The Official Feedback Thread

[Selky]

For those posting such serious misinformation about a staff member (or any member) in the middle of this should get it as tight as Chris is. Totally unacceptable.

imo Jeremy's site, Jeremy's staff, Jeremy's rules.
If I don't like how a site is ran on the internet , I'm always free to walk away.

For the record, I don't think I've spoken more than a couple of sentences to any staff member. My feelings come as a human being for other human beings who put so much time and effort into making this site a place you all want to be and it seems have spent many years since you were so upset. Can't be that bad, eh!?

I hope Chris is okay. The odds against him are showing quite unfair with others feeling unable to post support publicly.

What misinformation are you referring to? Any misinformation that had the chance to be created surely would be because behavior that was allowed to permeate over the course of years with no official address until it seems just currently.
So, whom is at fault? Members or staff?
And going by that logic, I've yet to see Chris face any repercussion so, if your wish is for others to get the same, then I guess we are all fine. By that notion, we all should be able to apologize and have any violation history wiped from our accounts.

If that is the goal of Jeremy and the staff then that's fine. Jeremy simply needs to post and indicate that is his outlook, that this is how he forsees running the site, that staff behavior will continue to be treated in the manner it has been, that violation and bans will be handled at random/no clarification. Thus allowing all concerned long term members the clarity and conclusion to make next steps together should they choose to.

I think every person in this topic is a human having feelings for other humans. I just simply prioritize the feelings and safety of the most vulnerable members we have (whom to my experience seeing post are as young as 12).

I wish Chris the utmost healing. Making alternating statements now does nothing for those whom read and were affected years prior when those posts were made nor does the remarks now show adequate growth to be in a position of trust and authority over a forum of very young individuals.
If anything statements made to use alcoholism, neurodiversity, and sexuality as reasons only hurt this community more.

Lastly, I think many have nothing but utmost appreciation and respect for the time, effort, cost of running a site. However, it's not the staff that just makes the site; it's the whole. Without the members, you have just as little as without core mods to run it. Members that put time, money, and effort into services, events, and site support. Without them (many of which are long time users here posting concerns), this site wouldn't have been what it was and will be should they choose to leave. So you can have the attitude of just go but, in the end, it is going to hurt everyone especially moderators.

 

[Lancelot]

Selky worded it a lot better but I assume the 'misinformation' was yesterday. Me and someone else misquoted Chris - but we both apologised and clarified what we meant. The only reason I can see this being brought up again is to try and invalidate the great points everyone else has been making, which once again seems extremely dismissive and insulting.

I'm not sure what posts in this thread are "way above any wrongs any staff member may have done". Chris posted sexual content on a forum with children. Jeremy, the site leader, had a public argument with a member and aired their dirty laundry. If you're fine moving on from that with a simple apology fair enough, but a lot of people aren't.

I'm sorry TBT is your space to get away from irl crap and, but no one is forcing you to read this thread. These conversations need to be had, and I'm certainly not against anyone having an opinion on them, but I once again don't feel like joining in, being dismissive and then refusing to eloborate is beneficial for anyone.

 

[BetsySundrop]

. Chris posted sexual content on a forum with children.

There is a good deal of sexual content on this forum posted by members also.

The main points I've been trying to make-

- sexual content appears in this forum posted by staff and members alike

- the current rules are unclear on what is allowed/not allowed re such content discussions

- perhaps clarify the rules and move forward with everyone following the new guidelines

The other main concern of mine was that Chris's posts of the past were being mischaracterized and twisted into something they weren't. A couple of people have apologized for that, which I think is great (not that my opinion means anything, I understand that).

Other than that I've just been responding when quoted or questioned.

If sexual content within posts should have consequences, then there are members who would currently be facing consequences as well.

I think that is not fair, as the rules are not currently clear.

That's why I suggested - clarify and define the rules, and also define the consequences for breaking the rules, and move forward.

 

[himekirako]

sexual materials and sexual content are often used interchangeably so yes, regular members should face consequences as well if there are posts like that floating around. as a staff member, they should be held to a higher standard because it shows regular members what is or isn’t acceptable content on the forum.

regardless, i don’t think sexual themed posts should be acceptable on a forum that has a lot of younger members but maybe that’s just me!!

 

[Firesquids]

There is a good deal of sexual content on this forum posted by members also.

