- 4,565
- 6,344
Note: This thread is staff-only. You may request permission to reply from a staff member if you believe you will have productive input on the topic.
Hello.
As the title suggests, this discussion is a proposal for a change to our present site rules regarding the standards for allowable imagery on the main site and the forum. As it is surely the elephant in the room, I’ll note briefly that this thread was precipitated by the recent controversies regarding AKM Sama’s forum profile banner, and that I have already publicly expressed strong views regarding that case. However, the purpose of this thread is first and foremost to reach a coherent and agreeable set of rules for application to all cases, not merely this one incident. And, as should hopefully be obvious, I expect that this thread will be kept to this purpose.
The relevant section being proposed for revision is the ‘Be Appropriate’ section of the Site Rules, and more precisely, the subsection/s relevant to sexual content on the site and forum:
The first chunk of text simply states the general idea of what ‘being appropriate’ entails. This part is vague (what is ‘offensive, disturbing, or disgusting’?), but likely intentionally so – it’s a general guideline that tells people quickly what is expected of them while leaving the details of what is/isn’t enforced to the rest of the section. I think this is fine, but I will suggest a small change to it later.
The second chunk of text deals in sexual conduct, or in other words, the point at which conduct of a sexual nature is ‘not appropriate’. This part is a bit more questionable – it’s a bit narrow in scope, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it creates problems down the line – but it has been good enough as to be efficacious for past incidents of sexual conduct on the forum, so I do not intend to focus on it. I leave it here mainly if others believe it warrants a closer look in the course of this discussion.
The third chunk of text deals in sexual content, or in other words, the point at which content of a sexual nature presented on the wiki/forum is ‘not appropriate’. This is the most relevant part of the revision, as I would say the issues here are twofold: this rule is both vague and, arguably, too limited for the context that it is being applied in. Most importantly for the former is that the term ‘pornographic’ is not defined here – as far as I can tell, it is implicitly referring exclusively to hardcore pornography (content warning: it’s just a Wikipedia article on the topic, but drawings of sexual acts are present on the page), but the term is equally relevant as a definition for softcore pornography, and both of these categories can continue to be sub-divided on the basis of the severity of the explicit content – which is presumably the part of the content we actually take issue with, not merely the label. ‘Pornography’ can readily include anything from open depictions of penetration for the sake of sexual pleasure, to pin-up models in the likes of the Chica Boom magazine, depending on who you ask.
There’s only two other things we are bound by that detail anything specific related to sexual content. The Acceptable Content Rating Scale – which is more-or-less just about what types of verses can be included on the wiki, and does not say anything directly on our forum content – and FANDOM Community Guidelines, which includes a brief section regarding prohibited/nonprohibited nudity on-site.
So what we are left with is not much. Our rules are vague and very liberal with what kinds of sexual content can be displayed on the site and forum – people are reluctant to enforce matters that are not strictly outlined in the rules – and as we’ve seen, there have been disagreements on where the line should be drawn. To this end, this proposal seeks to outline what principles we should be following in regard to sexual content on our site and forum, and from there, to draft up a change to the relevant section of our rules.
Rule Proposal
Before the principles behind the rule suggestions are outlined – here is the current draft for the rule changes being proposed:
As I outline these principles, the specific phrasings chosen for each change should become clear.
Content should be PG-13
This is hopefully an obvious and agreeable principle. Our wiki is open to all above the age of 13, as mandated by FANDOM. Thus, content on our wiki should be appropriate for people as young as 13, which we hopefully all can conclude excludes a lot of sexual content.
In an ideal world, we would not need to be more specific than this. However, this creates its own ambiguities. As highlighted in the precipitating case, not everyone agrees on what is or is not 13+. The concept of particular content being appropriate/inappropriate for an age range is culturally determined, and not consistent over place or time. If we are going to abide by this principle, we need to further define what is/is not appropriate for this age range. I highlight this principle not because I believe it will resolve everyone’s concerns on the case single-handedly, but because I believe it provides an agreeable base to work off of – we do not need to interject individual moral convictions into this matter if we can all agree that this is the mutual intention behind anything else we are arguing, and that we will have a satisfactory conclusion if we can say what content is appropriate for this age range.
FANDOM Community Guidelines
This is another hopefully obvious and agreeable principle. FANDOM has Community Guidelines that all wikis must follow. We obviously cannot permit any content on our wiki that does not fit these guidelines, and part of these guidelines deals in sexual content. This creates its own technicality with the forum – which is not exactly a FANDOM entity – but I hope all of us agree that the very FANDOM-adjacent nature of our forum means it should still abide by FANDOM’s guidelines. I believe it is worth disambiguating this completely for the reader, given the direct connection between the rules and the community guidelines in the case of these rules in particular.
