Firesquids
☆ Roxie of Avalar ☆
Betsy, this is dangerous homophobic rhetoric.
The Official Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
So currently, it's pretty subjective. A lot is left up to staff to decide. I figured one way to fix it is to be more specific in the rules.
What sexual identities would be grouped under sexual content? What does sexual identity mean in this context?
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
Are you serious? I don't think you read my entire posts.
Sexual content is everything regarding sex. It's huge and covers the entire spectrum of any and all aspects of sex.
I was asked what i thought was ok on the forum, and i specifically say we should keep identity/ preference discussions (but maybe prohibit age preferences) and you tell me it's homophobic rhetoric?
I believe that is an extremely dishonest mischaracterization of my post. Similar to extremely dishonest mischaracterizations of other posts in this thread.
Sexual identity and support is entirely different from discussing your sex life. That shouldn't need to be clarified.
Discussion of sex life matters in detail should either occur in private message with adult parties or off the forum.
Definition of material: elements, constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made
A post is a composition of material. A post of someone's sexual life is sexual material.
Discussion of sex life matters in detail should either occur in private message with adult parties or off the forum.
Definition of material: elements, constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made
A post is a composition of material. A post of someone's sexual life is sexual material.
Firesquids
☆ Roxie of Avalar ☆
Do you think that heterosexuality is also sexual content?
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
Google definition of sexual content is anything related to sex. Anything. From suggestive humour, to any sex-related topic, all the way up to sexual acts.
If you were to prohibit all sexual content, that's not good imo, because basic discussions of preferences fall under the very broad definition.
Someone said earlier that all sexual content should be prohibited. Imo that goes too far and is too broad to have as a rule. Waayy too many things fall under that category.
And I am asking you, again, to clarify, what are these sexual identities? Are you referring to sexuality, ie: people talking about being gay, straight, bisexual, etc.
fairysyndrome
love & support trans people. / Free Palestine.
i wasn't planning to step back into this thread after the conversation previously died down, but oomf told me it picked back up so i caught up to see if anything ever got properly addressed (with the answer being no). however, this does very much need addressing in itself.
betsy, the association of orientation with "sexual content" is inherently homophobic. as i said to mick a good many pages prior, the "sexual" in "sexual orientation" is from sex in its outdated use for gender, not from sex as in the activity. preference is not inherently sexual content unless the topic of sex itself is involved.
frankly, also, as you brought it up next to the discussion of prohibition of age-based discussion... considering the entire reason the age-gap conversation happened was due to age gaps with young adults & people several years older than them being inherently predatory in nature due to maturity gaps & potential power imbalances, putting it against conversation about sexuality implies - whether you meant it or not - a link to sexuality being predatory inherently as a topic itself.
pointing this out is not a mischaracterization & also does circle back to the previous conversations regarding Chris, as any and all mischaracterizations of posts that caused upset were created by the wording of the person who made them leaving room up for dangerous interpretation to begin with. if you would like your point to be more clear, then instead of citing definitions without elaborating please specify what you meant so there's no room to misinterpret it as you're saying people are.
it only came up as a rule suggestion because you effectively sealioned someone into bringing it up to begin with. see below.
Last edited:
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
Same for all categories. If i were to discuss my sexual attractions toward men, of course that falls under sexual content by its definition.
I answered a question saying I thought sexual content was too broad to be the rule, and that's the specific example i gave.
There are way more things that fall under sexual content. Suggestive humour is another. I don't think people should get in trouble for suggestive humour.
My personal opinion, I don't even think people should be prevented from discussing age gap relationships, but it was suggested as a rule by someone, so i included that.
Because google is a super legit source but...here you go, I googled for you: "Sexual content is broadly defined as material that depicts or describes sexual behavior, whether explicit or implicit, and may include nudity, sexual acts, or sexual language."
What do you know, the word material is in there....and "describes sexual behavior" which those posts do.
What's not in there is sexual identity so, again, it feels like you are trying to mislead and purposefully make discord on a serious topic.
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
I think my post was pretty clear, but I'll expand on it. People are missing the /preferences.
In discussing identity/ preferences, it is a natural flow of the discussion for people to sometimes be somewhat specific about what they are attracted to, which is why I linked /preferences. Sometimes these discussions can involve things people are not confortable with (age, details of sexual attraction).
My opinion, this is fine and no problem on the forum. My worry, if there is a sexual content blanket prohibition, a lot of good content will be prohibited.
I'm not putting anything against conversation about sexuality.
I was specifically asked what i thought was ok on the forum.
I said discussing sexual identity/ preferences. Sometimes the discussions can include details that would fit the definition of sexual content. Therefore, i think sexual content is unacceptable as a rule because it's too broad and would inhibit forum discussions.
I also think suggestive humour is fine. Some people may not. But it falls under sexual content.
