○◍◓◉ [POLL] Content Warning prefixes on in-character thread titles

[Kettle]

This is a proposal to use selectable emoji prefixes on in-character thread titles to indicate at a glance whether a thread contains content warnings.

• Upon creation of an in-character thread, the thread creator would choose a prefix:
  • = appropriate for all audiences
  • = this thread contains tagged content warnings

On the super-secret staging test server, prefixed threads look like this:

We already have tags and spoiler boxes inside the threads. Why do we need prefixes too?​

This is following reports of frustration from the playerbase as submitted to staff over time. I personally share the same frustrations, so I'll speak from my own point of view:

• I'm just not interested in mature content of any kind. I don't want to think about violence or sexual content. I unwind by watching upbeat cartoons and silly anime: I tend to avoid media with sex, gore, or disturbing subjects in them. After speaking with several other players and at least one guest to the site who decided not to join, I'm very sure that there are a lot of us who feel the same way.
  
  
• I support everyone's freedom to write what they want to write! This is an effort to continue those freedoms while making it easy to see at a glance where to find the subject matter that interests us.
  
  
• When I click into three or four interesting-looking threads in the Latest Posts section and all of them end up tagged NSFW, it starts to feel like there isn't any content here for me. After most threads I click through load up and I check the tags and it's NSFW and I click back and try again, etc, I start to feel like I'm the only one on this site that's interested in general-audience content. To a new player, as reported to staff, after a few clicks they wonder if this is a wholly and intentionally NSFW rp site.
  
  
• If threads are prefixed by a for all audiences and a for content warnings, I can immediately see whether I might like to click in and browse an interesting-looking thread, or brace myself to check the tags first. I can immediately see that yes, there are general-audience threads, they're checked and I can pick them out quickly and easily and find other players who share my interests without digging for them. And if an interesting thread has a I won't get my hopes up, but I might click in to check the tags and won't be disappointed if it turns out I won't like it.

Anyway these are the thoughts that went into the concept. What do you all think? If this were to be implemented we'd need buy-in from the community and a willingness to perhaps retroactively prefix ongoing threads so they'll appear with the symbol in the Latest Posts section.

If you like this idea, what do you like about it? If this isn't going to work for you, why? Can you suggest an alternative? What do you think?

 

[Bertram Donnalson]

My first thought on this: Are thread titles editable? I know that some threads are almost guaranteed to have NSFW content (Looking at you, Sliucha ), but what about threads that are initially fine and only develop a need for content warnings later on. Would we be able to retroactively go back to the title and change the emoji?

Second thought: This feels a little bit duplicative to me, so I see why some folks might argue against it, but your explanation of your personal experience and examples of why such a system might be called for are also convincing. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it. We could even potentially expand it if we wanted, to have specific emojis for different content warnings. If we decide we like this system, I could see using something like a for violence, or the ever popular for sexual content, or whatever else might be useful. The only hazard I see there is we probably don't want to completely duplicate the existing content warning system. Or maybe we do, I dunno!

 

[Melloluna]

My first thought on this: Are thread titles editable? I know that some threads are almost guaranteed to have NSFW content (Looking at you, Sliucha ), but what about threads that are initially fine and only develop a need for content warnings later on. Would we be able to retroactively go back to the title and change the emoji?

Yup! I just now tried this through my character account, on a Matchmaker thread that I created as Melloluna that has a prefix. All accounts can do this on threads they created:

This feels a little bit duplicative to me, so I see why some folks might argue against it, but your explanation of your personal experience and examples of why such a system might be called for are also convincing. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it. We could even potentially expand it if we wanted, to have specific emojis for different content warnings. If we decide we like this system, I could see using something like a for violence, or the ever popular for sexual content, or whatever else might be useful. The only hazard I see there is we probably don't want to completely duplicate the existing content warning system. Or maybe we do, I dunno!

Thanks!! And we probably won't want to get tooooo crazy... If we do this, maybe just the two at first and IF people love it we MIGHT expand, but only if there's a clamoring for more nuance.

