Staff and BirdBodhisattva- Upheld - ATCT

Status
Not open for further replies.
khan2012

khan2012

Very Tired.
Councillor
Location
North Carolina
Pronouns
He/Him/They/Them
forums.sufficientvelocity.com

2024-AT-12: Staff and BirdBodhisattva Upheld

Dear Arbitrator, I am appealing an Infraction and Threadban on the following thread (link to the Staff infraction post as follows): https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/esquestria-the-house-of-the-sun-a-pony-cultist-experience.71721/page-2050?post=30551125#post-30551125 Before I...
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com

I'm so tired of this tribunal. CW: discussion of sexual assault.
 
Last edited:
I'm genuinely baffled by the argument that making readers argue in favor of an option that is sufficiently bad is inciting rulebreaking behavior.

It is fiction. SV, as a general principle, separates fiction from reality. Advocating for killing someone in a quest is everyday behavior, while we are all aware that outside of a fictional context it would likely be a swift ticket to an infraction (quite possibly a summary ban, depending).

The places where there have historically been issues tend to be ones where the discussion verges on real life events or topics. Discussion of genocide in an alt-history-russia quest came up on the tribunal at some point, I believe?

But frankly, pony cultist simulator quest isn't realistic. It is not attempting to make one draw specific irl parallels.

I dont think it's reasonable to argue, in this context and environment, that voters advocating for the facilitation of sexual assault in a quest is them breaking the rules (unless they do it in a particularly distasteful manner). That's not a standard we apply in any other context.

Why, then, is this different?

Because it feels gross, and crass, and an instinctive reaction to Get It Out is natural in response. I get that.

I don't think that's inherently a bad thing. But it feels like a lot of the council was struggling, here, because they were trying to align the rules with their gut feeling.

And I guess my answer is... don't. Return a tribunal saying "ew, no, we don't want this on our site." Or make the Directors make that decision themselves. Don't contort the rules to make the outcome you want, just say it outright and own up to it.

And preferably change the rules to align better with desired outcomes in response.
 
Last edited:
The fact that this quest won a user choice award says things I don't like to think about the average SV user.

But I can't see why this was upheld, rather then dismissed, given a warning then a formal change in Rule 6 made.
 
Reposted from another thread.
Limabot said:
On one hand, it was a tight vote, so I wouldn't feel too bad.

On the other hand, the fact it was a tight vote kind of raises some unpleasant questions about the future of content ratings on the site. Rule 6 is so vague that several Councilers flipped their votes using very similar lines of logic, and the fact that both a Mature tag and a Disclaimer over every update (albeit in a way I found unideal) were not enough, in my opinion, raises questions on what a Mature tag is even really supposed to mean.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, maybe people just couldn't get past the fact the quest is related to MLP? Like, there are several other things on the site that mention similarly dark things and are un-actioned. Whether or not using certain series makes a work "inherently immature" seems like it could cause issues down the road.
 
I am wondering what the difference is though after reading the whole thing, given I can find at least one quest option, in a non mature quest at that, where it is stated that someone is trying to kill and rape and you help stop them, although it was a small option treated as a gimme. I also have seen another quest where someone is raping people unless you stop them, although it wasn't really a choice in that one and more a story beat.
 
I might share my own thoughts later on.

But more importantly, I would like to publicly thank @picklepikkl for being my advocate. He was willing to work on a tight schedule (so we could get the earlier tribunal window), and he provided me with an invaluable perspective. I am confident I would not have been able to express my points nearly as well if not for him. And given how we "lost", I can at least rest easy that people will believe my words, rather than think I am just thanking him because of a "victory". Because pickle gained my trust almost instantly, and constantly communicated with me throughout the whole process, to the point that I personally suggest anyone who was infracted to seek an Advocate.

So, when Wind-up Citrus tells people to go get an advocate, it is for good reason! And I would like to express my gratitude to (EDIT: )picklepikkl.
 
Last edited:
Sucal said:
The fact that this quest won a user choice award says things I don't like to think about the average SV user.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be fair, while it is characterized in the Tribunal once or twice as "pony rape quest," if that was really the primary draw I feel like it would have generated more than two infractions over it. Presumably, there's something else compelling about it.