Post automatically merged:
I noticed you did not include the complete definition.
Here's a more detailed look:
Definition and Scope:
Definition and Scope:
- Explicit:
Direct and graphic depictions of sexual acts, including nudity and genital exposure.
- Implicit:
Suggestive content that hints at or implies sexual acts without explicit portrayal.
- Sexual Language and Euphemisms:
Words and phrases used to refer to sexual activity or body parts.
- Sexual Themes:
Content that explores or references sexual themes without necessarily depicting sexual acts directly.
- Explicit:
It's a huge topic. The definition of sexual materials is quite different.
The breakdown of the text is exactly what text already states lol. Nowhere in there includes anything to sexual identity to be mistaken as part of it.
I also have to question that you truly think suggestive humor is appropriate for a 13 year old to be exposed to on an animal crossing forum?
I also have to question that you truly think suggestive humor is appropriate for a 13 year old to be exposed to on an animal crossing forum?
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
I feel like nobody is actually reading my posts.
Why do you keep leaving off the /preferences aspect?
In discussion of identity/preferences, it can be a natural part of the conversation to discuss why/ why not attraction occurs, what motivates the attraction, the physical aspects vs other aspects.
Sexual content by definition includes "words or phrases that refer to body parts", which can be natural parts of those discussions. (Ex- I'm not attracted to x body parts. That would be sexual content by definition, as part of a larger discussion that is not sexual).
My point - a rule against sexual content is far too broad. It would inhibit discussions and people would have to be careful about what words they used in discussions that may not be sexual in nature, but may end up including what is defined as sexual content.
???? what??
you can't be serious, right? on a forum for Animal Crossing, where I would assume a lot of kids would look at, I'd assume that anything related to explicit content, even jokes, is off limits.
this topic is so weird because I don't think it needs to be discussed at all.
sure. "materials" is a broad term but TBT has a track record of being horrible at specifying what they mean and expect members to know exactly what they mean or think they're crystal clear when they're not -
but using common sense, it's pretty easy to understand what they probably don't want discussed on the site.
to try to present and discuss loopholes with the rules for this long feels very immature.
where is the staff to moderate this discussion? wouldn't they normally say what they mean by "sexual materials" and try to move the conversation on??
what is going on right now
you can't be serious, right? on a forum for Animal Crossing, where I would assume a lot of kids would look at, I'd assume that anything related to explicit content, even jokes, is off limits.
this topic is so weird because I don't think it needs to be discussed at all.
sure. "materials" is a broad term but TBT has a track record of being horrible at specifying what they mean and expect members to know exactly what they mean or think they're crystal clear when they're not -
but using common sense, it's pretty easy to understand what they probably don't want discussed on the site.
to try to present and discuss loopholes with the rules for this long feels very immature.
where is the staff to moderate this discussion? wouldn't they normally say what they mean by "sexual materials" and try to move the conversation on??
what is going on right now
Hi all, as mentioned earlier, the thread seems to have taken another wrong turn, and I'm sure it's disappointing to see that the community is struggling with feedback. It would be a stretch to call this feedback anymore, perhaps a series of heated arguments with feedback sprinkled in. I agree with the concerns above that it is likely to continue down this path, which isn't helpful for the community, and helping the community is the reason we created this thread in the first place.
First, I would like to talk about the recent argument because it appears to have devolved into criticisms of bigotry against a member, but it seems this started last night when someone else claimed that "sexual preferences" are "sexual material" that should not be discussed on the forum. Given this context and the loose definition that some here may have been supporting, it's unfair to turn this into accusations of bigotry. Our prohibited content rule lists "pornography, nudity, or sexual material." If you think this should be interpreted so strictly that it applies to sexual preferences/attractions, that is valid feedback, but there are going to be issues with such a strict interpretation, whether it was intended that way or not. Let's not jump to accusations of bigotry just because someone was pointing this out.
The root of this discussion is the uncertainty about this rule, so I'd like to clarify some things: what it means, what it was intended to mean, what it could mean, and what it could never mean. With the discussion above in mind, I'll start by stating that discussing LGBTQ+ (whether it's about romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or identity) will never be disallowed on the forum, and we're proud to be the first Animal Crossing community on the internet to allow such discussions/support when others did not.
As for the original intent of this rule when it was written years ago, it was not necessarily meant to prohibit respectful and mature discussions about sex. I've also reviewed the past five years of warnings where this rule was quoted and these were the types of posts that were addressed, starting with the most common: 1) images of genitalia or sexual acts, 2) detailed descriptions of sexual acts, 3) crass inuendos or mentions of sexual acts in a joking/disrespectful manner, typically during discussions of unrelated topics.
