Staffing Making a Comfortable Site

[Icewolf 258]

@Uaithne and @Bass - because of some bad experiences I've had from sjws, I no longer reveal my gender or sexuality on roleplay forums. If I come across preferred pronouns instead of gender, I tend to leave it blank. The reason why is become some people I came across decided that it would be a good idea to judge me on the basis of my gender and sexuality because it didn't line up with their viewpoints. They thought that it would be a great idea to treat people online how they get treated in real life because of what they are. They took on the stance that 'if you're not one of us, you're the enemy' so to speak.

 

These 'safe spaces' that people try to set up reflect how badly the acceptance of people different to yourself in society has gone, and although it might seem to be the right answer, it just divides people even more.

[Kit the Human 759]

(I should probably also add this....it's sad that a bunch of people who want to make the world a better place are doing it by dragging other people down. To the point that those people feel they have to lie about who they are, either by omission or outright. It's not right, it's inexcusable, it's completely unhelpful and I absolutely appreciate why a lot of people have switched off of social discourse because it probably feels like you can't win. I support the idea of everyone being in a forum to write where they are comfortable being their glorious selves. What that actually means will be different for lots of different people and that's ok! You should never have to hide who you are.)

[VirusZero 176]

On 12/28/2017 at 5:09 PM, Uaithne said:

I think the main concern I would have with sites that ban entire classes of people is how it looks in the grand scheme of things. One site with "no men" rule isn't going to rock the boat much, and while I chuckle at it, I don't care if such a site exists since it's one site. But I start to think about the greater social aspect of it, and how the roleplay community treats an exclusionary rule that's based not on skill and preference (which in theory can change over time) but on something concrete and personal. Largely, my concern is that it might become socially accepted to make these sorts of "safe spaces" for certain groups of people. I understand that there's a psychological aspect to needing a safe space and I'm not saying that they don't have their place in any way, shape, or form, but I'd hate for this to be another trend that roleplay sites pick up without understanding the ramifications and potential damage it can do not just to the board but to individual people who suddenly feel themselves excluded from cool sites because of how they were born.

 

Can you imagine the uproar if there was a "no women" site, or sites that excluded black people? 

 

I understand that I'm talking in a major "what if" situation, so don't feel like this keeps me up at night, or that I'm lobbying for the complete and utter annihilation of this anti-men site.

 

It's kinda already happened. I mean roleplay has been heavily influenced by social justice. Which, one of the tenants of social justice is that men (especially of the straight and white variety) hold all the power and therefore have zero place or room to complain. So pretty well fair game to do whatever to without any kind of worry. (Pretty sad isn't it that any contributions you could possibly make to a site have to first be weighed according to your race/gender/sexual identity first? Almost like the ones who are complaining are more racist/sexist than the ones they complain about...)

 

Spoiler

According to the order of oppression olympics (from most oppressed to least oppressed):

 

Transgender Black (even more so if there's a disability involved.)

Lesbian Black Female

Gay Black Male or Straight Black Female

Straight Black Male (Always above white no matter what.)

Indigenous / First Nations Female (Straight or Lesbian)

Indigenous / First Nations Male (Unless appears white in which case will rank lower.)

Transgender White

Lesbian White Female

Asian (Male or Female, Gay or Straight, Transgender or not - Always above white male though less than white female.)

Gay White Male

Straight White Male (Always on bottom of scale, no matter what.)

 

I know the list omits quite a few, but I can't recall their position on the scale off the top of my head.

 

One source of the list: https://youtu.be/N4x9rfBlQ1k?t=5m2s

 

 

Ben Shapiro talking about Justin Trudeau (Canada's Prime Minister).

 

I mean name any other group that it's ok to say "No, we don't allow those here" and not see an uproar. Even restricting fictional species in character creation it's a pretty difficult thing to do. Like on a Mass Effect site saying no Protheons gets an uproar from someone. 

 

I could see there being a "no women" site but, as you can imagine, it would not end well. In a best case scenario the roleplay community would shun that site. Maybe they'd just bar it from advertising. Perhaps they'd even post an announcement calling it out (without naming which site it was of course) and saying how wrong it is and that they don't support that kind of discrimination. But I highly doubt that's all that would happen.

I think they'd (the roleplay community would) try reporting it to the host to get it shut down (on the grounds of discrimination). They'd pick at that site and how wrong it is and how superior they are (completely ignoring any wrongdoings of their own).