Not that I'm going to check, because MLP x Cultist Simulator is a combination that unfavorably disposes me towards its quality. But like, I would hope if that was actually the main draw it would have gotten actioned quite a bit sooner than this.
 
notthepenguins said:
And I guess my answer is... don't. Return a tribunal saying "ew, no, we don't want this on our site." Or make the Directors make that decision themselves. Don't contort the rules to make the outcome you want, just say it outright and own up to it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It really felt, to me, like people were ranging all over to find a reason it was against the rules.

Invoking rule 5 felt kind of... dire. Like "a plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time." :V
 
Unfortunately I couldn't quote the relevant portions of Rule 6, so:

I'd like to argue that the discussion following the update was in fact respectful and aware of exactly what is being advocated for, and attempted to steer past the usual pitfalls of such discussion quite carefully?

Like, why even allow the contents conditionally permitted behind Rule 6 to begin with? What is the (positive) outcomes that the rule-setters that allowed such things wanted to achieve, and why does this particular case not fall under such an umbrella if so?

(Although the content warnings being too broad/unnecesarily repetitive is a fair point here: Do the content warnings need to be backported to previous updates as well?)
 
Last edited:
I certainly know now who I'm not voting for in August. @The_Letter_K continues to not take her job seriously.
The others at least pretended to make judgements under the rules. They still admit they do so arbitrarily, but at least they're not outright saying the council should ignore the rules.
 
Last edited:
Well.

I can't say it wasn't an interesting read.

I general I have to admit that I found the arguments in favour of Overturn pretty convincing, to the extent that I feel it neccesary to agree this should have been an overturn going by the rules... but I'm glad it wasn't.

There are lines, I feel, shouldn't be crossed in a 'casual' setting, that need a serious framework that everyone participating in comprehends and agrees to adhere to, and I honestly cannot imagine that the level of care neccesary to approach the topic of rape in... I guess a 'recreational' way ? what a strange thing to type, was present in some interactive fiction thread. Even giving the option in the context, as I understand it, is utterly beyond the pale, and I find it telling that we are here, again, with BirdBodhisattva, again, about House of the Sun, again.

Slapping a CW on it isn't really enough. It feels to me that the inherent nature of a Quest precludes the inclusion of rape in a appropriate manner where non-interactive fiction does not.

I feel that the rules were tested and found wanting, and need amending in the direction of more clarity and strictness where sexual content, especially outright NC content, in Quests is concerned.
 
Last edited:
This was somewhat predictable ever since the previous tribunal over this same poster, same quest and this same topic.

I'll note that the repeatedly mentioned massive and pointless boilerplate disclaimers on every quest post were added specifically in response to the previous tribunal, and really exemplify in my opinion the whole problem, in that if your take-away from "don't drop mysterious hints implying rape in order to stir up drama in your quest" is "well FINE I'll just add a trigger warning for absolutely everything that might ever come up", that's... pretty immature.
 
I feel slightly insulted I guess? Several of the arguments seems to imply that questors cannot obviously know the option of rape is bad, and that moral quandaries of the greater good vs individual good cannot be argued, which is patently obviously not the case on this site. Several arguments seem to base themselves on that the rape option was just to stir up drama since it OBVIOUSLY wouldn't win, which if they took the time to look at the quest is extremely incorrect. You cannot have seriously read the quest discussion and said that there was no chance the option could have won and that it was made purely to increase discussion, when it was very clearly planned for ahead of time and there was ways for the players to affect it happening.
 
Last edited:
NotInventedHere said:
This was somewhat predictable ever since the previous tribunal over this same poster, same quest and this same topic.

I'll note that the repeatedly mentioned massive and pointless boilerplate disclaimers on every quest post were added specifically in response to the previous tribunal, and really exemplify in my opinion the whole problem, in that if your take-away from "don't drop mysterious hints implying rape in order to stir up drama in your quest" is "well FINE I'll just add a trigger warning for absolutely everything that might ever come up", that's... pretty immature.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I didn't really like the CWs on all the posts either, as I felt either a banner on the whole Quest or more personalized ones would have been better.

However, I would also like note that the previous trial didn't really say what should be done instead.
 
