Your Feedback Is Needed!

There are two topics I would like to get membership feedback on. Both will require some kind of change to Side 7, and before I make any serious decisions on it I want your input. This community is as much about you as it is about art. And you matter to me, so I am asking for your serious contemplation and input on these topics.

Topic 1: Profanity in Unrated Areas of the Site

Side 7 has had a mission of being as friendly to general audiences as possible since its inception. This has included a decorum tradition of leaving profanity to within the appropriately rated uploads that members make. This tradition has been relatively respected, with the occasional incident, until the last year or two.

In the last couple of years, profanity in upload titles, descriptions, comments, forum posts, journal entries, and even usernames, has increased dramatically. With exception to descriptions of appropriately rated uploads, these are all areas open to the public without a rating. This is arguably counter to our mission. However, instead of just enforcing some rule about acceptable behavior, I'd like to ask the membership's thoughts on this subject. Please keep in mind that there are many in the membership who won't respond to this post, and that there are many visitors to the site who may be turned off by such language.

How do you feel this should be handled? Should anything be done about it? Should there be some kind of formal rule about where and when profanity is allowed and acceptable?

Topic 2: Ratings or Content Warnings for Journal Entries

Over the last several months, there have been a number of journal entries made by members that, while not breaking any rules, did contain content that warranted some sort of rating or content warning for potential readers of the entries. These have included gory descriptions of things, subjects that are controversial, triggering, or touchy, and heavy use of profanity, just to name a few. I have no desire to closely police what people post as their content of choice, but I feel our visitors and membership deserve some sort of heads up before wandering into a journal entry unaware of what they're in for.

I've had a couple of ideas on how to handle this, and I'm interested in hearing your ideas, too. My first idea was to having a rating system similar to the upload rating system. This system would be subject to the same filtering system as uploads are. This is also a significant change to the site's journal system. My second idea was just to add a Content Warnings field to journal entries. Information entered into this field would also display in the Journal tooltips, as well as in the journal entry summaries on the journal page. This is a fairly small change, and is more flexible in use.

What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you like either of my ideas? Are they bad ideas? Do you think there's a better way of handling this?

Let me know, please.

-- BK

I'm honestly not sure what to make of the first topic, especially given that I've only been on this site for over a month. I'll have to come back to that one later or whenever haha.

As for the second topic, I'm honestly down for having a rating system/content warning system on journal entries.

I've actually begun blocking people who make a habit of being needlessly nasty in the forums and in their comments. I never expected that that sort of thing would happen here, but it is happening now. If no action is taken to curb these comments, those who make them will have no reason to believe they should stop. And for anyone who wants to argue that people should just speak up when they're uncomfortable, I'm sure you've never been in that situation and you don't realize how difficult that can be. You also don't see the reports that users do file, asking for help to make those interactions stop.

I am an advocate for free speech. I also believe that a certain level of civility is due in publicly accessible conversations. Adding input fields for journals could be very helpful; Maturity rating, Visibility (public, 18+/21+, friends-only, et cetera), and Keywords or Content Warnings would be a good start. Users who fail to utilize such settings could be given a warning, and if they repeatedly break the rules, a temporary site ban, or loss of journal privileges, seems fair to me.

I concur.

As for the journal systems, between the filtering system and the content warnings, having both implemented would be awesome but if i had to choose just one, i'd go for the content warnings, since they can be more specific and can warn the reader exactly what to expect before reading. i love when sites let me list the warnings but that's a personal preference ;u;

I tend to try and limit my interactivity to be mostly neutral for this reason. I know some people feel uncomfortable about me being vent-y or preachy about things we can't see eye-to-eye on. I believe a temporary site ban would be called a suspension, since suspensions are typically always temporary (aside from sites that have no idea what that word means) while site bans are meant to be indefinite, although I think it should start off with a warning first, and if the user in question refuses to listen, then a suspension would be necessary to curb their behavior. I can definitely agree on journal ratings, I think those would be useful for journals that might involve swearing and such.

Profane titles should be rated 'T[L]' at minimum, full stop: content elements appearing on the front page should adhere to the ratings guide. I'd be willing to grant some leeway to descriptions involving incidental, light cussing &c. since the description field is a secondary priority to the upload itself, but otherwise a piece should be rated to encompass its (meta)data and bona fides: my Downfall Parody title cards are at most 'T(O)' in of themselves, but I rate them to the content of the linked videos as a matter of courtesy.

User names are a bit tricky as there are some legacy artists with non-compliant handles, but if a filtre can be implemented for signups, that would simplify future policing. Just be sure it's filtering words and not isolated strings: "CadencesHits" v. "Cadence____s"—CivFanatics introduced an aggressive autocensor a few years back that broke image hotlinks with URLs unlucky enough to match blacklisted words within their alphanumeric jumble ID.