If it somehow did manage to survive an attempted shutdown they wouldn't leave it alone. It'd still be under attack... They might try doxing the owner, going after their job, hitting them on social media, etc... Any members on that site (if they were on other sites too) would be pressured to quit or basically be exiled from their community.

Before anyone says that wouldn't happen, trust me... it would. Go look up Justine Sacco or Gregory Alan Elliot to see what kind of damage those who believe the social justice mindset will do.

 

Now not all sites subscribe to the social justice ideology but many take a lot of cues from it (whether they realise it or not). 

Edited January 10, 2018 by VirusZero

[Uaithne 543]

5 hours ago, Kit the Human said:

@Uaithne if exclusionary forums become a big thing than we have a bigger problem on our hands don't we? Because if an admin goes out to make a safe space, that means they don't feel safe in the rest if the community. Wouldn't you be concerned about the state of the RP community if large groups of people felt unsafe in it? 

 

If we all just try and be decent and compassionate people, other people are less likely to feel the need to create safe spaces. 

 

What I don't understand about this discussion is the focus on the result, not the cause, (or the proposed solution, not the problem) as if there's some implicit belief that exclusionary rules are done just cus. 

 

Why not focus on the kind of behaviour that drives people to outright ban an entire group of people from your forum? Or in other words, focus on the problem that this proposed solution seeks to solve?

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Personally, I think that identifying the problem is often one of the best things that people can do about many things in life.  One of the things that I love to do is to figure out why people are saying the problematic things they are or behaving the way they are, and then trying to identify what the actual issue is.  I don't believe that people in the roleplay community do this enough

 

But I also think that what @VirusZero says is true to some extent, too.  Because of attitudes I've seen in the roleplay community over the past few years, I believe that many people are entitled to the extent that they think that other people should change and adapt for them.  They're not interested in being kind and compassionate and understanding towards other people because they're too busy expecting other people to be kind and compassionate and understanding towards their own needs.  It's really a bummer when you realize that you've listened to and tried to understand the ideas and needs of others, only to have those same people shut you down entirely.  This isn't anything new, but it seems like it's becoming more acceptable when it's revolved around hot-button topics like gender or sexuality or race.

 

@ArthurGael, while I agree that there are some things that you don't have to understand to respect, I also believe that people should be able to question the intent behind rules and that the people who make the rules should be able to explain why they decided those rules are in place.  (Even if they don't choose to disclose why they make specific rules, they should be able to have a solid reasoning for why the rule is in place should they wish to discuss it in the future.)  Further, having an explanation for why a rule exists has the positive potential of helping other people understand why the rule is in place.  In my experience, when I see a weird rule, I'm like, "No."  But then if people explain why the rule exists, I'm more like, "Ah, I get it.  I'm okay with that."

 

I, personally, have a rule on my site which is put in place for my own comfort.  I chose to explain it because such unusual rules often leave people scratching their heads and wondering if the admin is a complete nutjob or will be overly strict.  My rule is that I don't allow flashing/moving images (gifs) in avatars, signatures, or site posts.  This is for my own health issues, and I don't mind explaining that.  But there are some topics which people may not want to explain, and I respect that as well - as long as it makes sense.

 

@Icewolf, I just tell everybody I'm a dog.  That's my gender.  "Dog."  And for pronouns, I'm okay with "he," "she," or "it."  Pretty much I'll respond to anything.  I try not to leave stuff blank because linguistically it can be challenging to try to refer to people without knowing how to refer to them.

[Sadrienne 242]

On 12/28/2017 at 1:05 PM, Uaithne said:

Prohibiting behaviors is understandable. Prohibiting innocent people is ridiculous.

 

I love this. 

 

I can understand the need/want to exclude a certain type of person---there may be underlying trauma, or even religious reasons why a person feels uncomfortable interacting with a particular gender, etc. If that's what the admin requires, they've done the responsible thing by creating a board that suits their needs, and not putting those demands on anyone else. Anyone who doesn't like it has the freedom to walk away and find somewhere that suits them. 

 

Policing it would be near impossible. But--it's their choice. If for whatever reason, the issue isn't about behaviour but a type of person, this is probably their only course of action.

 

For most of us, though, looking beyond the presentation of the offending members to the behaviours and prohibiting those is a better course of action. Creepy weird stalkery behaviour is not restricted to males (biological or indentity). I would encourage any admin that has those sorts of rules to drill down and work out what the exact cause for those rules was, and how they could go about creating a truly safe space. 

 

I feel ridiculous enough with my rules about post presentation. They're not especially overbearing (I think?), but for me "comfortable" is having consistent text that is easy for me to read. 

