Feedback Thread - Forum Community Guidelines

Hi forum community.

If you didn't see it, the [Forum Community Guidelines can be found here.](

The team has been working hard on these guidelines and feel like they are ready for rollout. Please let us know what you think.


This is a very strong set of guidelines.

I have only a minor nitpick, at least at the moment:


4 Your off-site behavior may impact your ability to participate in this community.


We expect that your off-site behavior as it overlaps our forum community to be inline with guidelines here. An example is coordinating harassment of our members off-site. It is unwelcome and will not be tolerated.

I think the "as it overlaps our forum community" could stand to be in the heading text. Without that clarification it kind of sounds like you're gonna try and narc on our Facebook posts even though that's totally unrealistic.


Overall feedback is, though, that they are simple, yet cover a ton of ground. It speaks a lot of our unspoken agreements which I think is really valuable. I especially like 2. as an entire section!

These seem like very clear and reasonable guidelines. I agree that section 2 is a highlight, especially when it comes to welcoming new people to the forum. I‘ve been trained by early 2000s forums and contemporary social media to always have my guard up. It’s cool to have a section that says ‘hey it’s alright you can relax we don‘t do that here’.

Thanks for working on this, mods, it‘s really appreciated. Even if the wording gets brushed up, I’m a fan of #2 and #4 – haven‘t seen a lot of community rules like those in particular, they’re thoughtful and helpful

I actually fucking love these guidelines. A winner is you! Actually, a winner is US, because we get to participate in a healthy forum community.

Been letting it sit for a while so I would be able to make changes as a batch.


@“Gaagaagiins”#p114225 I think the “as it overlaps our forum community” could stand to be in the heading text. Without that clarification it kind of sounds like you’re gonna try and narc on our Facebook posts even though that’s totally unrealistic.

Agreed and updated.

I just want to pop in here to say that given the recent Reddit drama involving them basically making it financially impossible for third party text apps for the site to continue existing, I just really, really appreciate this site and community for being a positive, friendly inclusive, well designed, and well moderated forum and feels like the last bastion for cool internet communities alongside specific Discord servers as a lot of the large social media sites continue to get worse. I'm super grateful this forum exists.

{“title”:“Pinned Discussion Feedback Thread”,“count”:1,“url”:“”,“toNew”:true}

{“title”:“Pinned Discussion Feedback Thread”,“count”:4,“url”:“”,“toNew”:true}

I was encouraged to share feedback on the do-something-to-a-letter game thread re: sexual references.

  • 1. Frottage and docking, or any other sexual act, are not inherently pornographic.
  • 2. There has long been precedence for raunchy jokes on this forum. See [here]( and scattered posts [from here down]( If I wanted to riff on an off-colour joke someone made then it wouldn't have been out of the ordinary in my experience.
  • 3. I didn't encourage anyone to google sexual acts, which was the only objection I say in antilles' post, therefore I don't think I was in opposition to his post. It certainly wasn't meant that way. I wanted to continue the game.
  • 4. I'm worried about what it could mean if certain sex acts get automatically conflated with porn. It's happened [elsewhere]( (and I made [a post]( about this very thing in the what can we do about the internet? thread) that queer content gets shadowbanned while cishet stuff is allowed to flourish and even if we aren't talking about anything explicit (***[color=tomato]and I'm not arguing that explicit content be allowed in this space[/color]***) I'm worried about who that could hurt. When you can only make certain kinds of adult jokes—who decides which?
  • >

    @“antillese”#p146086 Please don’t encourage people to google pornographic terms.

    I think my intention with that disclaimer is being ungenerously misinterpreted, here. If anything, I thought it was prudent to warn someone what they were getting into if they wanted to understand the joke I made, if my language were to be taken at face value (which was my intention), that was more a statement meant explicitly to discourage anyone who was not of legal age to experience sexual content (not that I can control them but I certainly have a responsibility to inform ahead of time), and implicitly meant to deter anyone who was simply not willing to be exposed to sexual content without warning.

    Frotting, and I feel this is somewhat necessary to point out, is not inherently pornographic. I used the word first, but, that was strictly in reference to whether or not one should be googling it in complete ignorance of what it means, since it's a pretty obscure term, and its sexual nature is not suggested by the word itself. I suppose unlike more heterosexually aligned sexual innuendo, it doesn't evoke eroticism by way of invasiveness or violence or domination, like, say, [maid reaming.]( It's just kind of a funny sounding word in general by way of a pretty literal French etymological root, the association with Fortnight then being purely coincidental.

