[Q/D] PG-13 and Issue #1653

[Liberal Malaysia]

So this issue popped up in my Issues feed:

Issue #1653: Dick's Pics

The Issue

Politician Dick Wiper sent explicit photos of himself to a person he met on dating app Pumpr. Those photos were used to blackmail him into sharing the contact details of other politicians, who were then subjected to a spear-phishing campaign. After reviewing the evidence, your advisors are now hot and bothered about these targeted internet scams.

The Debate

1. “Well, that’s a giant cock-up!” ejaculates your Minister of War, Maximus Johnson, as he finishes polishing his helmet. “Blackacre is behind this, no doubt! They’re always breaching our security, trying to penetrate us by the back entrance. Well, I say we take the fight to them! We need to whip out our hidden weapon. With the help of our Big Unit supercomputer, our cyber warfare division has been developing a powerful new malware package that can give even the most potent enemy hardware a case of the blue screens. We need to insert this package into every possible opening we can find, and give them a pounding they’ll never forget!”

2. “I think you’re premature in coming to that conclusion,” blurts out your Chief of Staff, Shona Biggin, whilst delicately using a tissue to wipe the minister’s spittle from her face. “It’s just a little spoof, more likely from a hardened member of a criminal syndicate than from a Blackacrean operative, but we’ll never know for sure. We should have mandatory internet safety courses for all politicians so we can avoid these situations in the future.”

3. “You’re not going deep enough,” moans Kat Fisher, Minister for Technology. “We need to handle the root of the problem — fake online profiles — in a manner that protects all citizens, not just politicians. Only the other day I was on FurryBabes.ns, a website for cute little animals. I was chatting to a darling little puppy. We agreed to meet. The little avatar was so sweet, I couldn’t resist. Imagine my shock when she turned up on my doorstep — and she was a man! How was I to know it was a ‘fursona’? We should make it a crime to represent yourself online as something you’re not.”

4. “The problem is technology,” gasps Fanny Ryder, Minister for Rural Affairs, whose constituents are known for ploughing long into the night. “Everyone is looking for instant gratification. We don’t need — what are those vibrating gadgets called? — smart phones. We should ban them. And computers. Let’s get those stimulating, slow-paced encounters back, where we communicated by letters, or community notice boards.”
 
Issue by The King of All Wild Things
Edited by Pogaria

This is not a report thread to be clear, but more of a question/discussion thread. Personally, I'm not that squeamish myself and I had a lot of fun reading and addressing the issue. But players have been banned for content far less explicit than this. Could there be a double standard here? To make matters worse, there is no age restriction gameside compared to forumside, not to mention the potential IRL legal issues this may cause for Max Barry. I've spoilered the issue, but I'm still quoting it because it's apparently legal on NS. Feel free to edit it out if it's retroactively determined otherwise.

I'm putting this here because all issues are initially drafted in the forums, because of a possible double standard by Moderation and site admins as to what's deemed age-appropriate and what isn't, and for Max Barry's own sake.

[Imperial Cecilia]

I think as long as the issue is vague enough so that no more detail more than needed is put in, then it should be fine. For example, it doesn't describe the photos. I think it's fine.

[Kostane]

It’s all double entendre which is fair play. If you didn’t understand any of the references behind the puns used, it would not be explicit at all. It would just be a normal issue.

[Souverain Revachol]

It’s all double entendre which is fair play. If you didn’t understand any of the references behind the puns used, it would not be explicit at all. It would just be a normal issue.

But double entendres, especially those this obvious, have been deemed actionable before occasionally. The issue passed fair play by "cockup" and "ejaculate" being adjacent.

Though I do want this issue to stay up, since I also object to the PG-13 rule altogether, so make of that what you will.

[Ioudaia]

a possible double standard by Moderation and site admins as to what's deemed age-appropriate and what isn't, and for Max Barry's own sake.

The Rules are quite clear on what we can say about sex and what we can't. As Kostane notes, puns and double entendres are explicitly legal -- scroll down to the color-coded section -- so long as they're not too explicit.

IMHO, that section is the only usefully clear piece of the rules on what's legal about topics where some things are allowed and some aren't.

[Kostane]

It’s all double entendre which is fair play. If you didn’t understand any of the references behind the puns used, it would not be explicit at all. It would just be a normal issue.

But double entendres, especially those this obvious, have been deemed actionable before occasionally. The issue passed fair play by "cockup" and "ejaculate" being adjacent.

Though I do want this issue to stay up, since I also object to the PG-13 rule altogether, so make of that what you will.

Ejaculate does have a double meaning, although it’s admittedly an older meaning of the word. Essentially, it would be to say something suddenly. Since the word is used in that context here, it would be PG-13. If it were used in a different context, it would not be. You are mistaken the inclusion of words for their contexts. A PG-13 violation describes something explicit. This does not do so. The words being adjacent does absolutely nothing to make it any less PG-13.

[Souverain Revachol]

But double entendres, especially those this obvious, have been deemed actionable before occasionally. The issue passed fair play by "cockup" and "ejaculate" being adjacent.