[Vellamo 74]

19 hours ago, Kit the Human said:

Why not focus on the kind of behaviour that drives people to outright ban an entire group of people from your forum? Or in other words, focus on the problem that this proposed solution seeks to solve?

 

This was close to what I was thinking. I inferred that there was one of two reasons for banning men. One being problematic (to put it lightly) behaviour by male rpers. In RP, there's no one or nowhere to go to when you're being bullied or harassed. I also think in communities where the people are older, it's worse and reminds me of workplace bullying, where a lot of the time, if you speak out or try to defend yourself, people will assume you're the problem (and there was a Swedish study on this too). There's a general attitude of "don't complain, keep it to yourself, move on." That leaves people with only one option to help themselves. 

 

(And just because it's online or you can close the laptop, doesn't make it less serious. The human brain doesn't distinguish these things.)

 

And from a lot of the behaviour I've seen and experienced from men in RP (and I'm saying this as a male), I am not surprised. Because of the same behaviour that causes people to ban men outright, I don't usually share that I am male or prefer he/him (granted I also sit in the "fuck gender"/NB/T spectrum so I'm not sure where that even puts me).

 

The other reason I thought was that they just want to be around people like them. I know that in RP, we're very into including everyone so the idea of sites not including everyone is an issue. But I also think people are starting to realise you cannot get along with everyone and you need to make or find somewhere that is a right fit. 

 

I haven't seen any RP that has outright banned anyone yet. But I've seen "women-only" forums, "men-only" forums, and transgender-only Discords. Those are similar to how I see Asian meetups or women-only knitting clubs. They just want to be around people like them, who they can relate to, and talk about specific things. I just don't see an issue in old ladies wanting to knit together or Asians wanting to find other Asians in their city. These have existed way before this "SJW" vs. "anti-SJW" stuff started. If it bothers you then it's obvious these places aren't meant for you and/or are not a fit for you. I'm not even into knitting anyway.

 

If it was a "men are banned because they're untermensch", that'd have been different to me than a "men aren't allowed because we want to feel comfortable or talk about non-male shared experiences w/e ooc".

 

Maybe I'm a little too easy-going or blasé about this. People are welcomed to disagree with me.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Kullervo

[Guest BETA BLUE]

Is it bad that I know what site you are talking about Uaithne? 

I think the fact that it went on for so long does bring out memories but look at the positives. Everyone remembers this person, things she had done and choose not to go with the flow on this site.  Yes, there are people on all sides of the spectrum. Many are asking questions trying to find their way to being more accepting. Anyone that asks questions or starts the uncomfortable conversation even in the rp world should be respected. They only way we can make our tiny place on the web better is by talking about things.

 

Being female I can understand female safe spots.  I've been sexually harassed on my own chatbox. I have seen what manipulative males want to do to female rpers and how they wiggle their influence in. I have seen friends dissolve.  I understand these girls, give power to the girls that feel they need this, but it's not something I would do. Even in the ashes of the male rper that tries to basically get into the pants of female admin or player, I've met guys that have really stood up and have been wonderful. 

 

As for comfort, you know what you want, you know what's comfortable. You want a site that feels like home and family. Somewhere that you can put your feet up and watch the game with your friends? So, you play by that example. You treat everyone like your friend and set the overtone of the site. It's not easy. Jerks happen. But generally, people weed them out and they disappear.

[Uaithne 543]

People have had some shit experiences largely dominated by one group of people or another, I agree.

 

But perhaps because I've seen both sides of the women/men thing (and from many different experiences), I understand that the negative and sexist behaviors described that are often associated with men towards women are also exhibited by women towards other women, or women towards men.  Normally it's more subtle, though - more manipulative.

 

The rotten behavior of people expands beyond gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.  That's why I think excluding people based upon one of these aspects is entirely ridiculous.

 

A more positive approach to "No men on this forum," would be "This forum is designed for women and those who identify as women.  Harassment will not be tolerated."  It's less exclusionary and emphasizes what they want to see rather than what they don't want to see.  Chances are, they'll get more or less what they seek.  Either way, they'll likely get trolls, but then they don't have to worry about "Is this person really a man disguised as a woman?" and the like because people can be open.

[Kit the Human 759]

3 hours ago, Uaithne said:

But perhaps because I've seen both sides of the women/men thing (and from many different experiences), I understand that the negative and sexist behaviors described that are often associated with men towards women are also exhibited by women towards other women, or women towards men.  Normally it's more subtle, though - more manipulative.

