Bigg

The tall man who posts

I'm a writer and indie game dev of indie games with cum in them. One half of @BPGames. Most recent project - Opportunity: A Sugar Baby Story.

Other Accounts

@zippity - goofy porn game screenshots
@BiggHoggDogg - this is where I do most of my porn following & sharing
@BiggBlast - high-volume shitpost/screencap posting

Current avatar by @julian!


shel
@shel

🥳🥳🥳🥳 it's like a bar mitzvah for websites really.

Anyway I think we should stop talking about this like staff took a pro-lolicon stance when what they actually said is "please do not post lolicon, also we want community feedback on what the exact policy should be and how we frame it"

so maybe we don't need to give community feedback the same way we would dogpile on someone who actually had a bad take. This is literally three people who have mental health and aren't some big corporation, and asked for you opinion on an open and transparent manner.

I think it's easier to resolve disputes when we assume we all kinda want the same thing in the end which is a website that is good. We just gotta have discussions about how we do that and that's normal and disagreement is super normal and it's even okay to get a little heated and emotional about it. But maybe! The response to "I want your feedback on this" shouldn't be "fuck you and die you should have agreed with me already from the get-go before you even asked what I thought"

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to allow lolicon/shota/whatever. It's illegal in most countries which could cause a lot of issues with the ability to host Adult Content generally plus would require a lot of coding for geolocking that can be easily bypassed by a VPN anyway. It's also ethically dubious, and would give the site a bad reputation as a haven for some pretty reprehensible content, and attract a lot of people we maybe don't want!

But, also, I don't think acting like Twitter User Goku @OutingPredators is very cool! I think it's very uncool and fosters a pretty toxic community environment. Don't be Goku @OutingPredators. I think we should draw a pretty thick fense of like, we do not allow lolishowhatever but that's it. There's lots of fetish stuff I find pretty uncomfortable to see, but I don't think we should get in the game of regulating any of it beyond requiring it be properly tagged and depicting adults. Sexualized drawings of people being decapitated aren't illegal or unethical they just make me extremely uncomfortable and I don't personally want to see it, but that's a me problem. I also don't like smut where it looks like people are getting too sticky with cum and such but there's nothing wrong with that either.

Thanks for reading and considering my opinions :) I hope you can read this in good faith and correctly assume this is not me trying to defend pedophilia :)


shel
@shel
This post has content warnings for: very personal trauma-informed additional opinion, sexual assault.

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @shel's post:

Most of it is happening in the comments section of a post by @staff about how they're not allowing lolicon but want community feedback on the precise wording of the policy where they don't allow lolicon and people are just reading it in the worst bad faith way possible.

i think assuming people are reading it in bad faith is, ironically, not giving enough credit to a lot of the people in the comments-- a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that they are considering allowing lolicon and related content (with mandatory tagging). it was also a confusingly-worded post, which further complicates things. i think painting everyone upset with how they're handling this as people reading in bad faith is unfair.

EDIT: i went back and read the post, and honestly i don't see what you're talking about. it says this exactly:

policy around non-realistic depictions, such as lolicon/shotacon, has not yet been finalized. we don’t want to implement a policy that the majority of users would feel uncomfortable with. we are currently working to implement a system to allow us to get user input on this area of policy. until such time, please refrain from posting it; up to this point, we have been asking people posting it to remove it pending a final policy decision.

this pretty clearly states that the policy is not finalized, and lolicon/shotacon very well might be allowed on the platform. this is what i'm upset about-- and it's what a lot of other people are upset about too.

I think your definition of good faith/bad faith is different than mine. If something is written in a way that is a bit vague or not as precise as it could be, so you assume the worst, to me that's bad faith. Obvs since I am IRL friends with Jae I am going to read everything they say in better faith than a stranger would because we are friends. So when Jae says something vague, my assumption (due to personal bias) is to read it meaning the best possible interpretation.

When you think about policies, you need to be precise and consistent. People will debate the line between "real lolicon" and borderline content like moe, fully clothed sexualized-but-not-explicitly-sexual loli art, or "she's actually 34 she just looks like a child" or hotly debated things like aged-up characters. So you have to write a policy that is very specific and precise and captures everything you want to ban while not also applying to things you don't want to ban. Someone mentioned Harvest Moon characters which are meant to be adults and nothing in their source material applies otherwise, but they're drawn in a chibi art style.

My interpretation was that they were soliciting community feedback on what the policy should be. My assumption is that the majority of the community obviously was not going to say "All lolicon should be allowed :)" and because I know Jae personally, I also knew, myself, already, that they don't need someone to shame them and call them a bad person for entertaining the idea of that as a policy, given that we know that's not what the community would ask for. I read the post as soliciting community feedback on things like where the line should be drawn and how to phrase the policy to capture the things we want to ban and not the things we don't want to ban.

So then the "pending a final policy" line, to me, reads in the context of a specific post right? Someone posted something, mods said "please don't post that" and OP says "tell me the policy of what counts as against the rules for this kind of content so I know where the line is not to cross" and mods say "we don't have a policy yet, so please just refrain from anything even resembling it until we can tell you what's not allowed."