Though I do want this issue to stay up, since I also object to the PG-13 rule altogether, so make of that what you will.

Ejaculate does have a double meaning, although it’s admittedly an older meaning of the word. Essentially, it would be to say something suddenly. Since the word is used in that context here, it would be PG-13. If it were used in a different context, it would not be. You are mistaken the inclusion of words for their contexts. A PG-13 violation describes something explicit. This does not do so. The words being adjacent does absolutely nothing to make it any less PG-13.

I am aware of the meaning of the word "ejaculate", thank you.

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.

I would argue this instance falls under "excess" - this issue has, what, one entendre per 5 words? All put together, it's clearly a sustained, continuous running joke, which adds up to become a more clear-cut allusion.

[The Ice States]

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree that this goes a bit too far; particularly if something like "wank" (a word which frankly I've encountered far more often in contexts with nothing to do with sex than otherwise) is considered to be inappropriate for issues.

[Noahs Second Country]

It is notable that the issue cannot be received by class nations. I am not suggesting that other non-adult users do not exist outside of class nations, but just a point for the conversation.

I am curious what legal issues you believe Max may face?

I do think that if there was any issue subject matter that would be most appropriate to toe the line of what is permissible in an issue, this would probably be the one. In a sea of issues about abortion, violence, and vat people, I'm not inclined to believe that the current text is a problem, especially considering the plethora of innuendo or explicitly sexual content shared on the internet in places frequented by younger groups. That said, I certainly would not encourage aspiring authors to cram issues with double meanings and sexual references just to jazz up the issue.

(This is my opinion, not representative of the editing team as a whole)

[Sedgistan]

I've relocated the thread - discussions and questions about issue content are best placed in the Got Issues forum, as they're the responsibility of Issues Editors - it's not something Moderators would be involved in.

It should be noted that the One Stop Rules Shop is a document put together to assist players with understanding what actions and content are permitted/prohibited for site users. Strictly speaking they do govern actions undertaken by staff members in their staff roles; teams have their own policies covering their staff duties. As examples, we wouldn't warn Max for a Commercialism violation for advertising his books, or warn a Moderator for posting Adult-Only Content within a staff area that is necessary to repost as part of a team discussion, or warn GenSec for Garish Posting when making a legality ruling with the bright green tags. Having said that, staff actions would generally be in line with what the OSRS covers, as it helps to set an appropriate example for players to follow.

The issue in question is heavily laden with double entendre and innuendo. It's about at the limits of what we would consider acceptable to put in an issue (and as mentioned above won't appear to Class nations), but doesn't cross the line for obscenity or explicitness within an issue.

---

That may lead to questions on whether it would be acceptable for a player to post similar, which requires me to point out the following:

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.

I would argue this instance falls under "excess" - this issue has, what, one entendre per 5 words? All put together, it's clearly a sustained, continuous running joke, which adds up to become a more clear-cut allusion.

You're quoting text from the "Ban on Specific Topics" section of the One Stop Rules Shop, from under the "1. Pedophilia and "pedo-adjacent" subjects" header. The bullet points under there refer to the ban on that topic. The relevant rule is the Adult-Only Content one:

Adult-Only Content: content that is suitable only for adults is prohibited from being posted to the site. This includes both text and images anywhere across the site, including the forums, RMB posts, dispatches, and telegrams. We use the US movie rating "PG-13" as a standard to judge what content fits within this rule. Key components are:

• Violence - depictions of violence are permitted, particularly in text, but that which is extreme, persistent or gory is not acceptable.
• Language - mild swearing is tolerated, but extreme or excessive amounts is not allowed. Note that swearing directed at other site users or groups is likely to cross over into Flaming or Trolling.
• Sex - mild sexuality may be hinted at, but explicit content is prohibited, as well as all forms of erotic roleplaying and cybering.
• Nudity - depictions of a sexual/erotic intent or nature are not permitted, whether in text or images.
• Substances - the PG-13 standard typically prohibits depiction of drug use. While we do not do so, please bear in mind our policy on promotion of Illegal Activities.

Please note that nation names and custom fields (e.g. motto, animal, currency) are held to a higher standard. Please see also the Banned Topics section for further relevant information.

I can confirm that it's fine for players to re-post the content from the issue. We cannot rule on hypotheticals, but as a guideline, a level of double-entendre and innuendo, particularly for humourous purpose, is acceptable within the Adult-Only Content rule.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree that this goes a bit too far; particularly if something like "wank" (a word which frankly I've encountered far more often in contexts with nothing to do with sex than otherwise) is considered to be inappropriate for issues.

I'm guessing that had more to do with the fact that wank is a profanity. Like, there isn't an issue that uses the word "shit", and that (usually) has no X-rated connotations.

[The Eltran]

If there's a substantive difference between this and issues like "What's Got Into @@NAME@@" Or "A Political Cock-Up," I'm not seeing it. It just has more puns.