[Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Summary:

Yet more discussion on this

page 1 of 212next »

[Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 08:27

05 link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15170408/policy-discussion-age-policy-changes

Following the previous discussion, this thread is put up to discuss the potential implementation of an age unraising and any additional policies which should or need to be changed. It is asked that this thread (mostly) be approached under the assumption that the policy does indeed pass, in order to make this discussion as efficient as can be and not end up with a half-hearted policy that appeases neither side.

The previous discussion has resulted in some fruitful discussion and interesting points brought up, summarized below, but some of the points ended up being irreconcilable or simply subjective.

The arguments in full

Impossibility of Discussion

• Many of the points raised both for and against the change assume the existence or lack thereof of minors onsite, their amount, and what they go through. Due to the lack of any data in any particular direction of such events, these points are impossible to argue about. (1, 2)

This is Pointless

• Many of the users involved in these discussions talk over eachother or have their minds already set in stone, making this discussion somewhat of a charade. (1)

Age Gate Effectiveness

• An 18+ age gate would be trivial for most 16/17 year olds to pass, due to a reasonable similarity in maturity and the ability to lie.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• Additionally, it's likely that many minors are already on the site and we're simply unaware (willingly or otherwise) of the fact. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • In either case, it's impossible to know, as we have no data on the amount of people who lie on apps. (1)
  • It should be acknowledged, however, that this policy is unenforcable in the absolute majority of cases, and only distances policy from practical reality. (1, 2)
• A commercial age verification system may be able to adequately solve this issue in regards to users who join in the future. (1)
  • Any age verification system could be scary to users who appreciate the internet's anonymity. (1)

Minors, not Toddlers

• Much of the discussion frames 16/17 year olds as being more immature than they are, making it unproductive. (1)
  • Adequately mature 16/17 year olds are the exception, not the rule. (1)

Historical Precedence

• The site has had a 15+ year gate for many years, and operated fine in regards to maturity, content, etc., whereas much of the discussion is framed as to ignore this. (1)

Staff Overwork

• More minors would create more maturity issues for staff and stress them out. In particular, Crit staff. (1)
  • As staff are meant to serve the community and not the opposite, a ruling that is based on staff overwork is flawed. (1)
    • As staff are unpaid volunteers, their workload should still be considered. (1)
  • With recent changes to Crit's functioning, they believe they can handle an change in limit. (1)
• Zyn notes that she's seen less vehement response to criticism and maturity issues on the forums, and less creepy DMs. (1)

Upvote Addictions

• Minors could develop upvote addictions which would negatively impact their health. (1)
  • Due to the "Age Gate Effectiveness" issue outlined above, this issue will occur regardless. Additionally, this issue is also present with the adults of the site, and so is unrelated to the age limit. (1)

An Issue of Priorities

• The age limit change was brought forth to deal with abuse, however the proper solution should instead be to treat the actual abuse rather than shift the issue to the abused. (1, 2, 3)
  • The rhetoric around how to minimize liability rather than protecting the userbase is "ghoulish". (1)

Abuser Blackmail

• If a minor is abused on the wiki, their abuser holds leverage by threatening to reveal their age publicly and getting them banned. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • AHT currently has an amnesty clause for cases involving minors. (1)
    • The general userbase's lack of knowledge regarding this clause proves it's not enough to counteract the fear users could experience. (1)
    • This clause, and any such similar clause, has inherent problems if and when the abuser provides publicly available proof. (1, 2, 3)
      • Any proof posted by an AHT'd user can simply be ignored. (1)
  • People of all ages are hestitant to report sexual harrassment, and so this is a strawman. (1, 2)

Staff Reach

• Staff should not be expected to moderate offsite communities. (1)
  • While staff shouldn't be expected to moderate all of the offsite, willingly ignoring events on the offsite would endanger the community. Additionnally, Disc and AHT already do take into account off-site events, making this an odd point. (1)

Subjective Maturity

• Maturity has more to do with social factors than it does with any inherent biological ones, and being 18 doesn't make someone suddenly mature. Were it about this, the age limit should be 25. (1)

An Anomaly in Limits

• Almost all other SCP-related spaces allow 16+ users, and the wiki is the only one that does not. (1, 2, 3)
  • The discord, allowing 16+ users, has shown to be welcoming to them and handling their existence well. (1)
  • By being in allowed in all such spaces, especially the non-official ones, they're already as exposed to potential predators as they would be on the main site. (1, 2)
• The solution should be the opposite - to increase said spaces's limit to 18+. (1, 2)
  • This solution would not solve the problem, and merely exacerbate it due to the "Lesser of Two Spaces" point detailed below. (1)

Amount of Users

• This policy would stop a large amount of users from joining the wiki, many of which could be prolific or influential users. (1)
  • The wiki is already bursting at the seams with content, so this could exacerbate the content overflow issue. (1, 2)
  • Said users would likely just lie to join and create content. (1)
  • "More content" should not be a reason to put users in danger. (1, 2, 3)
• The idea that the users would "just wait" ignores the possibility of a user losing interest in the span of two years. (1)

Unprepared Staff

• Staff's systems are not built to handle minor harrassment cases to an acceptable degree. (1, 2, 3)
• Staff's efforts should focus on pointing to out-of-site resources rather than trying to play "heroes". (1)