For comments and forum posts, my rule of thumb is when in doubt, keep things PG. Since users have editorial control over their galleries, we can generally leave it to the uploader to decide their own standard of decorum; Staff then only need step in if commentary is brushing up against site rules. One of Buzzly.art's early flashpoints concerned staff aggressively persecuting ambiguously suggestive comments on a suggestive piece, despite the uploader having no problem with the posts.

Forums should be a little stricter: sporadic, mild cursing is tolerable, but posts that read like an excerpt from Trailer Park Boys drag down the tone.

In both cases, short of a blanket ban I'm not sure if it's something that can be given a hard rule: as per Shamus Young, a lot of this involves reading the room and playing by ear—moderation will be depending on context as much as content.

Regarding Issue 2, if it's not a huge hassle, I second @Camazotz and would use both: general ratings as per submissions, and content warning flags to better aid browsing discretion. (They would basically substitute for tags in gallery uploads.)

Having spoken with concerned parties, willingness to lodge formal complaints over decorum faces a chicken-and-egg paradox: if users aren't speaking up, Staff won't know there's a problem, but lack of staff action can in turn create a perception that the conduct is tacitly endorsed, and thereby suppress objection. Before I acceded to modship, I was taken aback by the rhetoric certain users were throwing around, but bit my tongue in the mistaken belief that like some of the characters I've dealt with elsewhere, this was an "ironic" persona afforded leeway amongst a close-knit circle of friends—because it was never publicly challenged. Over on CivFanatics, mod culture took a huge blow when they switched to Xenforo in 2016, as rather than call out bad behaviour in-thread, Staff now prefers to delete the posts and/or edit the content without leaving a timestamp, apparently on the principle that "out of sight, out of mind". Yes it cleans up the public façade, but it means there are no benchmarks to inform accepted conduct and dissuade similar transgressions, and so decorum is invisibly micromanaged rather than given directions to naturally improve, creating more work for worse results.

As per Infraction Policies, S7 basically operates on a three-strike rule.

Agree with @Thorvald presentation of points and the reasoning.

I have mostly hung out in adult spaces elsewhere and I try to be mindful when engaging in spaces that allow younger users. I don't know if Side7 does but one thing I really like about the art rating and tagging system is the ability to make sure those who want to see certain things can and those who don't, can avoid it.

As far as journals go if it's going to be so gruesome unexpectedly or full of troubling things, then yeah, it needs a warning system for users to avoid it if they want to. I thought Thorvald had good suggestions on that.

I think in public areas where tone is particularly hard to read in text discussions, curse words and foul language can be easily misinterpreted. I think it removes ambiguity from an "argument/debate" if language is kept respectful.

Thanks for the head's up. I'll look into that.
-- BK

So eventually it's going to devolve into some thumb suckin weirdos in their 40's who watch Steven Universe, in a room full of 20 grand worth of Marvel comics merch having a melt down over every little thing that makes them uncomfortable?

I eat meat lad, is meat related discussion going to be criminalized here when the vegetarians make enough noise?

When's the clown filter coming?

Should rename the site lobotomy and pills, or Supernanny time out times.

When is lobotomy gonna become a forbidden word?

Just because some units here are full grown adults who can't drink coke and get upset by loud noises.

Thuhumalajumala yeh?

@DEEW0R can I come live with you on Tumblr brah?

With regards to profanity, it's not like anyone's never heard/has sworn before. Like where I'm from, kids aged 5 and under know almost every swear word. I even knew the "c-word" when I was 4. I agree with Zaar, though. People are becoming waaaay too sensitive. Swears are just words, they cannot physically hurt anybody, and the more you censor them, the more power they will have. That's just my two cents anyway.

@EvieJulia

Yeh but lahara'kara.

Wait till they roll up.

What Big bad BK and the committee don't understand is... They want to go down this road now.

Eventually 39 year old footy pajamas Paul and his friends are gonna roll up... And then we won't be able to upload art containing devils or ghosties or talk about the treasury department or none of that.

It'll become a witch hunt for wrong think.

We'll have Sonics, interpretive dance and milkshakes, that's it; and I dunt like none of them things.

Oof...

Ah yes, "setting a baseline for civility is literally 1984". I think I can guess why this discussion is happening. :/

No doubt it's ironic coming from someone embedded in DA's NSFW circles, but I'm amazed at the sort of stuff you can post in journals over there. This is the first I've seen a formal rating system suggested for blogging features, and I don't see how it would be anything other than beneficial. Custom tags would probably be best if the devs are looking for the simplest solution, but like others have said, both at once would provide the most discretion: the "Other" rating doesn't tell you what to expect.