- sexual content appears in this forum posted by staff and members alike

And as many members here have stated, that's not okay either! The moderation staff is setting poor example of conduct that's appropriate.

- the current rules are unclear on what is allowed/not allowed re such content discussions

No they are not, The rules and Guidelines clearly state "sexual materials" are prohibited.

- perhaps clarify the rules and move forward with everyone following the new guidelines

• Prohibited Content
  Do not post any content that contains or promotes the following:
  • Violence, terrorism, suicide, self-harm, or other obscene content.
  • Advocating or celebrating the harm or death of others.
  • Discrimination against any race, religion, or sexual orientation.
  • Hacking information, viruses, or harmful computer software.
  • Information on how to access items that violate copyright laws.
  • Pornography, nudity, or sexual material.
  • Words or images that purposely bypass the forum censor, including partially replacing letters with asterisks or other symbols.

I'm really confused how anyone would see this rule and think "oh sexual material is not allowed so talking about my sex life is a-ok!"
It's sexual material, to claim anything else is just being purposefully ignorant.

The other main concern of mine was that Chris's posts of the past were being mischaracterized and twisted into something they weren't. A couple of people have apologized for that, which I think is great (not that my opinion means anything, I understand that).

Seliph's posts were also mischaracterized and twisted into something they weren't, the difference here is the members who accidentally mischaracterized Chris's posts have apologized for it and cleared up the miscommunication.

If sexual content within posts should have consequences, then there are members who would currently be facing consequences as well.

Yes, they should, as posting sexual materials are against the rules and guidelines.

That's why I suggested - clarify and define the rules, and also define the consequences for breaking the rules, and move forward.

I think we would all like to move forward, but staff needs to step up and handle this situation professionally in order for that to happen.

 

[SkyKnight03]

yeah just reading through this and it kinda goes back to square one. (Which one of users above me already summed up).

On a website that allows users as young as 13 to share space with adults, there's never any reason that an adult needs to bring up sexually explicit content. I don't see *any* exception to this.

If that hasn't been clearly defined in the rules for some reason then maybe it should be.

Also, any adult joining a forum that shares space with children should already take responsibility and be aware enough of this before they even sign up. (while staff serve as a representative I do believe that every adult using this forum should bare that in mind).

 

[BetsySundrop]

And as many members here have stated, that's not okay either! The moderation staff is setting poor example of conduct that's appropriate.

Agree!

No they are not, The rules and Guidelines clearly state "sexual materials" are prohibited.

'Materials' isn't clearly defined, I think. It's a really broad subject. I think seeing numerous posts of this type of thing throughout the forum indicates that it isn't clearly defined.
I'm just saying it needs to be made clear what is/is not acceptable.

Seliph's posts were also mischaracterized and twisted into something they weren't, the difference here is the members who accidentally mischaracterized Chris's posts have apologized for it and cleared up the miscommunication.

I've tried to keep my concerns seperate from the ban issue, because I don't feel I can have an opinion on it, esp when I don't have all the facts.

I've stated before, I had no personal issues with seliph, who was in fact helpful and nice to me in our interactions. But I have no idea what went on behind the scenes or even what posts were involved, no idea (don't want to know), so I can't really form an opinion. I think that's best handled between seliph/staff, maybe they can work something out.

Some have apologized for the disturbing misreps, but no, not all have apologized. I'm not saying anyone has to apologize, totally not my place.

The reason I originally posted was there were some really disturbing false representations, which then were repeated and repeated. I was shocked by some of the accusations, esp when I read the older posts and could find no factual basis for them.

Yes, they should, as posting sexual materials are against the rules and guidelines.

But where is the line? There's a huge spectrum of this content here. The line isn't clear at all.
So i think that wouldn't really be fair.

I think we would all like to move forward, but staff needs to step up and handle this situation professionally in order for that to happen.

Agree! We maybe just differ on opinions of how to handle it.

Punishing all members/staff who have posted anything sexual in nature seems extreme imo, esp when it's not clear what's acceptable or not.

Singling out any one person (chris) also wouldn't be fair imo.

Trying to think of what would be fair, I thought maybe issuing clear rules guidelines and moving forward with clear consequences for them might be fair.

 

[Lancelot]

Agree!



'Materials' isn't clearly defined, I think. It's a really broad subject. I think seeing numerous posts of this type of thing throughout the forum indicates that it isn't clearly defined.
I'm just saying it needs to be made clear what is/is not acceptable.