Children in Adult Spaces

• Having minors in adult spaces is inherently irresponsible. (1, 2)

Community-Popular Predators

• Staff has, in the past, acted in henious ways towards minors and keeping the wiki 18+ could help avoid this. (1)
  • This age limit does not solve the problem of harrassment, but rather moves it to other spaces inhabiting the same users, and so only cleans staff's conscious. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Especially so, as the majority of harrassment occurs on offsite spaces such as IRC or Discord rather than the mainsite. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • This policy would only move the "blame" for harrassment from staff to the harrassed users. (1, 2, 3)

Lesser of Two Spaces

• By being in official spaces, we can reduce minors's involvement in unofficial spaces which often have little to no protection. (1, 2, 3, 4)

Limit as Status Quo

• The limit should not be assumed to be a default, as it is an ongoing change to the status quo and comes with its own set of problems. (1)
  • The limit is assumed as a default due to protecting a vulnerable group. (1)
    • It's argued the limit is negatively impacting said group, and therefore this reasoning fails. (1)

Undelivered Promise

• Many of the age limit's supposed pros were overturned by the passage of time or never come to be in the first place. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Neither of the proposed options will adequately solve the mentioned issues. (1)
  • The issues the age limit raise didn't solve should be solved before a lowering is even discussed. (1)
    • As the age raising is used as a rhetorical band-aid to avoid resolving said issues, lowering the age limit would speed this process up. (1)

Welcoming Queer Community

• As the site is an openly welcoming queer community, it can help users who feel otherwise excluded to develop their writing skills. (1)
  • As queer people are more likely to be harassed online, this indicates a larger need for user protection. (1)

Option-Select Rhetoric

• Much of the discussion is framed as if staff reducing the age limit and staff listening to their userbase are mutually exclusive options, which ignores the parts of the userbase which support the change, and make the conversation devolve faster. (1, 2)

---

Key questions to discuss:

• Where should the age limit be updated if/when we change it?
• What additional policies should be looked at as a result of this change?
  • In particular, what changes would be required to the Anti-Harrassment/Disc Teams, if any?

This discussion will go on for a week.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 11 Sep 2022 11:56

not end up with a half-hearted policy that appeases neither side.

Heaven forfend.

What additional policies should be looked at as a result of this change?

What's the deal with Adult Content Warnings? Are staff going to lower it 16+? Or just do a don't ask/don't tell sort of thing for people who vote/comment on such works?

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 12:18

Probably stay the same. They’re still adult warnings. Remember the site age limit isn’t even at 18 yet and we still put these up.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 11 Sep 2022 13:02

Then there should probably be some modification to it. Having a big sign that says "do not read unless 18+" and then having a de facto policy of "but if you are under 18, you can also read, vote on it, and comment on it!" is strange.

I don't particularly care what minors read on the site, but this seems like it's worth bringing up now that we are assuming the move towards a 18+ membership is being reversed.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 13:06 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 13:14

Eh, no other social media platform does anything here, even when they do host NSFW content.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 11 Sep 2022 13:18

no other social media platform does anything here

What relevance does this have to site policy?

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 14:04

Having a big sign that says "do not read unless 18+" and then having a de facto policy of "but if you are under 18, you can also read, vote on it, and comment on it!" is strange.

We can't really do anything about that without wikidot-level access, and having a bunch of articles with straight up gore and sexual harassment in them not tagged as being 18+ is…

yeah. not good.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 11 Sep 2022 14:54

having a bunch of articles with straight up gore and sexual harassment in them not tagged as being 18+ is…

yeah. not good.

On that, at least, we are in agreement.

But having two different strata of users (16-17 and 18+) who are - at least in theory - supposed to interact with content differently seems bad.

One way to resolve this is by raising the site age to 18+. However, this thread is based on the assumption we will be doing the opposite of that, so that's not an option.

Another way is to say "16 year-olds are mature enough to be site members, therefore they are old enough to read sexual harassment and gore" and just knock the age warning stuff down to 16+. Non-members below that age would still be able to click through the warning, but non-members are outside of site jurisdiction by definition. There's probably a bunch of legal issues, but I am not a lawyer and anyway we were told to ignore legal questions in the initial thread.

Yet another option is to make it so that any user known to be under 18 who comments on an adult article gets a warning, with escalating consequences for subsequent comments. This option would be a lot of work for staff and probably alienate a bunch of people, but it does avoid the problem of "you must be 18 (wink, wink)" that the status quo has.

Neither are particularly appealing options, but since, for purposes of this thread, we are assuming that the age limit will be lowered back down to 16+, they are the only two I can think of. Definitely open to other suggestions, though.

e: Also, as for "the status quo allows/allowed this," there is a significant difference. First, the current status quo was to bump up the age to 18+, which gets rid of the problem of "users under the age of 18 are interacting with articles intended for mature adults." Since it appears that it is being reversed, that's again not an option.

The prior status quo - "we have 18+ articles and a memberbase that includes people under that age limit, but it's fine whatever" - was bad and also the result of multiple decisions made in isolation. It was defensible only insofar as it wasn't seriously examined at the time.