 

[Nerine Varkas]

I think this is a good idea! I think warning people is a good idea -- it also helps if I'm on mobile (and know to not click that thread if I'm reading threads at work, like a good employee, even though spoilers help too). I don't mind that kind of content, but this seems like a good way to help people avoid it when they want or need to, and requiring everything have a flag seems very fair and consistent.

 

[Skegg]

While I support the idea as a whole, I would like to add that a clear line in the sand needs to be drawn with very specific rules. Does using curse words (and even then which curse words) count? Does a bar brawl count, or only when there’s “on-screen” blood?

Safe content varies from opinion to opinion depending on who you ask, so some very specific rules will need to be implemented so people understand what qualifies and what doesn’t.

 

[charybdis]

imo, content warnings can and should be about anything that might affect others negatively. for example, in the past i've tagged a few of my threads for "necromancy/witchcraft" as i know that i get a little sensitive about that kind of content and would imagine that others might, too. language can definitely be one, or any sort of violence.

i think the biggest thing here is to not envision the ! as "this is R-rated only". i'd propose viewing it as "there is some kind of content in this thread that might be upsetting to certain individuals, so just make sure to read the thread headings before moving forward". so even if in your sensibilities, it's a fully "general audience" thread, i'd think of it as showing consideration that something that doesn't upset me in the least might negatively affect someone else, so i just want to make absolutely sure they check the thread tags before proceeding.

 

[Skegg]

imo, content warnings can and should be about anything that might affect others negatively. for example, in the past i've tagged a few of my threads for "necromancy/witchcraft" as i know that i get a little sensitive about that kind of content and would imagine that others might, too. language can definitely be one, or any sort of violence.

i think the biggest thing here is to not envision the ! as "this is R-rated only". i'd propose viewing it as "there is some kind of content in this thread that might be upsetting to certain individuals, so just make sure to read the thread headings before moving forward". so even if in your sensibilities, it's a fully "general audience" thread, i'd think of it as showing consideration that something that doesn't upset me in the least might negatively affect someone else, so i just want to make absolutely sure they check the thread tags before proceeding.

This is honestly what I was thinking. It really should be that the checkmark means “old-school My Little Pony” level content. ANYTHING at all beyond that should be marked with a !.

This means we’d need to clarify that it wasn’t a ‘bad’ thing, just a directional sign to suggest people check out tags before thread-diving.

 

[charybdis]

Yeah, I agree. I’d frame it as the ! simply being the equivalent of a content warning. It doesn’t denote anything in particular and most certainly doesn’t lend any sort of right/wrong morality to the thread. I would instead view it as simply an alert about what to expect in the thread itself, a lot like genre tags on a movie you’re about to stream. Nobody wants to be looking for American Psycho and somehow ending up with Love Actually, or vice versa.

I don’t have much experience with how/what that could or should be implemented in a way that isn’t overwhelming to the forums and current/prospective players, but I would strongly argue that there’s no overlay of morality here, but instead just consideration that our participants come from very different backgrounds and whatever we can do to be considerate and inclusive would be the aim.

 

[Slimeworm (Luca)]

(1) The thing to bear in mind is: if too many things are considered to fall under the content warning tag, then every thread will end up with one, and it will end up being meaningless.

I'd rather there be a specific tag for highly NSFW threads.
I think if there can be a specific tag IN the thread, why not have that same tag on the outside?

(2) As Charybdis said, none of this suggests anything judgmental or about morality, it's simply thing to make it easier for someone to know whether they'd want to click on a thread in the first place or not. Someone doesn't have to be judgmental to know there's certain things they prefer not to read.

 

[Kettle]

Just to simplify everything, this is already in the Code of Conduct:

Content Warnings. If you know that your thread may include content that players may find uncomfortable, utilize the Content Warnings field when posting a new thread. Example content warnings may include but are not limited to "sexual content," "gratuitous violence," or "mentions of suicide."

If the thread has a content warning, it should have a -- if not, then , imho!

 

[charybdis]

So back to the question that was asked upstream: what’s the nsfw line?

 

[Kettle]

So back to the question that was asked upstream: what’s the nsfw line?

I'm a fanfiction author, so going by fanfiction lines: if your stuff is appropriate for under age 13 then it's for general audiences. If you should be 13 or older to read this, it's got some kinda notice on it. Personally I go by the "read with your grandma in the room" scenario.