I do feel that this is a heavily emotional issue and that played deeply into this, but this does feel like a case that the rules as written were not broken and that all content that was written was written with appropriate maturity and not glorified or any such thing and that the story is tagged and warns you (excessively in fact) about what content is possible to happen in it and does not mislead you about this or what can happen from your choices
 
Limabot said:
Also, maybe people just couldn't get past the fact the quest is related to MLP? Like, there are several other things on the site that mention similarly dark things and are un-actioned. Whether or not using certain series makes a work "inherently immature" seems like it could cause issues down the road.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I asked about this earlier in the council chat and replies said they'd treat it identically regardless of setting.
EDIT: I also asked if I could repeat that. :V

So, I'd venture to guess that similar things going un-actioned is just people not reporting them.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Bird handled things as well as they could have in the context of the story, and that the decision staff arrived at shows that there is no degree of "respect" you can give this topic to make it acceptable on SV. I can't help but conclude that this is a failure of the rules, not Bird, and as such changes should likely be made to clarify what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of staff.

And to Bird, I would personally recommend slowly moving the quest elsewhere so that your decisions regarding the story aren't influenced by the rules of the site. The last thing I want as a reader is for your vision to be compromised by the platform it's being shared on. I would recommend Questionable Questing as it has a very similar layout, but I'm sure there's others I don't know of.
 
BirdBodhisattva said:
I might share my own thoughts later on.

But more importantly, I would like to publicly thank @picklepikkl for being my advocate. He was willing to work on a tight schedule (so we could get the earlier tribunal window), and he provided me with an invaluable perspective. I am confident I would not have been able to express my points nearly as well if not for him. And given how we "lost", I can at least rest easy that people will believe my words, rather than think I am just thanking him because of a "victory". Because pickle gained my trust almost instantly, and constantly communicated with me throughout the whole process, to the point that I personally suggest anyone who was infracted to seek an Advocate.

So, when Wind-up Citrus tells people to go get an advocate, it is for good reason! And I would like to express my gratitude to him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Her. I am she/her.
 
NotInventedHere said:
This was somewhat predictable ever since the previous tribunal over this same poster, same quest and this same topic.

I'll note that the repeatedly mentioned massive and pointless boilerplate disclaimers on every quest post were added specifically in response to the previous tribunal, and really exemplify in my opinion the whole problem, in that if your take-away from "don't drop mysterious hints implying rape in order to stir up drama in your quest" is "well FINE I'll just add a trigger warning for absolutely everything that might ever come up", that's... pretty immature.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While this is a way to look at it, I honestly thought of another problem when I wondered how to include trigger warnings.

Specifically, there were several arguments that "people feel invested in the quest". Maugan Ra mentioned his friends felt that way, and at least one councilor mentioned she was a reader until she was not. More importantly, since the quest is a crossover that involves My Little Pony, I can say that most of the quest involves wholesome moments.

So, I need my readers to understand that "this is a horror quest" even while they read those wholesome moments. In fact, I believe it is better if a person drops the quest because they saw a trigger warning in an update that was wholesome, rather than having them read until they finally bump into the content they find upsetting. To "spare" them of getting invested in the wholesomeness-heavy story, only to later realize it might not be their cup of tea.

But how can I inform readers of that, if not by constantly reminding them of that? The "sticky post" at the top of every page certainly was not enough. And the "mature" tag on the thread, also, did not seem to have much effect. And although I understand that including a "tailored" trigger warning only on posts that have upsetting content might have some effect, I also need to remind people that "hey, do you see this wholesome update about a birthday of your daughter? Well, this is STILL a horror story. Please keep that in mind."

That was an issue I had. And that, unfortunately, I have not yet found the answer to.
 
Last edited:
It is disheartening to read the opinions of the councilors who are so eager to assume the worst. To assume malicious intent. They had a point in the boilerplate trigger warnings not being sufficient, and that there should be tailored trigger warnings for each update. Speculation that this is the author's method to 'get off' does not endear me to their opinions.
 
I think the Council came to right decision, however narrowly and with some seesawing.

That said, I do not think that offering a rape option in a quest, especially in a quest where the characters are apparently horses, is evenly remotely acceptable and that should be fairly simple to decide immediately that this material verboten. There is no reason for intense debate about that; "Upheld" was the reasonable answer here.
 
428 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top