If we are going to change site policy to (re-) allow underaged users, it is absolutely the responsibility of those who have pushed for this policy change to also address this new issue that will arise as a result of their preferred policy outcome.

ee: Another possibility that was raised in 05 was deleting/relocating all NSFW/18+ content. Doing that unilaterally seems like an incredibly bad idea and one that I strongly advise against. It's hard to read it as anything beyond a huge "fuck you" to people who wrote for the site in good faith. This goes double for people who took it upon themselves to label their work as adult even when lacking sexual elements (I don't have statistics on how many authors chose to do this, but I assume MAST does).

Deleting stuff is a terrible idea. Don't do it.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 00:41 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Dr Sage Evergreen 11 Sep 2022 14:49

Here's my personal take on a lot of the implementation issues.

• Commercial Age Verification System: We should be trying to get folks to stop revealing age and personal info on the internet. I'm personally fine with giving my age since that's anonymous enough, but I don't want to be scanning my driver's license just so I can get access to forums. I value my anonymity. Even if staff aren't seeing this information, I don't want to reveal my personal info to a random individual online. If I was required to provide all this information so I could stay on the SCP wiki, let alone join it, that would probably get me to leave. And I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
• Abuse: Admittedly I didn't know about the amnesty clause until I read through this thread. But lack of knowledge doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work. It just means that there isn't visibility on the policy. Maybe it could be put somewhere more easy-to-see? Possibly in the application to join the wiki?
• Staff Work: I'm not staff, I can't speak too much on this, but couldn't banning 16/17 yo members possibly create more issues and work for staff once it comes time to implement discipline for people found violating such policies? There are a lot of counter-arguments, base-by-base cases, etc that might be made and deliberating all of that will likely be exhausting after some time.
  • At the same time, expecting "mature" 16/17 yos to just act like an adult and blend in so the policy doesn't affect them seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
• Off-site spaces & Discord: Only issue is that some folks who end up in off-site spaces but don't have on-site profiles might quickly be figured out as underage. It may be unlikely, but it is plausible.

That's about it for my thoughts, but I'm open to discussing any of this further.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

DrRevan 11 Sep 2022 19:46

I second the points you brought up for the Commercial Age Verification and Abuse sections.
Regardless of which stance in this debate ultimately gets implemented, we should be encouraging individuals to not reveal their personal information online. In my opinion, an Age Verification system could not only be a deterrent to individuals looking to join, but could also pose a serious security risk should their be any sort of breach (I'm no expert on cybersecurity, so I'm not sure of the likelihood of a breach, but regardless, the risk could very well still be there).

As for the Staff Work portion, I'm not staff either, but in a way, regardless of which one gets implemented, it's probably a give and take. If the age limit stays 18, I'm sure there would be more cases involving the violation of such policies. Alternatively, were the age limit be lowered, there could be a work increase for teams like the Crit Team with more posts to manage, and any potential violations of such posts.

As for the Discord portion, that is a possibility, but there's also the possibility that there are just individuals on the Discord who don't necessarily have the intention of actually joining the site.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 19:47 by DrRevan Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

UraniumEmpire 11 Sep 2022 16:55

not end up with a half-hearted policy that appeases neither side.

If you want a policy that appeases "both sides", you won't get it by lowering the age limit. I think caveats for AHT and security are fine and good¹, but stick to your guns one way or the other, because there's nothing you can do either way that will appease everybody.

What additional policies should be looked at as a result of this change?

INCORPORATE. YOU HAVE TO INCORPORATE. YOU ARE REMOVING A VITAL BIT OF LEGAL PROTECTION BY LOWERING² THE AGE LIMIT. NOT REGISTERING AS A LIMITED LIABILITY ORGANIZATION MAY FURTHER PUT EVEN USERS IN DANGER OF LITIGATION.³

It is asked that this thread (mostly) be approached under the assumption that the policy does indeed pass

[Rescinding the strike, pending a decision from other Third Law contributers. It would be unfair to force them to partake against their will.]

Footnotes

1. Necessary in either case, even!

2. "Unraising" is a slimy euphemism.

3. Note that this paragraph is not legal advice, as I am not qualified to give that.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 20:21 by UraniumEmpire Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Cassandra_Prime 11 Sep 2022 17:20

In regards to the concerns re:litigation, I would like to re-iterate that it is my understanding that we would not make changes to the current age policy, re: lowering the age gate, without consulting a lawyer.

And it is also my understanding that we would again have this discussion to verify that with the new information we'd get from talking to a legal professional we would again have this discussion in that light, as staff have currently been asked re: the current discussion to discuss as if it were not a legal issue (since whenever we do talk legality, many of us in staff do not know what we are talking about but confidently act as if we do).

All that to say that just remember, even if everybody in staff and the user base was for changing the age gate (which people evidently are not) we'd be (from my understanding) discussing with a legal professional, and then having another discussion where we may change our collective decision about on the matter of the age gate, now with legal arguments ™, because for some people, like myself, legal liability will go a long way, longer than any other argument I've heard so far, in my vote on the matter.

edit: grammar fix

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 17:21 by Cassandra_Prime Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 19:41

If you want a policy that appeases "both sides", you won't get it by lowering the age limit.

I know, that's not what we're trying to do. We're in agreement that if we pick a direction we should go with it, and as such - this is for a hypothetical scenario where we agree to lower the age. let's not half-ass it.

You're already losing major drivers of Trashfire and Third Law, possibly also S&C Plastics, but lets see who else responds with support.

ok have fun.