Romance:

• A romantic comedy fade-to-black watch with your grandma:
• An HBO series that definitely doesn't fade-to-black and you definitely wouldn't watch with your grandma:

Gore:

• Marvel superhero violence you'd watch with your grandma:
• An HBO series which you'd probably watch with your grandma but she'll probably go "EUGH NO":

Trigger/Content Warnings:

• If your grandma would want to give the character hugs and kisses and hot soup and listen:
• If your grandma would feel like she should call for help and never let the character be alone out of fear for their wellbeing:

Essentially if you could read it aloud to your grandma and she's basically fine with it,
If you read it to your grandma and she's horrified,

Edit: stuff like occasional non-explicitly described nudity and obscene language are . We curse in here and moon our enemies, fuck yeah.

 

[Bertram Donnalson]

I'm a fanfiction author, so going by fanfiction lines: if your stuff is appropriate for under age 13 then it's for general audiences. If you should be 13 or older to read this, it's got some kinda notice on it. Personally I go by the "read with your grandma in the room" scenario.

This is very close to what I was going to suggest, which is "We had a rule of 'don't go past PG-13' for years, so why not that?"

But Kettle's is more specific and comes with examples, and is therefore better.

 

[Iori McKenzie]

I voted to agree to have the function, because it's nice to have.

But implementing its usage is another question of course. Are we forcing every thread to MUST have these icons? The forum thread header is going to be littered! Aesthetics aside though, I would prefer this to be optional because questionable content is in the end subjective. And there are scenarios where the thread's purpose is not intended for smut, but due to the dynamic RP (non pre-planned goals etc), it took a twist and ended up with such. So there's 10 pages of non-smut, and 3 or 4 posts that has. Does the whole thread need to be labelled now just because of that?

Content warnings aside, most of the offensive stuff is actually already hidden inside spoilers as practice. So one needs to expand the spoilers to read what's inside. If somehow all this is still not preventing accidental reading of content deemed questionable, maybe we need to analyze for the actual root cause? Because I mean we can put all the warning labels on a thread (which is also already somewhat done), but if people are still reading something they find offensive, then the labels is not the actual solution?

Some honest thoughts;

1. Was the content discovered because of Search function?

I noticed that it shows up in Search, even in Spoiler. Except that the content of the spoiler is not displayed in the preview so you need to open the post, then open the Spoiler. Now I supposed the solution is to remove spoiler posts entirely from Search results? But not sure on the technical feasibility for something so specific, plus we do want to be able to search for a particular keyword even within a spoiler post, and not all content inside a spoiler is offensive/NSFW, which leads to the following point;​

2. Was the content discovered because the content of the Spoiler was mistaken for something else?

Back then spoilers were use for OOC comments such as moderator stamps, song stamps etc.. So I can see the confusion. Even now I have mod related things stamped inside a spoiler post, and it made me think of this mistaken identity. So I took to labelling the spoiler as "SFW" or "Stamp" though I admit I am not very consistent.​

​

A suggestion: Would it be better if the warning is on the spoiler itself? Perhaps have another spoiler type function specific for "mature content"? If the standard is blue for standard use, then the warning material is red etc. (subject to how difficult it is to get something like this implemented of course). Or should spoilers from now on, only be strictly used for mature content (therefore it would be better to rename it to a more reflecting term?).​

​

Spoiler: Example

Example of a Standard Spoiler

​

​

 

[Indefinite]

Content warnings aside, most of the offensive stuff is actually already hidden inside spoilers as practice.

I think that the reported issue is that people would prefer to have a way to know at a glance whether or not a thread has a content warning without having to click into the thread itself. This is specifically for people who'd like to peruse the forum and randomly read other people's threads. It can be, from what I understand, discouraging to have to click through a bunch of threads only to discover that a lot of them wound up having content you're not interested in reading.

The issue isn't seeing the content itself, so much as wanting forewarning before even having to click into the thread.

Now, having had a bit more time to think on this, and having been the person to initially recommend the simple

system, I feel like perhaps there are better ways to do this.

