Advertisement
by Vivolkha » Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:12 am
by Dylar » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:38 am
St. Albert the Great wrote:"Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."
Franko Tildon wrote:Fire washes the skin off the bone and the sin off the soul. It cleans away the dirt. And my momma didn't raise herself no dirty boy.
by Thermodolia » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:20 am
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?
by The New California Republic » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:23 am
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.
by Katganistan » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:31 am
Dolgo wrote: I don't even want to know what kind of biological hazards moderation has to deal with.
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:56 am
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?
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Katganistan » Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:12 am
by Neutraligon » Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:19 am
by Fahran » Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:29 am
by Diopolis » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:12 pm
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?
by Reploid Productions » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:02 pm
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.
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Diopolis » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:00 pm
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.
by Krytenia » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:14 am
Reploid Productions wrote:Discussions about sex. BANNED, FULL STOP, NO EXCEPTIONS. This should go without saying, but given the number of times we've ended up catching people cybersexing, it clearly needs to be restated. This is a political sim game, we don't need to hear about how you're horny, who you did, who you want to do, what you did it with, any details about your sexual exploits real or imagined, favorite sex toys, preferred positions, particular kinks or fetishes. This is a PG-13 site. Go somewhere else if you want to talk about your sex life or masturbatory habits.
by The Free Joy State » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:17 am
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.
by Reploid Productions » Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:11 am
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.
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Katganistan » Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:31 am
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:40 am
Katganistan wrote:...or not, so people can see the revisions it went through with everyone's input.
by Krytenia » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:05 pm
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.
by Tinhampton » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:22 am
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.
by Reploid Productions » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:20 pm
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?
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by The Black Forrest » Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:54 pm
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.
by Tornado Queendom » Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:01 pm
by The New California Republic » Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:28 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote:The "COVID misinformation" slog of a rule leads to the return of another Moratorium. Of course.
by Shazbotdom » Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:00 pm
ShazWeb || IIWiki || Discord: shazbertbot || 1 x NFL Picks League Champion (2021)
CosmoCast || SISA || CCD || CrawDaddy || SCIA || COPEC || Boudreaux's || CLS || SNC || ShazAir || BHC || TWO
NHL: NYR 2 - 0 WSH | COL 1 - 1 WPG | VGK 2 - 0 DAL || NBA: NOLA (8) 0 - 2 OKC (1)
NCAA MBB: Tulane 22-19 | LSU 26-16 || NCAA WSB: LSU 35-11
by Souseiseki » Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:35 pm
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.
My entire point is that they're not the issue and we shouldn't pretend there's any moral or rules-based equivalency
It doesn't serve the community at all to countenance "maybe sixteen year olds should be sexualized."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Godular, Picairn, Tungstan
Advertisement