Discussion in 'That's So Meta!' started by AbsenteeLandLady124, Sep 25, 2017.
Edit: 09/26/2017, 8:42 PM
Okay, officially back from break. Thanks for that quote Saro, I've added it to the OP.
What are people's thoughts on the current list in the OP?
I'm a bit fried right now, but having looked over the current list again, my general thoughts are "yep, this all looks like accurate, reasonable things".
I'm also really uncomfortable with people under 18 entering 18+ spaces. For me, I'm most uncomfortable when those 18+ spaces are sexual in nature, but this may be primarily because I haven't witnessed anyone under-18 entering an 18+ vent thread, while I have witnessed under-18s entering and trying to actively participate in 18+ sexually-oriented spaces.
I think the discomfort comes from the same space, though: not a "no, u are a child, this is not for u", but "dude, no, it is not safe for the people this space was made for, to be interacting with you in the context of this space".
Because it's not the kids who'll get in legal shit if a parent walks in and sees a smutty RP scene that the kid's actively participating in. And that's how we had to explain it to one of the RPers in one of my groups - that it wasn't that we were just enforcing an arbitrary standard for the heck of it, but that any of us who did smutty scenes with them could get in actual "police called on us" trouble if their parents walked in and looked over their shoulder at the wrong time and decided to make a stink about their kid doing that sort of thing with strange adults on the internet, and that such a response from their parents would be pretty reasonable in our eyes (given that any such scenes would have been happening after we knew they were underage).
As a general boundary/manners thing I'd like it, if NSFW (if called as a boundary), be strictly and unambiguously defined, because of the troubles with actually defining things by pulling apart the acronym and how different work places tend to be - both just in general individually and on an international scale.
I would prefer if NSFW was abandoned in favor of a standardized TV-rating type thing, or if when asking people to spoiler/relocate discussions it could be said directly what the problem is. Because not everyone has US-American/Western-Dominant-Culture notions of what is and isn't appropriate in any given venue and for communication it is in general much easier to say what kind of content makes one uncomfortable rather than "nsfw-content", just to try and make sure slip ups are less likely in the future.
Yeah, that's a good point. And I know some folks get super frustrated every time peeps get stuck on definitions, but with such a density of autistic users and people with traumatic backgrounds who may have different ideas based on experiences I think it is a good idea to resolve this once and for all and have it displayed prominently. NSFW stuff isn't just anything that would make people uncomfortable, I consider it material that you would not and should not expect to encounter in public or the workplace, or in private without consent, often lingered on. Honestly, I also agree with the idea of a different system rather than NSFW, more in line with TV ratings, with NSFW limited to sexual material to reduce levels of confusion. I don't know what that should be though, so I will be using NSFW as the catch-all. Please understand also that I am not condemning anyone or saying that some topics are inherently offensive. I am making no value judgments on the content described or saying that it's Bad and people who haven't used spoilers in the past for this stuff are Bad. I'm proposing a general guide in the wake of multiple major upsetting occurrences on the forum so we can work together to make a safer, more accessible place for its members.
So with that in mind, here's my suggestions, please everyone feel free to float additions/changes:
- Gore and extreme violence of all kinds.
- This goes beyond a bloody nose. Things like evisceration, amputation, anything that would kill someone. Someone being punched in the face and getting a black eye, and that's as far as the description goes - not nsfw. Someone being punched in the face followed by a description of bone shattering and a major injury - nsfw.
- Graphic abuse (of all kinds, not applicable obviously in ITA, your own vent threads unless you want to tag.)
- Again, it can often come down to level of detail. Mentioning that a character was abused and how - not nsfw. Talking in-depth about the abuse they went through, specific experiences, quotes, etc., would qualify. Consider when posting if it would stand a reasonable chance of triggering someone who went through that sort of abuse if you aren't sure - mentioning that abuse occurred often will not, descriptions of specific things often will.
- Sexual content. For this one there is the largest chance of cultural variance I think. So here are things I, personally, consider nsfw for sexual content:
- Sexual solicitations.
- Photography, art, or graphic description of genitalia.
- Photography, art, or graphic description of masturbation/intercourse/sexual encounters.
- For these two, "graphic description" again comes down to detail. Mentioning that two characters had sex once - not nsfw. Talking in-depth about how they did, or in depth about genitalia (appearance, texture, etc) - nsfw. Unless a space is explicitly marked as nsfw, I would not expect to run into this sort of content and may be caught off-guard and distressed and I would not have consented to encountering it.
Fully agreed. Beyond any moral standards, people under 18 entering 18+ spaces is dangerous for more than the minor. With the current forum setup, I don't believe there is any way to enforce it, but the standard of 'don't participate and don't tell people if you go in and read the stuff' should apply.