Full disclosure: my suggestion came off the end of a discussion on instead having a three-tiered system where content was labeled as either "safe", "teen-level content", or "adult-level content". So basically in broad strokes, "safe", "questionable", and "explicit" material, let's say. The problem I had with this is that it feels rather subjective/confusing what level of content you might be writing at, especially since Telath is an international community and the concept of ratings differs from country to country.

It seemed like an easier way to organize things would just be to have the suggested delineation - this stuff is safe, this stuff isn't. But as aforementioned, I've realized this also has a problem. Namely, how useful is it actually for the people who are supposed to be using it? You group together a lot of potential content as a result. Sexually explicit, violent blood and gore, behavioral issues, all of it just gets lumped together. Which, if the people having issues are of the "all of the above is stuff I don't want to read" category, then sure, problem solved. But maybe it's the case that some people would also prefer more granularity? "I'm okay with sex but really graphic violence makes me queasy", or "I'm fine with most content but anything relating to depression or suicide I don't want to read", for instance.

Granted, too many categories would probably be onerous to work with. But I think it's plausible to have rather broad strokes to cover our bases. It'd basically be what @Kettle has in their last post:

"Sexual"
"Violent"
"Content/Behavioral"

I feel like that does a good job of covering most of the more obvious scenarios. Sexually explicit, excessively violent, and then the sundry of potentially troubling content (ex: depression, sexual abuse, domestic violence, animal abuse, etc.). It allows for a bit more wiggle room in choosing without (hopefully) overcomplicating a system for tagging threads.

There's probably some further discussion to be had about what does and doesn't belong in that last category. But that's beyond the scope of my current suggestion.

Thoughts?

 

[Kettle]

To address a lot of the concerns, I'd like to try to clarify the perspective:

• Each in-character thread is essentially a published online story that has writers and readers.
• I am therefore treating this forum as a hub for publishing collaborative stories.

Given this, a comparison:

• There are other sites that publish and intermingle kid-friendly and mature stories side by side as we do.
• These sites require authors to select a maturity level of each work before it's allowed to be posted.
• The maturity level is indicated as a graphic to the left of the story's title so readers can easily pick out or skip certain types of stories.
• Authors voluntarily include descriptive tags to attract or to warn away certain types of readers.
• Users of the websites can easily filter their experience to include or exclude certain tags or levels of maturity. If you only want to browse kid-friendly stories, you can select a filter and only see stories you want to see. If you're looking for explicit content, you can filter and find it easily.
• XenForo (our forum platform) offers this filtering feature only for prefixes, not tags.
  

I think that the reported issue is that people would prefer to have a way to know at a glance whether or not a thread has a content warning without having to click into the thread itself. This is specifically for people who'd like to peruse the forum and randomly read other people's threads. It can be, from what I understand, discouraging to have to click through a bunch of threads only to discover that a lot of them wound up having content you're not interested in reading.

This exactly! To tack onto this, consider:

• A potential new player arrives and thinks Telath looks promising. They are looking for a fantasy-based RP site and they don't write mature content.
• They peruse the "Latest Posts" section and/or dive into the game forum to get a feel for our playerbase, the level of our writing, and the type of experience they can expect.
• The first one they click is tagged NSFW. Ok no problem. Click back.
• Second one they click. NSFW. Ok just looking for a more general story so clicking back again.
• Third. NSFW. At this point the person begins to think this is an 18+ NSFW site and therefore they won't find any players here who enjoy the stories they're looking for.
• Even if number four has no content tags, the person by this point has wasted so much time digging that they've probably already left. You get the idea!

Granted, too many categories would probably be onerous to work with. But I think it's plausible to have rather broad strokes to cover our bases. It'd basically be what @Kettle has in their last post:

"Sexual"
"Violent"
"Content/Behavioral"

I could see using something like a for violence, or the ever popular for sexual content, or whatever else might be useful. The only hazard I see there is we probably don't want to completely duplicate the existing content warning system. Or maybe we do, I dunno!