    Essentially, I think the irresponsible thing to do would have been to not provide any disclaimer or warning, so, I'm more than a little puzzled to see my intent being characterized as "[encouraging] people to google pornographic terms," especially when it was really meant to dissuade people from doing that if they did not wish to or were technically not lawfully permitted to do so.

    I certainly don't need to have a finger wagged at me for doing so, either. I _**am**_ better than that, and I already know that, so, I don't understand why I was not given the benefit of the doubt. Speaking to me like a naughty child caught with their hand in the ~~n~~cookie jar is not productive, and it certainly doesn't command respect. In that light, I can understand why other posters would want to provoke further moderation response by doubling down. Is provocation always about antagonizing the target? Or might there be a principle being furthered in provoking someone? I would hope that a moderation team would be able to skillfully differentiate between antagonistic provocation and provocation intended to protest something the provocateur disagrees with. If we're all friends and we're all getting along as a baseline, I don't feel that it would be inappropriate for moderation action to be, I don't know, take at least a marginally more familiar tone, and to give more of a benefit of the doubt, even in the midst of being provoked (to a point, of course, but a point that I don't think @"connrrr"#502 crossed at all).

    I am speaking as if the joke I made had a right to exist on the forum and I am certainly aware that that is not the case. And, so, whether sexual innuendo should be allowed on the forum or not is, I suppose, a choice to be made and appears to have been made because of this. If that's the choice that is being made, I would suggest that the choice be made firmly and more broadly and with more clear communication, and then more broadly, if not retroactively, enforced. Otherwise, I feel that it may appear that a moral disagreement was raised over the use of sexual innuendo, not because it was sexual at all (since that was until this moment not disallowed or even discouraged), and more because it was a definitionally homosexual sex act. Gay sex is not any more sexually explicit or morally complex than straight sex, so I would expect any moratorium on sexual terminology or innuendo on our forums to correct for the fact that activities like frotting not being included in sexual education curriculum is a deficiency in the quality of sex education, not an accurate or even worthwhile characterization of the moral substance of the act itself.

    Both of you raise worthy points.

    1) There is something of a precedent* for these comments, as I tried to acknowledge:


    @“captain”#p146102 Members of the community occasionally make off-color jokes, and innuendo is not an unknown mode of discourse here.

    and sex terms are not inherently pornographic, which is a point we went over in the mod team's discussion of the topic this morning. I think the specific issue arose because of the disclaimer you posted, @"Gaagaagiins"#429, which came across as ironic—I see this was not your intention.

    *That being said, I did comb through some of that thread and had a look at the examples @"connrrr"#p146115 shared, and I think _maid reaming_ should not have been posted here—you're both right to point to this as an example of a double standard. The other examples are, I believe, not the same thing—it's not that they're heteronormative, it's that they're just the silly names of body parts (the words "wang" and "tit" and "taint" are what I found).

    You both make an important point here about queer erasure and heteronormative stuff getting a free pass. On the other hand, if someone had made a pun about absolutely anything and included a disclaimer saying "googling this will return pornographic results," I believe it would have led to the same discussion. I personally would have raised an eyebrow at a joke involving "fellatio" or "bukkake" or "facesitting" etc. etc., which is intended to be the main point: do we as a community see this as contradictory to our atmosphere? It's clear some of us don't. That's why we're having this discussion. From the mod perspective (which is not homogenously cit-het), we are not intending to blacklist any topic from serious discussion, but to be intentional about creating a space that is comfortable for everyone—which, again, has nothing to do with whether a sex act is necessarily queer, but that it is a sex act. Ultimately, we made a judgment call.


    2) In response to some particulars:


    @“Gaagaagiins”#p146117 Speaking to me like a naughty child caught with their hand in the cookie jar is not productive, and it certainly doesn’t command respect.

    I'm sorry this is how we made you feel, it was not the intention.


    In that light, I can understand why other posters would want to provoke further moderation response by doubling down. Is provocation always about antagonizing the target? Or might there be a principle being furthered in provoking someone? I would hope that a moderation team would be able to skillfully differentiate between antagonistic provocation and provocation intended to protest something the provocateur disagrees with.