Finally, I mentioned "what it could mean" above, and by this I'm referring to the idea that rules and the enforcement of rules can be (and are) changed over time. We run this forum with community feedback in mind, which is the purpose of this thread after all. This is a very old community started a long time ago by a bunch of kids. Since then, the way it operates and the way society perceives many of these topics has changed multiple times. I remember a time, around the early New Leaf era over a decade ago, when the community petitioned us to allow very open discussions about sex, and this was framed by proponents as both progressive and educational (I'm sure these threads typically spiraled out of control and were ultimately locked). Looking at some of these old discussions is bound to raise eyebrows in 2025. I've seen it suggested at least once or twice that certain old content could be systematically removed from the forum, and I agree that it's worth considering, though it's not something that can happen overnight. In many cases, we may not actually be aware that these posts exist.
The environment on the forum is certainly different in 2025 than it was in 2014, but the topic of sex is not broadly prohibited by the rules. If you think this is a topic that the community should altogether reject, that is valid, and there is a way to share that view constructively and without accusations. Furthermore, while it is still important to remember that kids could be participating here, the community has been used primarily by adults for quite some time. The average age of active users is currently 35, while the median age is 29. I also suspect that Animal Crossing now has one of the oldest userbases for Nintendo games. This is just something that may be worth keeping in mind while comparing TBT and its rules to other social media apps, Discord servers, etc.
I hope I've helped clear up some of the confusion about this rule and how it has been enforced here. I would now like to discuss the posts Chris made in 2022, and I understand some may have been waiting for an official statement beyond Chris's apology. When I read the posts, I agreed that they should not have been made, and the reason is because moderators are held to a higher standard and will naturally face greater scrutiny from the community. So while this post was not necessarily something we would warn a member for making, as some were suggesting, it is still a type of oversharing that Chris shouldn't have posted. This view is also shared by Chris himself in hindsight, three years later, as I have heard from my discussions with him, and as you have read in his apology. Furthermore, I understand the worry some members had about the way in which the topic was presented, and I'm glad Chris made further clarifications here. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to read the post and have these worries, so this was also something that could have been addressed more carefully from the beginning.
For the community, I would also recommend taking a look at the post made by LadyDestani where she talked about reporting concerns relating to staff members. This is something that would ideally be addressed when it happens, and not in such a public manner that causes arguments in the feedback thread. As Chris has mentioned, he is taking a break from moderating and from the forum in general. He will also be moving to the Project Staff role while taking a break from moderating here. He has recently paused this break by coming here to make clarifications, but now that I've made an official statement about this topic, the most productive thing for the community will be to discuss the rules constructively, as I mentioned above, or move to a more productive topic. If you still have concerns, I would like to hear them, so please reference the post I linked to above.
There is a lot to be said about feedback and how it has happened in this thread, and this has been an experiment in a lot of ways. Now that it's late, it can wait for my next post here. I have already covered one of the planned topics today, but I will address some other big topics that have come up over the past few weeks, such as the banning, the ignore functionality, and a dark theme. We are also still planning to touch on the list of topics that started this thread, though some may have already been touched on in pieces, others not at all, such as AI. These topics are being spearheaded by individual staff members, with input from the entire team, so it's dependent on their personal schedules. We expect at least some of these topics to be posted this month.
The idea of implementing something like Discord's slow mode for this thread was mentioned, and it's something we'd like to try (as I mentioned, this thread is an experiment in a lot of ways). Unfortunately, the forum's software does not currently allow for this to be implemented in individual threads, but we can do it for entire boards instead. This may look a bit clunky until we can develop our own solution to implement this, but we're moving this thread into a dedicated board in order to make this possible now. We'll start by trying a four-hour cooldown, and please let us know if this feature seems to be overly restricting your posts because we're testing it for the first time. Thanks for understanding/reading!
First, I would like to talk about the recent argument because it appears to have devolved into criticisms of bigotry against a member, but it seems this started last night when someone else claimed that "sexual preferences" are "sexual material" that should not be discussed on the forum. Given this context and the loose definition that some here may have been supporting, it's unfair to turn this into accusations of bigotry. Our prohibited content rule lists "pornography, nudity, or sexual material." If you think this should be interpreted so strictly that it applies to sexual preferences/attractions, that is valid feedback, but there are going to be issues with such a strict interpretation, whether it was intended that way or not. Let's not jump to accusations of bigotry just because someone was pointing this out.
The root of this discussion is the uncertainty about this rule, so I'd like to clarify some things: what it means, what it was intended to mean, what it could mean, and what it could never mean. With the discussion above in mind, I'll start by stating that discussing LGBTQ+ (whether it's about romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or identity) will never be disallowed on the forum, and we're proud to be the first Animal Crossing community on the internet to allow such discussions/support when others did not.