 

Doesn't everyone know this? Communities are like pants, any of them can contain a prick. They've just being taught from experience, that men are more likely to be creeps. But I get mistaken for a dude all the time in the real world, I've had people convinced that I'm lying when I say I'm a girl. So perhaps these experiences have imparted a rare wisdom that I don't know I possess...

 

4 hours ago, Uaithne said:

The rotten behavior of people expands beyond gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.  That's why I think excluding people based upon one of these aspects is entirely ridiculous.

 

Sometimes, someone is just more comfortable with a certain group of people. Person X has had many bad experiences with Group Y, so they make a space where Group Y is excluded. Why is it ridiculous that Person X of Bad Experiences wants one space without Group Y?

 

Let's expand. Lady has been raped. Said lady has witnessed her mum being bashed by her husband. Said lady endures cat calls or dudes getting a little too handsy when she just wants to take the train to work. Said lady goes to write on a forum, and gets a dick pic. Said lady has experienced bitchy ladies, but she's found that she has a good support group with her little hobby. In her experience, plenty of guys, not all of them, but enough of them, are rancid. So she goes hey, this nice little hobby I have? Let's just make it a space for other ladies.*

 

Can you explain how that is ridiculous to you?

 

3 hours ago, Uaithne said:

A more positive approach to "No men on this forum," would be "This forum is designed for women and those who identify as women.  Harassment will not be tolerated."  It's less exclusionary and emphasizes what they want to see rather than what they don't want to see.

 

Holy shit this. It's good admin practice anyway, IMHO to phrase things as a positive rather than a negative.

 

Now truly, if a forum does go, we're only for white people. We're only for boys. We're only for straights. Me: "Ew. Oh well, at least it's clear I don't belong in that community." -moves on- If there's a chance to engage with them in a discussion forum, I'd just be interested in learning what's threatening to them about black people/same-sex attracted people/ladies. I'm not really interested in forcing anyone to interact with anyone else though, I think it might be fruitful to discuss the aversion instead.

 

* This isn't an overkill scenario by the way. If you do believe it is, I sincerely hope you recognise how lucky you have been.

 

(Also sorry for spamming you Uaithne, you just say interesting things and I hope my additions are positive/interesting. More importantly, that your response will help me understand your viewpoint better. It's a topic kind of close to me because, even though I wont make a forum more exclusive than 18+, I remember being a young woman who left home because of homophobia, and finding some kind of solace with the queer society at uni. I also remember how threatening I used to find men, because in my experience back then, the vast majority truly were rancid. That's all past, but I remember the anxiety and I am deeply uncomfortable with anyone being disparaging towards those kinds of experiences.)

[Uaithne 543]

@Kit the Human, no worries.  Threads like this are here for discussion, and I appreciate that people want to actually discuss rather than just to shut down.

 

To directly address your question - "Can you explain how that is ridiculous to you?":

 

It is ridiculous to me because there is no feasible way to guarantee that only women will be on that site.  It's not like, say, a support group where you go to a meeting and interact directly with people so you know that people are who they claim they are (more or less).  Literally anyone can be on the other side of the computer screen.  The fact that someone who is trying to protect herself ultimately exposes herself to more hurt and damage by trusting so much in the protection this rule seems to offer really weirds me out.  Sure, perhaps she will remain ignorant (intentionally or unintentionally), but the possibility of damage that can be done to her is pretty real in and of itself.

 

Ultimately it doesn't address the problem.  Yes, the root of the problem needs to be addressed with professional help if we're talking about a woman who has experienced violence and pain.  Yes, I understand that maybe somebody wants a place to roleplay where they don't have to feel the panic and fear and anxiety associated with whatever their triggering events may be.  But in my experience, roleplay sites aren't mentally healthy places.  Many people have no clue about how to foster healthy communities (even if they're limited in who they accept into the community), and the manner in which such a site would be run likely won't be a healthy one that will help the woman heal and express herself and whatever else is desired.  Even if the person had all the best interest in the world.

 

I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I can't tell you what one would recommend in terms of whether it would be healthy to join an all-female roleplay forum.  But I do know that people aren't supposed to rule out entire categories of people because of their experiences.  They're supposed to work on overcoming whatever trigger they have--which may be a slow process, of course, and could take their entire lifetime.  Knowing this, and knowing that the type of emotional danger they're opening themselves up to in a situation in which nobody can control who joins, it doesn't seem healthy at all.