Defining ‘Pornographic Content’
If we agree that content must be appropriate for users 13+, then I believe most of our intuitive concepts of what is ‘pornographic content’ does not fit in this category of ‘appropriateness’. But as we’ve seen, not everyone agrees on what is pornographic, so this is not useful in isolation. We need to operationalise a definition here – preferably one that best encapsulates what we can agree is not appropriate for 13+ users without including what we can agree is appropriate. This is what I would propose:
There are numerous terms that constitute the parts of this definition, which I will also outline individually:
This definition is designed to capture an important quality here that I believe is integral to this case. Most of us likely agree that there is a distinction in ‘appropriateness’ between – for example – an Onlyfans explicit OC drawing and The Creation of Adam. Even if you think both should be disallowed on our wiki, you likely agree that the latter is more ‘appropriate’ than the former, even if the visual content may be largely similar.
The common theme you’ll find in people’s explanations of this is that the former is drawn with the intent of sexually gratifying the viewer, while the latter was drawn for purely artistic purposes. Not only do I think it is fair to say that some degree of artistically-intentioned content is more permissible, I would say it is essentially necessary to make it so; our wiki indexes material from artistic content, and strictly excluding profiles like Do-S on the basis of, for example, just being potentially sexually gratifying without regard for the context it is produced and used in would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Furthermore, I believe this should be agreeable in regard to a previous principle – our 13+ restrictions. We are aware of the fact that users as young as 13 may use our site, and we are responsible for what content they are or are not exposed to on here. We cannot prevent such a user from seeking out sexually gratifying content by their own accord, but we can prevent such content from being hosted on our site or forum. I could go far into referencing research about the effect of sexual exposure on brain development and why it is harmful for younger people, but I don’t think I need to; I think we can simply agree that “We should not host content primarily designed to sexually gratify on a site for 13-year-olds” is an agreeable enough sentiment, and largely grasps why an average person would say such content is contrasted with appropriate content.
The only strong criticism I can imagine for this line of reasoning is that what is ‘primarily intended’ to be sexually gratifying may be ambiguous in some cases. Theoretically, that may be true, but in practice, I would say it essentially never is and could be handled case-by-case in the rare instance it becomes relevant. We already use almost this exact line of reasoning in regards to what verses are allowable in our Acceptable Content Rating Scale (specifically, in distinguishing what makes a verse level 3 versus level 4), and this has not created any issues in recent memory.
With these principles in mind, I will reiterate the rule changes being proposed:
The first highlighted section is merely a small clarification. It’s more accurate to say we are open to ages 13 and up, and insinuating otherwise creates inaccurate implications about what general kinds of content are considered inappropriate.
The second highlighted section refers back to the intention of the first principle; before anything else, this website should be appropriate for 13-year-olds, and behaviour which is not appropriate for 13-year-olds should be discouraged broadly.
The third highlighted section is nearly an exact quote of the definition outlined in the third principle. No content with the primary intent of being sexually gratifying should be hosted on our site or forum. This is essentially an extension of our Acceptable Content Rating Scale beyond what is acceptable for a verse and into what is acceptable for images/videos.
The fourth and fifth highlighted sections relate to the second principle. What is considered inappropriate by FANDOM is inappropriate on both our site and our forum, and this takes precedent over any of our other rulings.
To outline a few key examples that illustrate the application of these rules:
To conclude: as recent matters have alerted us to, the present rules regarding posting of sexual content on our wiki and forum are limited, and opinions differ on where the line should be drawn on what is permissible. The purpose of this thread is to offer a clear suggestion for a change to our rules in alignment with the intentions of our wiki, as well as a justification for this change, to hopefully reconcile these disagreements and provide an agreeable and detailed framework to use for future incidents.
Hello.
As the title suggests, this discussion is a proposal for a change to our present site rules regarding the standards for allowable imagery on the main site and the forum. As it is surely the elephant in the room, I’ll note briefly that this thread was precipitated by the recent controversies regarding AKM Sama’s forum profile banner, and that I have already publicly expressed strong views regarding that case. However, the purpose of this thread is first and foremost to reach a coherent and agreeable set of rules for application to all cases, not merely this one incident. And, as should hopefully be obvious, I expect that this thread will be kept to this purpose.