Seriously, why just use this as a vague threat all the time? This isn't adding anything to the discussion, not giving us anything to work with in any direction, just a vague "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." If you want to shut down your stuff, that is your choice, but the site can survive without any given amount of authors just fine.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 11 Sep 2022 21:10

I will say here is that it is nearly impossible to get a discussion here that is going to have a useful direction with the way things are currently being done. If you wanted a discussion on how to deal with lowering the age gate, it would have been best to do it before the argument on whether it is right or not to do. Because now a lot of users who normally would contribute to something like this are far more likely not to be willing due to not wanting to accept that this will happen.

The other way this could have worked, specifically with the other convo having already happened, if you all wanted to find a decent solution would be by stepping back and admitting the policy as it is has flaws and use this as an opportunity to look for better or at the very least more popular means of improving the site's heath and safety along with trying to find ways that would make users see age-unraising as more acceptable. When you put something into a discussion position like this, it makes it feel like you are saying "well, the vote will pass, so lets stop thinking about whether it should or not and get to work making it better!" — and remember here I am saying I understand that this isn't likely the intentions of those involved. I get that this likely had well-meaning intentions behind it. I find fault with the execution of this post rather than the intention behind it— which comes off as extremely lacking in tact on the part of whoever organized this post.

Finally, I would like to end this section of this by asking a question to those who both worked on pushing this policy and making it in the first place, did you at any point during the process of making this policy ask some of the more experienced members of either the site or staff for advice? Because to be quite honest it feels like, from an outsider perspective, that the ones in charge of doing this all did it without making use of the walking talking history banks that is many of the more experienced users on this site. I know for a fact that some staff teams were completely caught off guard by the re-bringing up of this topic, so I genuinely feel it is important to know whether you all made any serious attempts to get 2nd opinions or thoughts on alternative routes of completing your objectives. Or at the very least asked for proofreading on the posts like these.

---

As for your other questions:

• Where should the age limit be updated if/when we change it?

Honestly doesn't matter. Your reasoning for this policy change could be used to change it to anywhere from 16 to 6. I would say 17 because that is as little of a change as possible, but the sentiment for 16 appears to be the norm.

• What additional policies should be looked at as a result of this change?

First and foremost, you would need way more support for the forum crit team, as the forums would likely be far more prone to extreme influxes of users due to things like Markiplier videos on SCP or new games or other media about SCP being brought into the public conscious. Secondly, there would need to be a revamp of how we treat NSFW things as very obviously it would be problematic to keep any of it on the website if we are allowing minors in. Regardless of whether they will come in anyways, it is extremely problematic to just keep NSFW content in an easy to read section if we are going to say "this is a site that minors can join".

• In particular, what changes would be required to the Anti-Harrassment/Disc Teams, if any?

I will be straight with you here, there is nothing that can be done currently to solve the issues I have with untrained workers working with trauma victims. I mean, if you all want to hire someone to be in charge of this process who has formal training, I guess that would work (although there would obviously need to be checks and balances for this person as well), but as far as I know hiring someone onto the site with money would likely not be feasible. Otherwise, the whole of staff are going to make decisions that could likely lead to negative consequences to victims without intending.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 22:08 by Shanor Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Djoric 18 Sep 2022 15:15

Because to be quite honest it feels like, from an outsider perspective, that the ones in charge of doing this all did it without making use of the walking talking history banks that is many of the more experienced users on this site.

Big time. The fact that I'm seeing people I remember from a literal decade ago in this thread (and that they are nearly all unified against this proposal) is something that shouldn't be, but is, being ignored and tossed aside.

Sometimes it pays to listen to the people with experience.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Mr Carbon 18 Sep 2022 18:27

Excuse me. I resemble that remark.

Honestly, though, I expect that if any “unraising” (lowering!) proposal so far put forward is put in front of any competent US¹ liability attorney they are likely to advise against it. What some folks here would like to be true regarding this issue doesn’t quite match up to the realities of what the big bad outside world has decided.

Footnotes

1. I see folks talking about international standards, but Wikidot is incorporated in the United States

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

UraniumEmpire 11 Sep 2022 23:00

http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15170408/policy-discussion-age-policy-changes#post-5576462

stormbreath brought this up as an issue with the age lowering policy. Essentially, what are you going to do about the NSFW pages on a site without an 18+ age limit? Are you going to have to delete them? Because I shouldn't have to say why the unilateral deletion of positively-rated and rule-abiding articles is a bad thing, especially for something as nebulous as "adult content".

The last time we did anything close to this was the Mass Edits, something that'd never pass a discussion thread today, and even those were attempting to control for quality, rather than content. How could anyone be sure you'd stop there? What if the precedent is used to wipe the site of emotionally challenging articles, or is extended to nebulous notions of the "problematic"?

However Age Lowering goes through, you either need to find a solution that doesn't fuck over the people who gave up their free time to enrich the site, or you need to abandon lowering the age limit entirely.

EDIT: It doesn't fucking matter if Staff has a strict definition of "adult content" (they don't, and the fact that I had to correct at least three of the staff-added content warnings should be proof enough), using that to justify the wholesale removal of positively-rated, rule-abiding articles is borderline ghoulish.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 02:07 by UraniumEmpire Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Vezaz 12 Sep 2022 01:32

In my experience, only teenagers under 18 are unable to accept that teenagers are immature and still far from adulthood. Thus, anyone who passionately believes the age limit should be lowered can reasonably be assumed to be underage, and banned post haste.