I've tried to keep my concerns seperate from the ban issue, because I don't feel I can have an opinion on it, esp when I don't have all the facts.

I've stated before, I had no personal issues with seliph, who was in fact helpful and nice to me in our interactions. But I have no idea what went on behind the scenes or even what posts were involved, no idea (don't want to know), so I can't really form an opinion. I think that's best handled between seliph/staff, maybe they can work something out.

Some have apologized for the disturbing misreps, but no, not all have apologized. I'm not saying anyone has to apologize, totally not my place.

The reason I originally posted was there were some really disturbing false representations, which then were repeated and repeated. I was shocked by some of the accusations, esp when I read the older posts and could find no factual basis for them.



But where is the line? There's a huge spectrum of this content here. The line isn't clear at all.
So i think that wouldn't really be fair.



Agree! We maybe just differ on opinions of how to handle it.

Punishing all members/staff who have posted anything sexual in nature seems extreme imo, esp when it's not clear what's acceptable or not.

Singling out any one person (chris) also wouldn't be fair imo.

Trying to think of what would be fair, I thought maybe issuing clear rules guidelines and moving forward with clear consequences for them might be fair.

Just from a quick google the definition seems clear enough, but I don't think it can hurt to elaborate on it in the rules.

Although, 'Sexual material' seems broad on purpose and part of me thinks that the rule shouldn't need to be elaborated on for a grown adult to know not to discuss their sex life on a forum with children on.

 

[-Lumi-]

'Materials' isn't clearly defined, I think. It's a really broad subject. I think seeing numerous posts of this type of thing throughout the forum indicates that it isn't clearly defined.
I'm just saying it needs to be made clear what is/is not acceptable.

But where is the line? There's a huge spectrum of this content here. The line isn't clear at all.
So i think that wouldn't really be fair.

I am genuinely curious as to what "sexual materials" you feel would be appropriate to talk about on a website also used by children.

In this particular instance I don't think the rule needs to be ultra specific and list every single thing that isnt allowed. "Sexual materials" is broad for a reason - so that they don't need to list out x, y, z when they don't want any of it on the site.

 

[oath2order]

I think they’re referring to both Chris’s eligibility as a moderator and the inappropriate candy van meme used by the staff a couple years ago, as well as the ignore feature and how it doesn’t do enough.

What's the issue with the ignore feature? At least for my experience, it's better than it was on the prior version of the forum. You can only see the posts if you click "see ignored content" which is basically nearly invisible on the bottom of the page. You don't see something like "Person A's post", "click here to see ignored content of Ignored Person" "Person B's post" "click here to see ignored content of Ignored Person". It's basically fully invisible.

 

[BetsySundrop]

I am genuinely curious as to what "sexual materials" you feel would be appropriate to talk about on a website also used by children.

I think staff would be better at putting in the limits.

But just as examples of things people may/ may not agree on-

Explicit jokes, jokes with sexual references
Personal preferences re sexual partners
Philosophical discussions regarding sexual behavior and religion

Personally, i think discussions of sexual identity/preferences are fine, esp in the form of support, but some people might disagree with me.

I think staff would probably be much better than me at setting the limits.

 

[-Apples-]

What's the issue with the ignore feature? At least for my experience, it's better than it was on the prior version of the forum. You can only see the posts if you click "see ignored content" which is basically nearly invisible on the bottom of the page. You don't see something like "Person A's post", "click here to see ignored content of Ignored Person" "Person B's post" "click here to see ignored content of Ignored Person". It's basically fully invisible.

Some of the members want to stop ignored users from following them or to post on their profile, or to send them anything.

 

[oath2order]

Some of the members want to stop ignored users from following them or to post on their profile, or to send them anything.

Oh, that's weird that that's possible to do then.

 

[-Lumi-]

I think staff would be better at putting in the limits.

But just as examples of things people may/ may not agree on-

Explicit jokes, jokes with sexual references
Personal preferences re sexual partners
Philosophical discussions regarding sexual behavior and religion

Personally, i think discussions of sexual identity/preferences are fine, esp in the form of support, but some people might disagree with me.

I think staff would probably be much better than me at setting the limits.