The relevant section being proposed for revision is the ‘Be Appropriate’ section of the Site Rules, and more precisely, the subsection/s relevant to sexual content on the site and forum:
The first chunk of text simply states the general idea of what ‘being appropriate’ entails. This part is vague (what is ‘offensive, disturbing, or disgusting’?), but likely intentionally so – it’s a general guideline that tells people quickly what is expected of them while leaving the details of what is/isn’t enforced to the rest of the section. I think this is fine, but I will suggest a small change to it later.
The second chunk of text deals in sexual conduct, or in other words, the point at which conduct of a sexual nature is ‘not appropriate’. This part is a bit more questionable – it’s a bit narrow in scope, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it creates problems down the line – but it has been good enough as to be efficacious for past incidents of sexual conduct on the forum, so I do not intend to focus on it. I leave it here mainly if others believe it warrants a closer look in the course of this discussion.
The third chunk of text deals in sexual content, or in other words, the point at which content of a sexual nature presented on the wiki/forum is ‘not appropriate’. This is the most relevant part of the revision, as I would say the issues here are twofold: this rule is both vague and, arguably, too limited for the context that it is being applied in. Most importantly for the former is that the term ‘pornographic’ is not defined here – as far as I can tell, it is implicitly referring exclusively to hardcore pornography (content warning: it’s just a Wikipedia article on the topic, but drawings of sexual acts are present on the page), but the term is equally relevant as a definition for softcore pornography, and both of these categories can continue to be sub-divided on the basis of the severity of the explicit content – which is presumably the part of the content we actually take issue with, not merely the label. ‘Pornography’ can readily include anything from open depictions of penetration for the sake of sexual pleasure, to pin-up models in the likes of the Chica Boom magazine, depending on who you ask.
There’s only two other things we are bound by that detail anything specific related to sexual content. The Acceptable Content Rating Scale – which is more-or-less just about what types of verses can be included on the wiki, and does not say anything directly on our forum content – and FANDOM Community Guidelines, which includes a brief section regarding prohibited/nonprohibited nudity on-site.
So what we are left with is not much. Our rules are vague and very liberal with what kinds of sexual content can be displayed on the site and forum – people are reluctant to enforce matters that are not strictly outlined in the rules – and as we’ve seen, there have been disagreements on where the line should be drawn. To this end, this proposal seeks to outline what principles we should be following in regard to sexual content on our site and forum, and from there, to draft up a change to the relevant section of our rules.
Rule Proposal
Before the principles behind the rule suggestions are outlined – here is the current draft for the rule changes being proposed:
As I outline these principles, the specific phrasings chosen for each change should become clear.
Content should be PG-13
This is hopefully an obvious and agreeable principle. Our wiki is open to all above the age of 13, as mandated by FANDOM. Thus, content on our wiki should be appropriate for people as young as 13, which we hopefully all can conclude excludes a lot of sexual content.
In an ideal world, we would not need to be more specific than this. However, this creates its own ambiguities. As highlighted in the precipitating case, not everyone agrees on what is or is not 13+. The concept of particular content being appropriate/inappropriate for an age range is culturally determined, and not consistent over place or time. If we are going to abide by this principle, we need to further define what is/is not appropriate for this age range. I highlight this principle not because I believe it will resolve everyone’s concerns on the case single-handedly, but because I believe it provides an agreeable base to work off of – we do not need to interject individual moral convictions into this matter if we can all agree that this is the mutual intention behind anything else we are arguing, and that we will have a satisfactory conclusion if we can say what content is appropriate for this age range.
FANDOM Community Guidelines
This is another hopefully obvious and agreeable principle. FANDOM has Community Guidelines that all wikis must follow. We obviously cannot permit any content on our wiki that does not fit these guidelines, and part of these guidelines deals in sexual content. This creates its own technicality with the forum – which is not exactly a FANDOM entity – but I hope all of us agree that the very FANDOM-adjacent nature of our forum means it should still abide by FANDOM’s guidelines. I believe it is worth disambiguating this completely for the reader, given the direct connection between the rules and the community guidelines in the case of these rules in particular.
Defining ‘Pornographic Content’
If we agree that content must be appropriate for users 13+, then I believe most of our intuitive concepts of what is ‘pornographic content’ does not fit in this category of ‘appropriateness’. But as we’ve seen, not everyone agrees on what is pornographic, so this is not useful in isolation. We need to operationalise a definition here – preferably one that best encapsulates what we can agree is not appropriate for 13+ users without including what we can agree is appropriate. This is what I would propose:
There are numerous terms that constitute the parts of this definition, which I will also outline individually:
This definition is designed to capture an important quality here that I believe is integral to this case. Most of us likely agree that there is a distinction in ‘appropriateness’ between – for example – an Onlyfans explicit OC drawing and The Creation of Adam. Even if you think both should be disallowed on our wiki, you likely agree that the latter is more ‘appropriate’ than the former, even if the visual content may be largely similar.