I like this idea, personally. Because XenForo only allows one prefix for each thread, we'd potentially have to offer a prefix for every combination, but that's not a whole lot. This also would lend toward giving people prefixes to actively go out and look for: sometimes you want to read a violent thread, or you're looking for something deeply psychological. The prefixes, in that case, could be features and warnings at the same time. It could even do away with some of the written tags that we're using now, and instead we could use the tags for more nuanced information.

For example:

And there are scenarios where the thread's purpose is not intended for smut, but due to the dynamic RP (non pre-planned goals etc), it took a twist and ended up with such. So there's 10 pages of non-smut, and 3 or 4 posts that has. Does the whole thread need to be labelled now just because of that?

If you were describing one of those stories on other sites I'd mentioned above, the story would be labeled Explicit up front because it has even some explicit content. However, there could be another way:

• A reader is cool with the indicated content and clicks into the thread.
• At the top of the thread are more tags: "A few explicit posts on page 6 only"
• Personally I'd go ahead and read this thread, anticipating that I'll skip a few posts on page 6.

Edit: After some recent developments it's probably appropriate to say standard fantasy violence is expected in this sort of community and wouldn't require tagging. So if you wouldn't be surprised to see it in Lord of the Rings, it shouldn't be required to flag here, I think! Once things pass into nonstop skull-smashing and/or descriptions of torture/body horror, then we're into the realm of please-tag.

Here's what I've done on Moonfiend, for example:



"fantasy-typical violence" could exist outside spoiler tags here.

 

[Kettle]

Hey I had a thought. What about something less bright and invasive, like ascii symbols? A few examples I could see working, if we had a key:

⌀※⁂⁜✕‼⌁▣▨▲△◆◇▽◙◓◉◎

So, like....

○ = no significant warnings
◍ = descriptive violence/gore
◓ = descriptive sexual content
◉ = descriptive psychological trauma

 

[Indefinite]

Hey I had a thought. What about something less bright and invasive, like ascii symbols? A few examples I could see working, if we had a key:

⌀※⁂⁜✕‼⌁▣▨▲△◆◇▽◙◓◉◎

So, like....

○ = no significant warnings
◍ = descriptive violence/gore
◓ = descriptive sexual content
◉ = descriptive psychological trauma

Having had a bit of time with the test phase for this, my gut feel after having stared at them in front of threads for a bit is that I think between the two options, I'd prefer more contextual symbols such as or or .

The problem with more abstract symbols like the ones suggested is exactly that - they're pretty abstract. Without a guide, there's no way to even guess what they might mean. So you're crossing your fingers that whoever is going around reading threads managed to find whatever article you have somewhere that actually documents what those symbols mean. Maybe that's a reasonable expectation for site members, but one of the use cases mentioned was for newcomers who are still making the decision of whether they want to join or not.

If nothing else, we'd have to think about how to make it extremely obvious where a person can go to learn what those abstract symbols are supposed to mean, or have some other way to explain their meaning on the spot. I'd be interested to hear what others think on what possible solutions for that could be.

 

[charybdis]

Having had a bit of time with the test phase for this, my gut feel after having stared at them in front of threads for a bit is that I think between the two options, I'd prefer more contextual symbols such as or or .

The problem with more abstract symbols like the ones suggested is exactly that - they're pretty abstract. Without a guide, there's no way to even guess what they might mean. So you're crossing your fingers that whoever is going around reading threads managed to find whatever article you have somewhere that actually documents what those symbols mean. Maybe that's a reasonable expectation for site members, but one of the use cases mentioned was for newcomers who are still making the decision of whether they want to join or not.

If nothing else, we'd have to think about how to make it extremely obvious where a person can go to learn what those abstract symbols are supposed to mean, or have some other way to explain their meaning on the spot. I'd be interested to hear what others think on what possible solutions for that could be.

Agreed with this. While I like the visual cleanliness of simple circle symbols, I think utilizing emojis that have international meanings embedded in them (and therefore automatic alt-text for accessibility, etc.) hits more at the intention of this project.

 

[Kettle]

Ok got it! I took your recommendations but I wasn't sure what to do about psychological trauma? A brain? This is how it is on the site now:

= no significant warnings
= descriptive violence/gore
= descriptive sexual content
= descriptive psychological trauma