I am so sorry, are you referring to people talking about their sexuality as being... sexual material? I know that it has the word "sexual" in it but as a lesbian, when I am talking about my girlfriend, about my attraction to woman, I am talking about that in a romantic sense. To suggest than anytime I, or anyone else, are talking about their partners that they are referring only to having sex with them is insulting.

Explicit jokes and jokes with sexual references have no place on a forum with children. The youngest age is supposed to be 13 but I wouldn't be surprised if people are lying about their age and actually younger than that. Especially when the main draw of the forum is to play and discuss Animal Crossing - a family friendly game. Even still, 13 years old is far too young for children to be engaging in sexual jokes with adults. It's disgusting. It shouldn't need to be said that a forum with children shouldn't foster conversations between minors and adults with sexual content.

 

[BetsySundrop]

Just from a quick google the definition seems clear enough, but I don't think it can hurt to elaborate on it in the rules.

So when I Google the definition of sexual materials, it's yes, pretty clear. The main point being the intent of the material.

Imo, what Chris posted didn't seem to fit that definition.

Determining whether content fits that definition could be subjective, in which case, the ultimate decision would rest with the site owner.

So maybe that's the best solution - members can report content, and site owner can determine whether the content fits the definition.

If something is inappropriate, yet not up to the Google definition, then maybe it should be up to the site owner to decide what to do in each case.

 

[daringred_]

nevermiiiiiind

 

[BetsySundrop]

I am so sorry, are you referring to people talking about their sexuality as being... sexual material?

You asked what i thought was ok on the forum. I'll try to clarify - sorry for being unclear.

Sexual materials - not ok.

The google definition of sexual materials is different from sexual content.

The rules say sexual materials are prohibited.

Chris's posts do not fit the google definition of sexual materials, imo, mainly because the intent does not fit the definition at all.

Therefore, if you want such types of posts to be prohibited (like was mentioned before, discussing age gap relationships, etc), the rules would need to prohibit sexual content.

Sexual content is a huge topic. Under sexual content, people may disagree on some things, I listed a few.

Sexual content may also extend to identity/ preferences in partners. You asked what i thought would be ok on the forum, and i think that's fine. The only issue would be maybe limiting any preferences discussions to not include age, as is been suggested as a rule.

But sexual materials has a specific definition, and it's not the same as sexual content, which is very broad. Current rules prohibit sexual materials, not content.

 

[Javocado]

So when I Google the definition of sexual materials, it's yes, pretty clear. The main point being the intent of the material.

Imo, what Chris posted didn't seem to fit that definition.

Determining whether content fits that definition could be subjective, in which case, the ultimate decision would rest with the site owner.

So maybe that's the best solution - members can report content, and site owner can determine whether the content fits the definition.

If something is inappropriate, yet not up to the Google definition, then maybe it should be up to the site owner to decide what to do in each case.

yeah cause if someone says they’ve “gone to bed with someone” it must mean they’re taking a nap! you’re right it doesn’t fit that definition!! how could I be so obtuse??? thank you for showing me the way

and members have been reporting content and content is either not dealt with or content/posts are still there despite being reported so it’s a futile solution and that’s why it’s gotten to this point where everyone is so vocal do you realize this???

 

[himekirako]

So maybe that's the best solution - members can report content, and site owner can determine whether the content fits the definition.

people do and have?? one of the feedback and criticism provided was that members feel like staff don’t listen to reports because problematic/questionable posts are left up.

 

[BetsySundrop]

not to like derail this or anything, but i think she was referring more to like. turn offs/ons, physical preferences, age, actual preferences in the bedroom etc. especially since betsy said this right below: "Personally, i think discussions of sexual identity/preferences are fine." idk as a fellow lesbian, that's just how i immediately read it, personally, so i'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on this very specific instance.

Exactly! I was asked what was ok imo, so just looking at the entire topic, my fear is that if all sexual content is prohibited, that covers a lot of things that most people are fine with and just imo wouldn't be good for the forum to prohibit at all.

It's tricky when making rules. If you can discuss preferences re gender, but age would be prohibited, then the rules would need to be pretty specific.

Post automatically merged: Jun 10, 2025

yeah cause if someone says they’ve “gone to bed with someone” it must mean they’re taking a nap! you’re right it doesn’t fit that definition!! how could I be so obtuse??? thank you for showing me the way

So that doesn't actually fit the google definition of sexual materials, which is prohibited.

It does fit the definition of sexual content, which is currently not prohibited.