---

I sing of arms and the man
Storm-tossed by Hera's jealousy

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OriTiefling 12 Sep 2022 01:44

This is an insanely bad faith argument and I believe you're fully aware of that fact.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 12 Sep 2022 01:53

I would argue that such a statement ignores the experiences of others who disagree and doesn't fit within the reality that many within this site who act normally are underage without us knowing. Let's try not to start any "anyone who disagrees proves I am right" arguments. They aren't conducive to a healthy discussion.

I disagree with the age lowering for a multitude of reasons, but people should be able to disagree with me and not be attacked or retaliated against for it.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

UncannyClown276 12 Sep 2022 02:03

this take is exactly the quality this thread deserves

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

A Random Day 12 Sep 2022 02:39

Why does this thread exist when we haven't even established if we can or should lower the age limit from 18 at all? As far as I'm aware the entire premise of what psychicprogrammer and OptimisticLucio are suggesting is moot if the law requires us to keep the age limit where it is. Half of the arguments against raising age limits are predicated on it and no lawyer has answered that question for staff. The site has always operated in intensely legally grey areas with regards to sexual harassment cases and there is no universe in which the law will view lowering the age limit of participation to 16 (or, god forbid, back to 15) when some sexual harassment incident grows big enough to actually involve them.

Keeping the age limit of our mainsite at 18, and extending that age restriction to all platforms officially affiliated with us, continues to be the solution with the most bang for its buck of making our platform a safer and kinder place for our community. Adding a complete amnesty clause for underage victims of sexual harassment is an equally simple solution to the oft-propped strawman of "if you are underage you will be hesitant to come forth and report harassment". To be frank, being sexually harassed is bad enough by itself. Keeping the age limit at 18 is both about legal responsibility and enforcing a standard of maturity that enhances discussion and creativity on the platform. It's also easier to judge than its critics claim it is.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 12 Sep 2022 05:30

Because if we want to vote on it and whether it’s a good idea, we need to know the actual meat of the policy we’ll be voting on. (Beyond just being a good idea, it’s required by the charter.) Additionally, if a lawyer wants to see if this’ll put us in legal trouble, the lawyer needs to know the extent of what we’re doing.

Doing a vote or going to a lawyer with vague ideas and nothing hard is extremely dangerous.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 05:31 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 12 Sep 2022 12:00

The nuts and bolts of how a policy will be implemented seems like something you would want to settle before a public and very acrimonious discussion of whether a policy should be implemented. As it is, this seems like (a portion of) staff deciding get "community input" by crowdsourcing a policy that (significant portions of) the community have voiced a strong opposition to.

At best, this makes it seem like the pro-lowering side didn't consider very basic issues before pushing for the change in policy (I'm sorry, but "actually the stuff that's 18+ is fine for 15 year-olds to read" is a terrible argument). At worst, it seems like an attempt to make the policy change a fiat accompli and toss a participation trophy at the community.

I am not trying to impute bad faith, and I recognize that it's easy for me to criticize from the outside and in retrospect. I'm just saying how it looks to someone who until this thread was posted was just vaguely anti-lowering.

Last edited on 15 Sep 2022 15:34 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 12 Sep 2022 14:49

I am not trying to impute bad faith

…You want me to speak frankly here? It is really hard for me to believe that. I'm trying, and still talking to you as normal, but almost all of your posts are assuming a level of malice or pretentiousness when we wanted people to have more input. This is a very important vote that last time went atrociously exactly because it was behind closed doors until posting, so this time we wanted it to be all in the air to make sure nothing burns down.

Also can we please for the love of god stop ignoring the users who are here and also talking in favor of the age change, jesus fucking christ. I'm actually getting bothered at how often people are phrasing things to ignore them or imply they're a discardable minority.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

rumetzen 12 Sep 2022 15:14

Perhaps people genuinely think this is a terrible idea and what you're interpreting as bad faith or maliciousness is real frustration at how badly staff is fumbling this.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 15:16 by rumetzen Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Djoric 18 Sep 2022 15:09

Couldn't say it better myself.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

The Pighead 15 Sep 2022 17:20

Adding a complete amnesty clause for underage victims of sexual harassment is an equally simple solution to the oft-propped strawman of "if you are underage you will be hesitant to come forth and report harassment".

I wish to highlight this because I think that this is a very good idea. Of course, it would need some irons but it would solve a lot of problems.

And honestly, seeing as how this entire discussion became more and more of a complete ruckus, I'm less and less convinced changing or lowering anything would be even worth it.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Sirslash47 12 Sep 2022 09:44

The linking in the arguments is great.

I've seen the argument of deleting positively rated nsfw content has been made. I believe the following on that;

It is against site rules (above treshhold and not rule breaking content). The wiki houses all types of fiction, whether fan of it or not (open writing community that isn't limited in topics and hasn't been since forever). A good adult splash page/info module is in its right place but deleting content that already is on site is a massive overreach of staff powers.