The common theme you’ll find in people’s explanations of this is that the former is drawn with the intent of sexually gratifying the viewer, while the latter was drawn for purely artistic purposes. Not only do I think it is fair to say that some degree of artistically-intentioned content is more permissible, I would say it is essentially necessary to make it so; our wiki indexes material from artistic content, and strictly excluding profiles like Do-S on the basis of, for example, just being potentially sexually gratifying without regard for the context it is produced and used in would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Furthermore, I believe this should be agreeable in regard to a previous principle – our 13+ restrictions. We are aware of the fact that users as young as 13 may use our site, and we are responsible for what content they are or are not exposed to on here. We cannot prevent such a user from seeking out sexually gratifying content by their own accord, but we can prevent such content from being hosted on our site or forum. I could go far into referencing research about the effect of sexual exposure on brain development and why it is harmful for younger people, but I don’t think I need to; I think we can simply agree that “We should not host content primarily designed to sexually gratify on a site for 13-year-olds” is an agreeable enough sentiment, and largely grasps why an average person would say such content is contrasted with appropriate content.
The only strong criticism I can imagine for this line of reasoning is that what is ‘primarily intended’ to be sexually gratifying may be ambiguous in some cases. Theoretically, that may be true, but in practice, I would say it essentially never is and could be handled case-by-case in the rare instance it becomes relevant. We already use almost this exact line of reasoning in regards to what verses are allowable in our Acceptable Content Rating Scale (specifically, in distinguishing what makes a verse level 3 versus level 4), and this has not created any issues in recent memory.
With these principles in mind, I will reiterate the rule changes being proposed:
The first highlighted section is merely a small clarification. It’s more accurate to say we are open to ages 13 and up, and insinuating otherwise creates inaccurate implications about what general kinds of content are considered inappropriate.
The second highlighted section refers back to the intention of the first principle; before anything else, this website should be appropriate for 13-year-olds, and behaviour which is not appropriate for 13-year-olds should be discouraged broadly.
The third highlighted section is nearly an exact quote of the definition outlined in the third principle. No content with the primary intent of being sexually gratifying should be hosted on our site or forum. This is essentially an extension of our Acceptable Content Rating Scale beyond what is acceptable for a verse and into what is acceptable for images/videos.
The fourth and fifth highlighted sections relate to the second principle. What is considered inappropriate by FANDOM is inappropriate on both our site and our forum, and this takes precedent over any of our other rulings.
To outline a few key examples that illustrate the application of these rules:
- The banner which precipitated this matter will not be permitted. The artist behind the banner, Sakimichan, has attested directly to the fact that the works they produce are intentionally NSFW and marked as 18+, and a simple analysis of the content and context indicates that the primary reason the work was created was to sexualise the characters for the sake of the viewer’s gratification.
- The image on the Do-S profile will be permitted. While tangentially similar in content to the banner, this is simply a depiction of a character in an artistic piece of media exactly as they were in the original media, and as it is in a relevant context, it does not violate FANDOM community guidelines.
- The Creation of Adam will be permitted, with some caveats. The Creation of Adam is unambiguously artistic nudity, and not designed to be sexually gratifying. FANDOM Community Guidelines suggest classical artistic nudity is permissible so long as it is in ‘an appropriate context’. There are few situations on our pages or forum where The Creation of Adam would be a relevant image, so the allowance of this image in concept does not mean it can be posted anywhere for any reason.
- Medical/Educational nudity will not be permitted, with some caveats. I mainly bring this up to address a very niche edge case that may have come to some other minds as well – nudity/semi-nudity which is produced for educational purposes (e.g.: a depiction of breasts in diagrams about development in puberty) unambiguously is not produced for the purpose of sexual gratification. But it’s technically not artistic either, and more importantly, FANDOM’s Community Guidelines suggest this kind of content would only be allowed if there was a clear context which warranted their display for educational merit. I cannot fathom how this would apply to our wiki. Hypothetically, if it did, it would be acceptable under these rules – but as far as I’m concerned, it never will be.
To conclude: as recent matters have alerted us to, the present rules regarding posting of sexual content on our wiki and forum are limited, and opinions differ on where the line should be drawn on what is permissible. The purpose of this thread is to offer a clear suggestion for a change to our rules in alignment with the intentions of our wiki, as well as a justification for this change, to hopefully reconcile these disagreements and provide an agreeable and detailed framework to use for future incidents.