 

Further, (if we expand more than just this specific idea of a woman who has been sexually assaulted or abused by men) I don't believe that it's acceptable to exclude people based upon who they are.  People can't control or change these aspects of themselves, and to be rejected for who you are is very different than being rejected for your interests or hobbies or skills.  (I'm kind of kicking myself because I don't give out much personal information online; I have several IRL examples which I could share and would ultimately help strengthen my point here, but I think I'll have to leave it out and deal with a bit of a weaker reply.)  If you see over and over again that you aren't allowed here or there, or that stereotypes determined that you are not worthy of participating in a community . . . you start to unconsciously internalize that stuff, and it's damaging.

 

I find that roleplaying with a wide variety of people allows for us to learn more about each other, which ultimately allows for some of these things that make us uncomfortable about other people to be diminished or removed entirely.  Excluding certain groups based upon who they are not only damages that particular group, but it also creates rifts between groups of people.

 

One thing I will note is that if you go on a lot of websites (not roleplays, just websites in general) that are aimed for a specific group, they don't outright exclude other groups.  Sometimes they'll have sections where people can ask questions and learn more about the topic at hand and the experiences that people of that group have.  They can also participate in other aspects of the website, but they understand that they might not be the targeted audience.  For example, say there is a website for recovering alcoholics; there will likely be a second on that website aimed towards family, friends, and curious people who want to learn more about education, how they can help, and how to support their loved ones.  There could be Q&As, or youtube videos, or whatever that they can access and participate in, but it might be aimed for the recovering alcoholics; still, they're not barred from participating.

 

I just don't think that excluding entire groups of people really get anybody anywhere, and I see the potential for far more damage than for healing.

 

Does that make sense?  I'm not sure how well I clarified what I had already said.

[Kit the Human 759]

Thank you so much for expanding on your views, I really appreciate it. I don't think you need to include specific personal experiences, your arguments are convincing! 

 

I agree with all the points you have raised. 

 

It does strike me as more damaging to discover that a member has won your trust and friendship based on deceit, than it is just to accept a variety of different people and treat them according to how they behave, rather than an integral part of their being. I assume that anyone who does make an exclusive site has considered that and has accepted that risk. (If they haven't considered this, they really ought to.) I agree with points raised earlier that you're almost asking people to perform femininity a particular way or risk being mistaken for a bloke and thus excluded. All in all, a forum just doesn't have the same kind of safety measures that a group in the flesh does. So, the very intent to create a safe space is flawed because you have no way of stopping people at the door. (I agree! If someone wants to try though, I don't mind.)

 

You're also correct that it's very hard to create a healthy community. Though we ought to try. (Probably a thread all by itself. How do you try and create a healthy and happy community?) And in this scenario of safe spaces, safe for who? The labels we apply to ourselves are reductionist and do not account for our whole rich selves. Which is why I like your rewording the rule so that it's: we cater to X, rather than we exclude Y. (And then probably go on to explain what that actually means.)

 

It is damaging to see over and over again that something integral to who you are is unwelcome. This is the problem of the kind of black and white thinking that has become popular on the interwebs. Or, you said -ist thing, therefore you are Bad and Only Bad and you have no redeeming qualities. This problem btw, is known amongst the 'left.' I wish it was more strongly combated in the mainstream. (I know good gender studies courses will be combating that kind of reductionist and uncritical thinking.)

 

Support groups/safe spaces ought to include space for allies. The space isn't really catered for them and they shouldn't expect it to be, but their support is important. Again, why I like we cater to X rule over we exclude Y. 

 

At the end of the day though, we're talking about one forum (that I know about!) I assume that those involved are not excluding dudes in all aspects of their lives. Because that is very unhealthy. Having one safe space however is fine, no matter how successful the attempt is. I don't see anything wrong with the attempt, if it's something you gave deemed important to you. 

 

My reticence to judging a site as ridiculous is based on three things. 

 

1) I don't fault attempts to achieve things, even though the obstacles are large. If you have looked at those obstacles and judge the attempt worthwhile, than that is fine. 

 

2) I am naturally inclined to being a judgemental opinionated know it all. I work against those tendencies by employing a ruthless live and let live strategy. Basically, we are beings of our experiences that inform us. Why do I get to judge the opinions they formed based on their very own lived realities? 

 

3) What's the opposite of letting women hang out with themselves? Forcing them to write with men. I er, find it kind of creepy to force certain people onto others when they've expressed discomfort. I know that that is not your intent, but I personally can't escape that implication so that's why I can't label it ridiculous. Much like the primary problem for you seems to be, an admin literally can not guarantee that the forum is indeed dude only. 

