording of the actual legal-definition-of-adulthood clarification (i.e. not in bold). Why, however, is it marked up as "Conditionally acceptable" rather than "PERMITTED... mostly" when it appears that the only avenue of discussion explicitly prohibited in the proposed moratorium codification is discussion about the age of consent?

Tinhampton wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:Discussion/debate regarding age of consent laws, especially lowering thereof. BANNED.

[...]

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.

Above quote edited by myself for brevity. I do not have a problem with the wording of the actual legal-definition-of-adulthood clarification (i.e. not in bold). Why, however, is it marked up as "Conditionally acceptable" rather than "PERMITTED... mostly" when it appears that the only avenue of discussion explicitly prohibited in the proposed moratorium codification is discussion about the age of consent?

Good point, that is a bit of an artifact from the original draft. I'll fix that in the officially posted version.

Speaking of which, given discussion seems to have died down and from the conversation folks broadly seem pretty satisfied with the current iteration, probably should start wrapping this up. Figure I'll leave the thread open another couple days, and barring any earth-shaking new developments get it tacked onto the OSRS sometime this weekend. Thanks everyone for your contributions to the discussion, it has been very helpful.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Above quote edited by myself for brevity. I do not have a problem with the wording of the actual legal-definition-of-adulthood clarification (i.e. not in bold). Why, however, is it marked up as "Conditionally acceptable" rather than "PERMITTED... mostly" when it appears that the only avenue of discussion explicitly prohibited in the proposed moratorium codification is discussion about the age of consent?

Good point, that is a bit of an artifact from the original draft. I'll fix that in the officially posted version.

Speaking of which, given discussion seems to have died down and from the conversation folks broadly seem pretty satisfied with the current iteration, probably should start wrapping this up. Figure I'll leave the thread open another couple days, and barring any earth-shaking new developments get it tacked onto the OSRS sometime this weekend. Thanks everyone for your contributions to the discussion, it has been very helpful.

Conditionally acceptable is indeed a good choice as it will help with the situations where it starts out right and then quickly gets changed to age of consent and why it should be lowered.

So far what you have; works.....

The "COVID misinformation" slog of a rule leads to the return of another Moratorium. Of course.

Tornado Queendom wrote:The "COVID misinformation" slog of a rule leads to the return of another Moratorium. Of course.

...not quite sure how you are linking the two, because they clearly aren't.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tornado Queendom wrote:The "COVID misinformation" slog of a rule leads to the return of another Moratorium. Of course.

...not quite sure how you are linking the two, because they clearly aren't.

Because they are not related, and Tornado Queendom just pulled a non-sequester out of thin air.

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.

perhaps we're reading things a bit differently. where i have have taken it as BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS you appear to have taken it as PARTIALLY BANNED, SEMI CIRCLE, A DECENT NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS.

My entire point is that they're not the issue and we shouldn't pretend there's any moral or rules-based equivalency

working from the premise of BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS there is in fact a rules-based equivalency.

It doesn't serve the community at all to countenance "maybe sixteen year olds should be sexualized."

you don't need to countenance it. you just don't need to bring it up.

firstly, if this is about protecting children, then conversations about the sexualization of children themselves should be inappropriate for a forum frequented by children. this includes one sided conversations, since they still broach the topic and have a high propensity to drag related issues and dogma in. having already demonstrated a willingness to completely purge things that children should not getting exposed to from spaces where children frequent this should not be too controversial for you.

secondly, moderation's bar is set at 18... so does that mean that if age of consent does somehow come up in some thread and someone says they're comfortable with the age of consent being higher or lower than that bar does that mean they've broken the rules? if not, why is it there? if it's a personal opinion of the team it doesn't belong in the rules just as the other rules under this section do not have their personal opinion interjected and if it's a rule then it's a disaster waiting to happen since it's a de facto and de jure assertion that the united states and european union are pro child abuse. see the second part of my previous post for why this may be a problem. and if it's in the rules but is not actually enforced then moderation's bar is not actually "set at 18, full stop" in which case it is incorrect information and should be omitted or modified. the most sensible option is to get rid of the topic entirely, which means getting rid of the topic entirely without having little bits of pieces here and there. and if the topic is fully banned then it is superfluous since it should never come up, in which case all it's doing is cluttering up the rules while still opening the door for people to ask about the implications and bring up the exact kind of discussion the rule was supposed to prevent coming up. i am still confounded that i appear to be the only person that sees potential problems with this. it's going to be less than a month if that before a thread is created which results in people being strongly encouraged to say things like skirt or violate this rule so at the very least it would be nice to know which if any of my understandings on what that particular part of the rules actually means in practice is correct is clarified.