    I privately messaged connrrr to ask her to post here, and explained why I thought removing her post in the other thread was a good idea—and to be clear, it was my doing—which was to make it less about individuals making particular posts/jokes and more about defining the community's stance on certain kinds of content, and how the moderator statement as a rhetorical device should be received. Thinking of productivity, I believe posts in community feedback to directly question or challenge mod statements is better than provocative/protest posts, the latter of which are more easily misinterpreted.


    @“connrrr”#p146115 It certainly wasn’t meant that way.

    It's my fault for misinterpreting, in that case. I took your posting another innuendo of the kind which immediately before had prompted our statement as a challenge to it, which I then deleted because it didn't seem interested in resolving the disagreement.

    Thank you connrrr and Gaagaagiins (and thank you to everyone Liking their comments) for being honest about your feelings.

    _That these comments were provocative_ is why we're here now, going over this. In the process I hope we haven't hurt anyone's feelings, and that everyone feels safe to make themself heard. I nevertheless recommend we chill out and drop raunchy jokes for now.


    It goes without saying, but I am new to this position and hope you'll all allow me the grace to improve at it.

    i think sex jokes should be fine here (though i also think cooling it for a little bit while this is discussed is wise);

    i‘m not sure how to word this, because i don’t know on which party i should place greater blame, or if there should even be uneven blame, but:

    gaagaagiins‘ wording was (unintentionally) unclear in tone, but the mods seemingly didn’t dm gaagaagiins to clarify this (because they reasonably interpreted a statement made in connection with a joke to be an extension of the joke).

    as well, the tone of the mods‘ and gaagaagiins’ responses were both a tad misplaced, i think

    (sorry if this adds nothing uh)

    @“captain”#p146130 I‘m hungy and tired and I truly did not mean to make my first post back a homework assignment for me or anyone, so, I’ll just say in this moment that I‘m feeling very vindicated for calling the shot that you’d be an excellent moderator, @captain .

    The only thing I‘ll add is that I think “maid reaming” is really funny and I don’t want to lose bawdy humour on here for good.


    @“connrrr”#p146135 The only thing I’ll add is that I think “maid reaming” is really funny and I don’t want to lose bawdy humour on here for good.

    Yyyyeah, tbh, we both were bringing that up as being a double standard in slightly bad faith, since I too think it's really funny

    Can we meet somewhere in the middle and develop some kind of protocol for ensuring that we all collectively do our due diligence as responsible adults and put sexually explicit jokes or discussions concealed behind entirely transparently described spoiler tags or dropdown buttons?

    Such as:...

    ||There's a maid cafe in Japan whose signage makes it look like the place is called "maid reaming" lmao||~1

    ...with the overall gentlelady's agreement that if the joke isn't worth the trouble of properly concealing and tagging it, it probably isn't funny enough to bother anyway?


    ^1 - Sexually aggressive language

    I know we don‘t really do the whole content warning/trigger warning thing on here but I think sex stuff would be a reasonable exception to prove the rule, in recognition of how we are mostly adults who think sex and sexual innuendo is funny (because it is), and who aren’t making sex jokes that depend on regressive or violent attitudes towards sex to begin with because this isn't fucking NeoGAF or wherever is or has been extremely socially regressive, but, you know, minors are at particular risk of being fucked up for the rest of their lives from being exposed to sexual content in the wrong way at the wrong time, and sexual violence and trauma from sexual violence is, to put it mildly, far too common.

    It might further pose a question of whether or not we should do the same for other things that minors are at a magnified risk from, like drugs or drug use, or are just intense subject matter to begin with like graphic violence (videogames!!!!!!!!!), but, you know, if I had to choose one thing we all had to put on an extra layer of protection (pun NOT intended) for others to use on the forums, it'd be sex, easily. I could probably come around to expressing why that is but it'd probably take a lot of musing and words that aren't exceptionally important, you know?


    i think spoilering things with content warnings is a good idea, but i don‘t think it should be a hard, hammered-in-stone rule.

    content warnings are great, but pinning down what does and doesn’t require a content warning is difficult;

    maybe there could be a gentle push for people here to consider using them, but i also think that we can trust everyone here to generally know when a content warning is needed/appropriate.