 

But I appreciate your stance and agree with all points raised. Thank you so much for taking the time to write it out!

[Uaithne 543]

You're welcome.

 

Though I'll note that for your point #3, I don't think that anybody should be forcing people to hang out with people they don't want to be around.  The opposite of letting women hang around with themselves could also be letting women hang out in a woman-friendly (though not exclusive) environment where they're free to interact with people as they wish.  In your example, you're going with the literal opposite rather than general alternative options; in such cases, we can't think purely in black-and-white scenarios.  Regardless, if somebody needs 100% woman environment, maybe seeking that sort of community on the internet isn't in their best interest.

 

Ultimately I think the topic requires more professional knowledge than most of us (myself included) have to make well-researched and healthy decisions about where to draw the line between comfort zone and exclusionary, and even then, there will always be grey area.  Regardless, it's interesting to read others' thoughts on the subject since, whether we're professionals or not, these are the things we have to deal with in our roleplay community.

 

A topic about creating a happy and healthy community would be a good discussion as well.  There are a lot of things to say that are similar between this topic and that, but would ultimately take us far off topic here.

[Quell 249]

I'll be here in the "you do you" train. If someone wants to open a board that is racist, sexist, ageist, etc., they have every right to do so. (I honestly believe that policing beliefs is a dangerous step into a fascist world, even if we think we're helping). This same idea goes for when I open a board, I have every right to say that I'm not interested in racists, sexists, etc. populating my site. (My rule on Ark is actually phrased around being respectful. In other words, I don't care if you're misogynistic, I care if you are rude about it. I don't care if you are or think whatever, I care if you're nasty or dismissive for any reason to any other player.)

 

At the end of the day, people are going to find the place that they feel comfortable so there's not reason to cater to some unknown ideal person -- you'll just lose someone else. I mean, as stated in the OP, the board with all the #weirdrules had a member base where they had found other people who were comfortable with the same things they were and made a happy home. 

 

Honestly, I think the most important thing is to be honest with yourself and your potential members. If you're going to start a site but you HATE reading and writing smut, and you don't want it on your board, then put 3-1-3 in your rules. Yes, you'll lose potential people, but the ones who stay are the ones who will be comfortable with the same things you are (and likewise will probably be in for the long haul because you haven't given them misdirection to join. sites aren't used car sales. members can walk away whenever they want. Getting members isn't actually the goal, keeping them is).

 

Anyway, yeah. I don't really understand why you would ban certain groups (as opposed to certain mindsets/behaviors), I certainly wouldn't join a site that said male players weren't allowed (even though I'm not a man, and could certainly join). That said, if someone wants to have an exclusive site, then that's up to them and their member base will populate with people who likewise want this specific exclusivity.

 

Tangent?: Also I guess, I'd just like to point out that this is a thing that happens all the time in real life, so why do we expect the anonymous internet to act differently? Sororities and fraternities are real things (and it's rare that you'll hear someone throw a fit about how they're women/men only); as are groups that are exclusive to race (there are school programs that are specific to one race/ethnicity and exclude all others) or sexuality (there are quite a few meet up groups in my area that are for specifically gay men or lesbian women -- allies not welcome). I know that a lot of us go to the internet to escape reality, but at the end of the day, this pixely world we live in is made up of all the pieces of the messed up reality that we are trying to avoid. <3  I should write motivational posters, guys #uplifting

Edited December 30, 2017 by Thyme

[Rune 1,099]

Skinned most of the posts but I think an easier way to handle it would be along the lines of "Use common sense." Given that there isn't any way to prove who your writing with it's easier and more inviting to operate on the idea that you won't support harassment or anyone being a dickhead. 

 

Which should go without saying and is probably going to save you a lot of headaches when someone decides to whine on your board about how your being mean by not allowing them. 

[Raven 18]

On an 18+ site it's very simple: include content warnings, and everything goes.

 

As someone who is an administrator of a site, who also has some pretty rough triggers, I really don't like it when those things are banned from discussion. I understand why they might be, I understand how difficult it is to choose a side, but imo, I think every topic should be allowed (as long as it fits with the board rating), provided that there are avenues for members to take that allows them not to read those topics, should they choose not to. Whether this is because they have moral conflicts with them, or it's triggering, or just because there is a small child sitting next to them reading everything on their screen, they should be allowed to not read things they don't want to. This can be a chat box that closes, or different channels on a discord, or mature/graphic prefixes. c: I don't agree with staff putting limits for their own personal things, but then... I guess I don't really have a lot of limits, especially with the people I trust.