We should not delete already existing content to bring in other/more creators and more of their content. This argument isn't in the best interest of the wiki nor users, which is what staff is supposed to aim for.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 12 Sep 2022 09:56

To be perfectly honest I don't think anyone has seriously pushed the idea of getting rid of all adult content from the site. Mostly the discussion around it has been that such a thing would likely need to be done, so long as a better solution isn't found, if this policy were to go through.

It's more about pointing out the sacrifices this site will need to make to work within this policy. If we do this we're gonna lose out in many ways. Hence why I'm a proponent of finding other ways that don't affect the content or culture of the site.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Sirslash47 12 Sep 2022 10:13

I'm thankful no one is pushing it afaik but the argument shouldn't even have been made. (Although it shows a glaring issue which is important, so perhaps it should have.)

Even if unraising goes through, this alone already isn't worth it. You cannot remove parts of the wiki/change the wiki's existing content for people that atm can't directly contribute.¹ You may add your own content when you join should you want that, not remove that from another (even before you possibly joined). I get that something might be worked out, but if we take unraising passes the vote (as was the purpose of this thread), this gonna have to be sooner instead of later or unraising has a glaring fault.

The original arguments aren't even addressed then. I'm going to agree with the people that say: those in favour of unraising should make proposals etc. (which the current forum is good aid for) but how further we go how clearer 18+ seems to me.

Footnotes

1. Don't get me wrong adjusting for on- and offsite readers like adding splash pages (not the actual page/content) is something I support. But this is more extreme.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 10:15 by Sirslash47 Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 12 Sep 2022 10:37

I'm thankful no one is pushing it afaik but the argument shouldn't even have been made.

I disagree. The argument needed to be made to properly identify and explain the faults within the idea. Because I genuinely mean it that something to the degree of this will need to happen if we lower the age limit. It is very obviously unethical to allow 18+ content on a wiki that allows those under 18 to join. This is a sacrifice that would need to be made, unless once again someone finds a better way of doing things, if we decided to lower the age limit. The site's culture and policy is trumped by basic ethical standards — I mean, if we didn't do that this site would still be a cesspool of 4chan users harassing newbies on the daily.

The reason I say no one is pushing it however is because I, nor anyone pointing this out so far, are pushing for the policy. The fact is this change would need to be made, and should be included within the proposal as it is necessary; for me though, this is just a way to further show that this idea isn't going to work. It should be within the final proposal, and as such will need to be considered during the final vote.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 10:38 by Shanor Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 12 Sep 2022 11:43

It is very obviously unethical to allow 18+ content on a wiki that allows those under 18 to join.

Only if you assume there is no possible other way to de-incentivize minors accessing this content, or to monitor it to an acceptable degree.

If they want to access adult content they will find ways to access adult content, whether here or somewhere else. If the SCP smut moves to AO3 it won't be hard to find it there, so the answer to "will they find NSFW stuff" is "yes, with or without us." The reason why no one's pushing for Storm's suggestion is because it's very absolutist, and there's likely ways of putting warnings or improving our adult rating system (like WizzBlizz suggested) to have a better system without going full nuclear.

How exactly?

Great question, that's what this thread is for. I don't know the specific answer, but storm's suggestion is useful to point out potential pitfalls and for us to discuss them. Hell, we already found possible solutions in response to him.

I earnestly don't get why storm's suggestion is being seen as "the only moral thing to do" when it is so radical and there's ways to improve it.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 11:46 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 12 Sep 2022 13:17

If they want to access adult content they will find ways to access adult content, whether here or somewhere else. If the SCP smut moves to AO3 it won't be hard to find it there, so the answer to "will they find NSFW stuff" is "yes, with or without us."

I don't see how this is relevant to the question of what site policy on articles with smut (or gore or abuse or what have you). Is the argument that this constitutes harm reduction by giving minors access to 18+ articles here so they don't learn about it on the streets? Minors have no issue accessing all sorts of horrendous content - the issue is whether they can easily do so on this particular website, over which staff has jurisdiction.

improving our adult rating system (like WizzBlizz suggested) to have a better system without going full nuclear.

The suggestion was "say that the stuff that is currently rated 18+ is actually just 15+ because if you think about it, it's not that bad." The post begins with the words "If this issue is going to shoot down the proposal." It's basically trying to make an issue go away by defining it as "not a problem."

If storm's suggestion is draconian, declaring previously 18+ works to be okay for minors by fiat is unserious.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 12 Sep 2022 13:45

Is the argument that this constitutes harm reduction by giving minors access to 18+ articles here so they don't learn about it on the streets?

Not exactly, I’ll try to clarify. The goal of making it impossible for minors to be able to access adult content with enough stubbornness is impossible, so our methods of improving the situation should aim towards minimization rather than anything that’s “all or nothing.” If the goal is “to make minors not do X,” then the fact that it’s impossible needs to be taken into account to not result in a policy that doesn’t accomplish its goals and harms people on the way there. We agree that this shouldn’t be encouraged and should probably be minimized, so we can focus on that.

If storm's suggestion is draconian, declaring previously 18+ works to be okay for minors by fiat is unserious.

Wizz wasn’t saying to make everything 15+, but rather that the majority of our adult-flagged content is not major enough to be 18+. The suggestion isn’t to say “smut for kids” but rather make the warning system more thorough, possibly with different age ratings(?).

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 13:46 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 12 Sep 2022 14:55

If the goal is “to make minors not do X,” then the fact that it’s impossible needs to be taken into account to not result in a policy that doesn’t accomplish its goals and harms people on the way there.