If you are under 18, please don't use a subaccount in order to enter and participate in 18+ spaces.
adding onto this: please specifically mark your vent threads as 18+ if you want them to be 18+
i wont necessarily know just from an nsfw label, because many vent threads use that to mean ‘occasionally will be naughties but minors can post as long as its not about said naughties’
Yeah, it's one of those things where you can't abide by a label/warning if it isn't given. And it's fine to say "okay, moving forward I think this thread will be this," and tag it at that point too, which isn't an indictment against people who posted in it before-- if something isn't tagged 18+, then it's reasonable to assume it isn't 18+.
Added the spoilered quote in saro's post to the front page because my eyes somehow just glazed over it being there every other time. Will add the point about marking vent threads tomorrow, I'm pretty tired atm. How's that definition of nsfw looking? Any changes/additions?
I have a couple thoughts on the master post. I'm not done processing yet so there may be more, energy levels permitting.
I'm not so sure about this one. I agree you have a right to ask. You have a right to ask for a lot of things. But I think other people have a right to say no, and not only in cases where they're processing hurtful behaviors. Things can be rude or painful without being boundary violations. Your personal boundaries allow you to define how you're willing to interact with other people, and to control their access to you. If someone is sharing your secrets or passing communications from someone they know you don't want to hear from, those are boundary violations. But I don't think personal boundaries extend to conversations you're not a part of that aren't violating your privacy. People are allowed to talk about you when you're not there, even if you find it distressing. Managing your own distress is your responsibility, but other people may be willing to try to work with you if you're having trouble.
I'm not sure it's true that no social pressure will be applied, regardless of the "should" of the situation.
I also think a similar point could be made about liking people on the forum. It's okay to like a person, regardless of social pressure. If anyone attempts to pressure you into reconsidering your opinion because it makes them uncomfortable, you have the right to refuse.
In either case, people have the right to have opinions about who you choose to associate with, whether or not it's fair.
I'd say it's okay to ask other people for help with conflict, but they have the right to say no. It's thoughtful and polite to bear in mind self-care reasons if you're aware of them. If they've already asserted a boundary, respect it. If you know someone has trouble disengaging, it is absolutely not cool to intentionally use that to hook them back in for your own benefit. Their boundaries are ultimately their responsibility, but it is not okay to intentionally exploit a vulnerability to make it harder for someone to assert or enforce a boundary. That's manipulation.
I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back on this, I have had a rough couple of weeks.
I agree with everything there, and you're right - I should change "no social pressure will be applied" to "no social pressure should be applied, and if you feel like you are being pressured by others you have the right to ask them to stop."
but then, hm.
What happens if one user has demonstratively been seriously abusive to another, and the third user is friends with both and applying pressure to the person who was hurt to get along with the person who hurt them? Because then we have a seriously conflicting boundary issue where nobody should be obliged to socialize with someone who caused them harm, and also potentially an issue for the person who is friends with both perhaps not actually recognizing what the problem was/feeling like they need to peace keep/deciding that they want to remain social with the abusive party.
I don't *think* it's possible to avoid applying some kind of social pressure in that situation, and it would not be unfair for the person who was really badly hurt to feel hurt that a member of their social circle is still on good terms with the person that hurt them and also request they stop I think? (Obviously depending on the gravity of the offense - a couple of insults, probably not; "this person actually assaulted me" probably yes?) So I don't know if it's possible to map out a way to neatly resolve that in this thread. This has been a lot of babbling to say "damn this one is really complicated and I'll sub in my original thought for now and actually consider making a conflict resolution flow chart at some point."
And absolutely yes on that last point about asking for help with conflict and I should have already had that in there, thank you very much.
Updated the op, shifted things across, please let me know if I missed anything.
Also a request for people coming across the thread for the first time in wake of the latest mod-created meta thread: please read through the thread completely before posting if at all possible; please try not to use emotionally laden terms (such as calling something 'anti rhetoric', 'depraved' etc) to critique things that have been workshopped so far. Personal attacks, extended derails, and 'mind reading' (ie assuming someone meant something other than they wrote) will get in the way of the purpose of this thread and I'd ask you to please confine things like that to vent threads if at all possible - this one is goal oriented in the hopes of making kintsugi a more accessible and safe place for its members. Please try to take things in good faith. These are my personal requests as the creator of the thread and the person who gets pinged with every alert from it, and related to several of my triggers. I will ping a mod to temporarily lock the thread if at any point things get too hostile
Kintsugi is based on the premise that nothing anyone can do or say makes it okay to treat them like trash. By logging in, you affirm that you understand this to be the foundational premise of the community. More on our community philosophy here.
Separate names with a comma.