From a user standpoint, that seems reprehensibly neutral. From an administrative standpoint, that's just how you have to handle things to avoid further issues down the line, even if it makes your skin crawl. I encounter stuff like this all the time as a librarian. We carry a lot of books that I find awful, but when we get a challenge, there needs to be a clear line as to why we remove or don't remove it, so we can't be contested for personal bias.

i've cooled down quite a bit since, uh, half an hour ago, so let me respond to this:

i totally understand that the policy needs to be particular. my problem with the initial post (and this problem has been entirely resolved by the subsequent post, so i'm more or less content with the state of things, but i felt the need to respond anyway, so, here:

i absolutely understand the need to take a lot of time to iron out the policy exactly. i never had any real problem with that portion-- the problem was that i read the post as "currently, we are not allowing loli (etc) content, but we may in the future, depending on your input." i don't think that was the correct reading of the post, nor do i think it was what was actually meant, but i do think it was a reasonable understanding to arrive at, syntactically speaking. what i now understand was intended was "we aren't going to allow this content; however, policy takes time to write, so please bear with us while we iron out the details. if you have any suggestions as to where to draw the line exactly, that is important to us." that latter intent is entirely valid, and i have no issue with it.

still, i think it's unfair to blame people who didn't interpret things the way you did. at the time, i didn't even parse the message as ambiguous; to be honest with you, it still feels very generous to me to grant it ambiguity. it isn't that people saw a path where they could turn towards good faith or turn towards bad faith-- for some people, there wasn't another obvious interpretation.

none of this of course excuses the volatility from several people-- i have sympathy for those who reacted quickly, because it's a sensitive subject and one many people have really rough histories with. i think it's hard on everyone, but that doesn't excuse cruelty to one another

on that note, i'd like to apologize if i came across as hostile; i can often mask frustration with another person in calculated diplomatic language and i truly didn't intend to attack you, if that came across.

thank you for your elaborate response-- i know it's a stressful subject matter.

Yeah no I get why people misunderstood the intended message but I guess to me to go immediately to the strong responses instead of towards asking for clarity is the definition of like... Bad faith and assuming worst intent. When we are all on the same team, we slow down and say "hey you're not trying to say this.... Are you??"

its just kind of an unfortunate situation in general. i can't fault the staff - they're clearly very thoughtful people, and wanting to draw the hard line in the right place is not the same as not drawing one at all, anyone who doesn't get that has far too much twitter brain to be on the site anyway.

at the same time... whoof. while there are definitely (Really Definitely) a bunch of obnoxious people reading in bad faith... the initial post was very easy to misread. its hard to see a CW list as anything other than 'these things are allowed but you have to tag them' especially while the rest of the wording is a little unclear. when i clicked that 'mandatory CW' list i heard kill bill sirens for a sec. im glad theyve cleared it up with their latest post and i trust they're going to do a good job, i just hope this incident doesn't sour the comfy back and forth we've been able to have as a community (or traumatize the staff out of being as open going forward)

i also hope this doesn't completely overshadow the initial question of 'what, specifically, should we allow' now because they barely even got that much actual feedback on it,

(personally i agree, weird but harmless fetish stuff alright so long as its properly tagged & won't appear if you don't opt-in, while everything on that CW list is 100% unacceptable to be sharing a site with)

unfortunately. as lame as it is. that staff post maybe might have been a good one to have Twitter-Influenced Defensive Writing™ on given the nature of its content. even if we want to believe cohost isn't host to people Like That, its still... the internet

all im going to say on the discourse is that there are tons of folks who are victims of CSA who identify with loli and feel empowered by it (two+ littles in our system that do). as a victim myself, and a collective with a moral compass, my system and i are 100% against pedos existing on any social media platform and will do whatever it takes to keep them off of it. policing loli has historically diverted a lot of attention away from actual efforts to protect children and bloated reports which delayed helping to be victims of predators and it has also harmed a huge community of folks who coped with their cptsd/csa trauma by identifying with loli or drew loli as vent art and that wide cleave to the entire medium is harmful to those folk. i would like people to focus their efforts on protecting kids, by keeping kids away from predatory communities and excising them from yours if your community is 18+; but the real truth is that children will always get into these spaces via rebellion so the responsibility is with parents and guardians educating kids and allowing kids to be kids by guarding their online experience and giving them healthy places to discuss and learn about mature topics. thus the responsibility can not fall entirely on the internet to police them. it will lead to further rebellion and more harm.

basically, our stance is leave lolicons alone because you risk harming someone who is coping with their csa/cptsd and loli is not proven as a gateway drug to real tangible harm to human children, and leave kids alone unless they state their age in which case excise them from your community if theyre under 18 and your community is mature only.

in reply to @shel's post:

The situation reminds me of one of youtuber Hazel's videos where she talks about how legislation introduced for the sake of reducing immoral content (such as lolicon) will almost inevitably be used to silence marginalized creators that aren't even creating that type of content.

I'm fine with banning loli, but that's me speaking as someone who can say "I know it when I see it" when defining it. If the definition of it is put into writing in order to make it easier to regulate it, then right away there's going to be bad-faith actors finding ways to work around that definition, whether to continue posting what they were already posting, or using the definition to attack people who were never trying to post it in the first place.

For example, I've seen people say stuff like "ew the game's about children getting married" when the game in question is Harvest Moon, and you're not playing a child in the game, you're playing an adult drawn in a chibi art style. All the other adults in the game are also chibi and the actual children in the game are even tinier. Now, do I think the original complaint was made in good faith? No, I think it was made to encourage xenophobia against Japan and anyone interested in video games from there, particularly the kinds of games that appeal to more feminine gamers. But how do you write the law to take that kind of thing into account?

Honestly, I personally don't think there's a way to write guidelines to avoid this kind of thing without them becoming bloated to account for every single bad-faith argument that can be used against them, and even once it reaches that point, stuff still slips through the cracks. I'd prefer it if a site did just make a general statement about it, then follow up by enforcing it with the "I know it when I see it" approach rather than try to justify every single decision against walls of text. But I don't know how realistic that is on a site that's trying to grow into a large userbase.

I don't have answers, and I'm a bit too nervous to get involved in this debate more fully by posting these thoughts on my own blog. For the most part, I just plan to watch and see where it goes.