The goal isn't "to make minors not do X." To my understand, what staff has jurisdiction over is the material that is available on-site and what site members can interact with.

The goal is to make it so that site members do not have access to/interact with age-inappropriate materials. There is an obvious solution, but this thread exists on the assumption that we are not doing that.

Wizz wasn’t saying to make everything 15+, but rather that the majority of our adult-flagged content is not major enough to be 18+

According to whom? This was just asserted by Wizz, who also made it clear in the previous thread that they are extremely pro-lowering. I don't think that we need a panel of literary experts or that it needs to held to the most stringent line possible, but this mostly comes across as a post-hoc solution by someone who really wants the policy to change (again, they led with "If this issue is going to shoot down the proposal," which makes it seem like the justification was offered in service of getting the policy through).

The suggestion isn’t to say “smut for kids” but rather make the warning system more thorough, possibly with different age ratings(?).

How does this fundamentally change anything? If we currently have 100 stories that are tagged as adult, and then reclassify 60 of them as okay for 15 year olds to read, we still have 40 adult stories on a site where we have members who are minors.

Besides which, having more detailed warnings doesn't change anything - underaged members can still interact with age-inappropriate content.

Last edited on 13 Sep 2022 10:38 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 12 Sep 2022 21:48

+ This one's a doozy

The goal of making it impossible for minors to be able to access adult content with enough stubbornness is impossible, so our methods of improving the situation should aim towards minimization rather than anything that’s “all or nothing.”

Ok, so it appears, at least for me, that we have different standards for ethical practice. Quite honestly I do not believe that a 16 year old watching pornography or things dealing with tough issues is unethical. At the end of the day kids seeing those things will, at least to my knowledge, rarely be heavily affected unless there are outside circumstances that could influence them. However, that is true for people above 18 as well, it's just somewhat more likely with kids. So the ethical issue for me doesn't come from kids watching smut or gore. The issue comes from whether the website creates a community that simplifies such a process. You are correct smut will still exist on AO3 or other places if we were to do such a thing. However what that means is that kids would be less likely to randomly come upon it on our website. If we allow 16 year-olds on, we are saying we believe they have the maturity to behave properly on this website. So if we were to keep adult content on here, we would basically be telling one of the age-group's most likely to overestimate their own maturity that they are mature enough for juuussssst about everything, but will need to wait 2 years because they couldn't handle this other bit of stuff. That is how it will come off to 16 year-olds. The job of staff should be to make it as difficult and tedious as possible to let children see these things, not to wipe them out entirely. The best way of doing that currently is having the community's age limit at 18. That makes it more tedious to stay on the website. By adding the warnings, it is more likely to scare less mature kids off. If we were to delete all 18+ content off the wiki, kids would have to look harder to find anything. By making the process of being able to see these things tedious, it takes away their interest much faster. That is what I normally find effective.

To me your ideas are the ones that feel rather nuclear to be honest. This entire idea is predicated around staff's ability to deal with harassment, something I have already pointed out almost no one on the wiki, much less staff, will have the training to properly deal with. So by taking such an extreme action as to move a bunch of kids back on the site so that staff can deal with harassment easier, I see it as an attempt to lessen guilt by feeling like we are doing something rather than taking steps to actually improve things for the victims. I get you disagree and think staff can help here, but basically no one I have talked to on this matter who has any sort of experience in working with younger folks has thought the same. I'm not sure about your experience or training, so I guess my arguments could be outweighed, but at least with you having given very little in terms of whether you have qualifications, I have to say your opinion doesn't hold as much weight.

In addition, by moving the age back to 16 rather than looking for less controversial or severe options you have created a situation where everyone is so focused on this extreme policy change rather than the actual issue. No one is even fucking talking with the actual original goal in mind anymore because changing the age limit has such extreme effects on the website's culture and content creation. You chose to start off a safety campaign with a policy that inherently is steeped in the ease and preferences of those on both sides. This couldn't have gone any other way short of literally everyone being in agreement from the get go.

Great question, that's what this thread is for. I don't know the specific answer, but storm's suggestion is useful to point out potential pitfalls and for us to discuss them. Hell, we already found possible solutions in response to him.

I am saying that doing it in this manner was bound to create issues. You should have at least had a framework in mind before even bringing this up. You should have asked around staff and came up with some simple baselines to start off of to give everyone a direction. What would have happened if no one thought to mention NSFW posts? We didn't in the last convo. So if this wasn't mentioned and the policy passed, we would have an incredibly unethical issue within our policy. If there had been anything to go off initially however, we would be able to better find faults or points that need worked on. But you gave us nothing and expect us to create the foundation for this policy for you. That isn't, in my mind, a good way of going about doing this.

I'm actually getting bothered at how often people are phrasing things to ignore them or imply they're a discardable minority.

You quite literally just mentioned previously in the same post that you didn't like that people assumed malice. I am not assuming the minority are discardable. Heck, I'm not even sure they are the minority here (after thinking on my previous points, it was wrong of me to assume). A lot of users don't like making a fuss and would just vote for what they believe in. What I am doing is my best attempt, along with just about everyone here, to show how for this specific policy, the difficulties that would come from implementing this outweigh the benefits. Why would I make any posts like this in the first place if I felt that the minority's opinions don't matter? I care about this and I want as many people as possible to understand and accept this decision, so I am doing my absolute best to sway those who disagree, the same as you. In fact, many of your posts basically amount to "welp, we disagree, so lets see whether the vote passes" which feels much more reminiscent of you ignoring them.