I'm a newbie and haven't seen much of the forums (and given my line of work am intentionally keeping my distance), but again, speaking as someone who swims in the deep end elsewhere, keeping the front face friendly seems like basic common sense for a general-purpose art site, especially one that accepts under-18 users. The hyperbolic scaremongering posted above works in reverse: pursue the lowest common denominator and you will be inundated with chuds that will drive out the moderates, no matter the "official" rules. I recently watched the Folding Ideas video on why YouTube alternatives keep failing, and 5:20 to 7:12 speaks to the problem of sites that net users before they've figured out their culture, and wind up with the tail wagging the dog.

Dionysus:

Ah yes, "setting a baseline for civility is literally 1984". I think I can guess why this discussion is happening. :/ No doubt it's ironic coming from someone embedded in DA's NSFW circles, but I'm amazed at the sort of stuff you can post in journals over there. This is the first I've seen a formal rating system suggested for blogging features, and I don't see how it would be anything other than beneficial. Custom tags would probably be best if the devs are looking for the simplest solution, but like others have said, both at once would provide the most discretion: the "Other" rating doesn't tell you what to expect. I'm a newbie and haven't seen much of the forums (and given my line of work am intentionally keeping my distance), but again, speaking as someone who swims in the deep end elsewhere, keeping the front face friendly seems like basic common sense for a general-purpose art site, especially one that accepts under-18 users. The hyperbolic scaremongering posted above works in reverse: pursue the lowest common denominator and you will be inundated with chuds that will drive out the moderates, no matter the "official" rules. I recently watched the Folding Ideas video on why YouTube alternatives keep failing, and 5:20 to 7:12 speaks to the problem of sites that net users before they've figured out their culture, and wind up with the tail wagging the dog.

The future will speak for itself.

You are from the future yes?

@The-Wizard-of-Zaar : This is supposed to be an open forum for helpful discussion, not derision, hyperbole, and fearmongering. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, I'd love to hear it.

Now, to reiterate, what I am referring to in my first topic is the culture the site has had since 1993, one that expressed a sense of decorum where open, unrated areas of the site were generally kept friendly to general audiences. The change of late has been to the opposite of that, and I'm asking the community at large what they think about it, and what they would like done about it. There isn't censorship going on. No one is saying "these words are banned". What is being said is there used to be more consideration for the viewership of the site in terms of language choice in unrated areas than there seems to be now. Now, I could have just put out a ban on profanity, sure. But, that's not what I want to do so I came to the community for input.

Likewise, with the topic of journal entries. No one is saying anything is banned or censored. It's asking what people think about putting some extra information on journal posts so that the viewership of the site in general has a head's up of what they're about to read if it's not just general stuff. If you have an alternate idea, let's hear it.

What you all don't see are the emails and messages I receive that bring up these topics. And, I have to take them into consideration and look at how the site is being presented. I have to look at the health of the community as a whole and make decisions that try to protect the culture. So, when I see something that is sliding downhill and is causing an effect that is negative to the site as a whole, I have to step in. This time, I chose to involve the community in that decision. Everyone can either be a part of that discussion and offer helpful insight, or sit on the side and watch the discussion. Not everyone has something the want to add, I get it.

So, I have decisions to make soon. Let's keep this civil and helpful.

i think journal ratings is a very good idea!

Topic 2: Having content warnings also makes sense. I think either inkblot or artfol has something like this for text posts as well. I also like the idea Dionysus suggested of using custom tags for this purpose

Honestly, when I was a user in the early-mid 2000s I wasn't really a fan of the rules on profanity. Most websites nowadays are 13+ and I don't know about anyone else but I was using language at that age. I'm not even sure if anyone under 18 or even 16 uses this site, but I dislike watching my language on that front and tend to stay away from sites that are anal retentive about it. I can understand wanting harsher language to be in M category, but I here general cuss words are something I hear daily in real life.

Add a content warning field or sensitive rating for journals, or some kind of spoiler text that can be clicked or highlighted to read like Discord or other websites use.

Well said, lucidly articulated.

Are you a monarch in some obscure, tiny country? Or some kind of CEO?

Technically I was just reiterating what BadKarma proposed in the OP:

"My second idea was just to add a Content Warnings field to journal entries. Information entered into this field would also display in the Journal tooltips, as well as in the journal entry summaries on the journal page."

LOL!! No I've just worked in retail for three years so I have a "formal/nice person voice" in more serious settings. Wouldn't that be nice if I was a CEO or monarch, though...

Yes it would.

On the second topic, I believe we have a consensus that adding content tags to journals would be a favorable idea.

On the first topic, I am in agreement with Thorvald that profanity in work titles and perhaps the description should be reflected by the work's rating and that comments can be monitored by the users. As for the forums, well... unfortunately, there is no solution that will satisfy all. I would suggest that a forum thread which has a great amount of profanity at least be marked as such, perhaps with a content warning page that appears before a person clicks into the thread. At least someone getting into a profane thread would have to acknowledge that they are entering such before griping about the language used by others.