As for the original intent of this rule when it was written years ago, it was not necessarily meant to prohibit respectful and mature discussions about sex. I've also reviewed the past five years of warnings where this rule was quoted and these were the types of posts that were addressed, starting with the most common: 1) images of genitalia or sexual acts, 2) detailed descriptions of sexual acts, 3) crass inuendos or mentions of sexual acts in a joking/disrespectful manner, typically during discussions of unrelated topics.
Finally, I mentioned "what it could mean" above, and by this I'm referring to the idea that rules and the enforcement of rules can be (and are) changed over time. We run this forum with community feedback in mind, which is the purpose of this thread after all. This is a very old community started a long time ago by a bunch of kids. Since then, the way it operates and the way society perceives many of these topics has changed multiple times. I remember a time, around the early New Leaf era over a decade ago, when the community petitioned us to allow very open discussions about sex, and this was framed by proponents as both progressive and educational (I'm sure these threads typically spiraled out of control and were ultimately locked). Looking at some of these old discussions is bound to raise eyebrows in 2025. I've seen it suggested at least once or twice that certain old content could be systematically removed from the forum, and I agree that it's worth considering, though it's not something that can happen overnight. In many cases, we may not actually be aware that these posts exist.
The environment on the forum is certainly different in 2025 than it was in 2014, but the topic of sex is not broadly prohibited by the rules. If you think this is a topic that the community should altogether reject, that is valid, and there is a way to share that view constructively and without accusations. Furthermore, while it is still important to remember that kids could be participating here, the community has been used primarily by adults for quite some time. The average age of active users is currently 35, while the median age is 29. I also suspect that Animal Crossing now has one of the oldest userbases for Nintendo games. This is just something that may be worth keeping in mind while comparing TBT and its rules to other social media apps, Discord servers, etc.
I hope I've helped clear up some of the confusion about this rule and how it has been enforced here. I would now like to discuss the posts Chris made in 2022, and I understand some may have been waiting for an official statement beyond Chris's apology. When I read the posts, I agreed that they should not have been made, and the reason is because moderators are held to a higher standard and will naturally face greater scrutiny from the community. So while this post was not necessarily something we would warn a member for making, as some were suggesting, it is still a type of oversharing that Chris shouldn't have posted. This view is also shared by Chris himself in hindsight, three years later, as I have heard from my discussions with him, and as you have read in his apology. Furthermore, I understand the worry some members had about the way in which the topic was presented, and I'm glad Chris made further clarifications here. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to read the post and have these worries, so this was also something that could have been addressed more carefully from the beginning.
For the community, I would also recommend taking a look at the post made by LadyDestani where she talked about reporting concerns relating to staff members. This is something that would ideally be addressed when it happens, and not in such a public manner that causes arguments in the feedback thread. As Chris has mentioned, he is taking a break from moderating and from the forum in general. He will also be moving to the Project Staff role while taking a break from moderating here. He has recently paused this break by coming here to make clarifications, but now that I've made an official statement about this topic, the most productive thing for the community will be to discuss the rules constructively, as I mentioned above, or move to a more productive topic. If you still have concerns, I would like to hear them, so please reference the post I linked to above.
There is a lot to be said about feedback and how it has happened in this thread, and this has been an experiment in a lot of ways. Now that it's late, it can wait for my next post here. I have already covered one of the planned topics today, but I will address some other big topics that have come up over the past few weeks, such as the banning, the ignore functionality, and a dark theme. We are also still planning to touch on the list of topics that started this thread, though some may have already been touched on in pieces, others not at all, such as AI. These topics are being spearheaded by individual staff members, with input from the entire team, so it's dependent on their personal schedules. We expect at least some of these topics to be posted this month.
The idea of implementing something like Discord's slow mode for this thread was mentioned, and it's something we'd like to try (as I mentioned, this thread is an experiment in a lot of ways). Unfortunately, the forum's software does not currently allow for this to be implemented in individual threads, but we can do it for entire boards instead. This may look a bit clunky until we can develop our own solution to implement this, but we're moving this thread into a dedicated board in order to make this possible now. We'll start by trying a four-hour cooldown, and please let us know if this feature seems to be overly restricting your posts because we're testing it for the first time. Thanks for understanding/reading!
Why?
thanks for some clarification, jeremy
i'd really like to echo jacob here:
some of the behavior we've seen thus far in the feedback thread (and historically in other places on tbt) are really brought to my mind when i think of seliph's banning. i really think it's important that a community standard is set and that everyone is held to the same standard. i insist that a reconsideration of the consequence takes place, or that other members of the community are held to the same standard.
i'd really like to echo jacob here:
some of the behavior we've seen thus far in the feedback thread (and historically in other places on tbt) are really brought to my mind when i think of seliph's banning. i really think it's important that a community standard is set and that everyone is held to the same standard. i insist that a reconsideration of the consequence takes place, or that other members of the community are held to the same standard.
- Status