And to second rumetzen, my issue here has to do with staff handling. Because the issue with all this wasn't that you didn't involve everyone. The issue was that you kept it from staff who would be seriously affected by such a change until it was posted, which you did for this convo as well. You don't need to make it a huge community effort. You need to give those that could be affected by the policy a chance to consider the issue and come up with a stance before the conversation starts. Did you notify anyone that this issue was going to start being brought up again? Because I can confidently say there are at least some staff who felt blindsided that this convo was starting up again. This should have been done behind closed doors, but with more input from admins and mods with more experience and who would be more affected by these changes, then you go to the community to get a response. That would have allowed for many of the initial issues to be gone early on in the process of doing this.

I get that this might just be a mistake due to you misinterpreting what people wanted (And it's totally possible I am the one not properly understanding the issue. One person can only be so perfect, and while I'm damn close to it I still make mistakes haha), but what I can't get around is twofold. One, that, as far as I know, you didn't try to make use of senior staff to ask about how such an idea for doing things would work. And two, that you have been consistently posting in a manner that stirs the pot for users that hold vehement views. As a whole the execution of this entire situation was off on staff's part. It should have been handled better from the beginning. And it definitely should have been addressed in a better manner when issues sprung up. I think you seriously need to consider working on your phrasing and how you plan things like this. Though at the end of the day that is your prerogative, so you can feel free to ignore me.

Last edited on 13 Sep 2022 05:29 by Shanor Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

rumetzen 12 Sep 2022 15:17

The site has had a 15+ year gate for many years, and operated fine in regards to maturity, content, etc., whereas much of the discussion is framed as to ignore this.

Excuse me, what? Do people not remember the various incidents that led to this original policy? This is just revisionism.

Anyway, as people have already pointed out, the solutions is very simple: If we have 18+ content on the site, we should be an 18+ site, and trying to finagle your way out of that very clear, indisputable fact by twisting words about what counts as "18+ content" or trying to deflect responsibility with "well they can just find it elsewhere" is just going to make this look worse than it already does. "We can't solve everything" does not mean we get to dodge the fact that the adult users of this site have a responsibility to the younger ones, or that we can ignore the very real possibility of legal responsibility down the line. I'm not going to dig in the weeds in this argument because everything worth saying for these arguments has been, but I'm putting my support behind them.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 15:21 by rumetzen Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

LORDXVNV 12 Sep 2022 17:50

Extraordinarily well said.

Furthermore, I exhort you, as an admin of the Wanderer's Library, to begin the process of raising the age limit of that site to 18 as well. Every argument made regarding the SCP Wiki will come true regarding WL as well in due time. And once we finally seal the oft-sought doors of the SCP Wiki to bright-eyed minors, they will swiftly flock to the open shores of the ungated Wanderer's Library, and the foul-intentioned pedophiles will closely follow.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

rumetzen 13 Sep 2022 14:44

Yeah, I've proposed it before.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Shanor 12 Sep 2022 21:57

Excuse me, what? Do people not remember the various incidents that led to this original policy? This is just revisionism.

Thank god, I thought I was genuinely having memory problems. When I got back onto this site from my break, I was shocked at how much better the maturity has been on most users. I remember there being 4-5 non disc and at absolute minimum 1 disc post made a week, and now it is closer to half that number at bad times. In fact, I remember times where 1-3 non discs were made a day during some heavy times. The site always had a maturity problem while I was here. So something had to have changed from when I got back and now it is what it is now!

And to point out another piece of revisionism here, there have been staff clambering and begging to raise the age gate for years before this policy was made. The events that transpired during that time were just enough to get the staff who weren't for it on board. This might have been done without much thinking from some staff, but it sure as hell wasn't from many. It is completely wrong to imply this was all due to Bright. This was a long time coming for many staff.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 22:00 by Shanor Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Zyn 13 Sep 2022 06:41

I remember there being 4-5 non disc and at absolute minimum 1 disc post made a week, and now it is closer to half that number at bad times

Confirming that I (as a staff member who wrote a lot of those records, and still continues to write said records) have observed this trend as well.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Pedantique 15 Sep 2022 15:55

I was also in the trenches for some of the pre-age increase days, and I'll second Zyn's assessment about them.

Any proposal to lower the age limit has to provide details on how the extremely predictable effects will be handled. I can only speak for myself, but dealing with an influx of teenagers would make me much less interested in a return to regular forum crit, etc., so an evaluation of how it will affect staff recruitment (especially if you aren't recruiting said teenagers (please don't)) is important too. Referring this issue to the community without the associated groundwork isn't really conducive to useful discussions.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

UraniumEmpire 15 Sep 2022 17:14

Thirding.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Mr Carbon 12 Sep 2022 23:55

See, the reason I’m not too bothered about this is that I am pretty darn sure that as soon as whatever final age-lowering proposal staff decides on is taken to any competent US liability lawyer, they are going to absolutely annihilate it and strongly recommend an 18+ policy.

page 1 of 212next »