New Rule: DNI (Do Not Interact) Lists are Banned

[Lacuna]

We do not allow users to share they are minors, so this is something we could not enforce, and therefore falls under things that are not suitable for a DNI on CS. Minors on CS speak with adults every day, and all PMs must follow CS rules so there is no danger to either party if PMs between a minor and adult occur. If anyone PMs you and you don't want to talk to them, you don't need to reply. If this is something you are very concerned about, please be aware that a lot of CS users are minors, and this is a site aimed at minors. You may turn of your PMs or set them to friends only if you want to avoid minors.

hello! just to clarify, this new rule also suggests that the opposite is true, right? with that being users can no longer request that adults not message them privately, as opposed to asking minors to not interact, yeah? thank you!

Yes, as that's effectively stating "I am a minor."

[Coraychi]

i totally agree, i don't think it's always a "petty" thing- but what i mean is that often times, when it comes to the moral argument, some people are combative and argumentative and entirely dismissive of someone just because they like X thing, without knowing any more about them.

basically assuming that someone who is a part of that fandom supports whatever it is that they're against. it can come across like a want to be on a moral high ground, so that you can go "stay away from me if you even so much as support that thing, how deplorable!"

they're not always petty but there can be something to be said about the hypocrisy that goes on with it.

Certainly, but also if someone doesn't want to interact with you because you like a certain piece of media, that's their prerogative. Regardless of if they've taken the chance to get to know someone or not, they're entitled to curate their experience, so long as they're being respectful enough to not harass someone for their interests.

As much as I wish this was a perfect world, sometimes you do have to put up with somebody who has a TV show or videogame that triggers you in their signature for example. -snip-[/b]

Of course you'll encounter things that upset you online, and I wasn't implying otherwise. That's why I'm in support of the DNI lists being removed and people just blocking those that have triggering content in their signatures. That doesn't change the fact that I was taking issue with though, which is that a large portion of the people in this thread were calling people petty for not wanting to interact with fans of content that makes them uncomfortable.

I want to make it clear, my comments weren't targeted to any one person in particular, but to everyone misreading and dismissing concerns by callings people petty or rude for not wanting to interact with certain people.

[Livdeer]

the problem though is that a DNI list is like, the opposite of curating something urself. it's doing nothing and expecting the people in ur local vicinity to do that for you. like instead of someone blocking people they don't want to interact with they put up a list of things that could put them into an episode and are asking strangers to see that list & act accordingly

Sorry if the quote is glitchy I’m new to mobile haha

But YES cannot agree with this more! You’re expecting others to curate your experience for you, and you’re relying on those people you DONT LIKE to NOT interact with you.

I hope you can understand how frustrating this is to say repeatedly again and again but if you don’t feel safe without a DNI, you need to talk to a professional or a trusted adult. Because a DNI will NOT keep you safe and will more than likely only put you into danger or have others see you as this “petty” person for putting people on a DNI for various reasons.

You can’t control what people will interact with you, and the DNI is nothing compared to the block button. And the block button is protected by staff and they will handle block evasions.

100% agreed.

I don't see anyone turning and going the other way because someone's rules said "if you believe so and so then don't interact with me" LOL - this is the internet. It's a place of lies. Not even lies really. Omission. You never know the true beliefs of who you're interacting with behind the screen. Honestly, the same can be said for interactions anywhere, online or not!
Anyone can say or do anything. But you can never know what's truly in their head.

[low tide]

unpopular opinion but i'm glad that DNI lists are being discouraged for a number of reasons that a lot of people have already mentioned in this thread. and yes, i have seen people deliberately choose to ignore someone's DNI list to interact with them, and many, many people take people's DNI lists to laugh at how ridiculous they are. i've always found it strange also, that public blacklists aren't allowed but DNI lists would be, especially since most would mention topics that aren't appropriate/allowed on cs, or be hyperspecific enough that it's obvious that you're vagueing someone else on cs. just block someone if they genuinely cause you distress, don't list your triggers and squicks in a place that's so easily accessible to people you even blocked (ie. carrd, listography).

i'm not really a fan of the excuse that the block system on cs "sucks." it's not a perfect system by any means but nothing is perfect, and in every site i've been on there's always complaints about how the block system sucks. and every fix will bring in more complaints, more suggestions piled on top of the other. as lovely as the idea of the internet being a safe space for everyone that's simply not feasible and unfortunately not how it works.

although i do have a question: do BYIs count in the ban, considering that they tend to go hand-in-hand with DNI lists? i admittedly have one myself but i made it with the intention of just listing some things about myself and the person can choose to interact with me based on what's in the BYI.

[Jijing]

As much as I wish this was a perfect world, sometimes you do have to put up with somebody who has a TV show or videogame that triggers you in their signature for example. -snip-[/b]

Of course you'll encounter things that upset you online, and I wasn't implying otherwise. That's why I'm in support of the DNI lists being removed and people just blocking those that have triggering content in their signatures. That doesn't change the fact that I was taking issue with though, which is that a large portion of the people in this thread were calling people petty for not wanting to interact with fans of content that makes them uncomfortable.

I want to make it clear, my comments weren't targeted to any one person in particular, but to everyone misreading and dismissing concerns by callings people petty or rude for not wanting to interact with certain people.

I still stand by my opinion that in general, I find most fandoms listed on DNIs petty. Even still, it doesn't mean that they will openly try to talk to you about triggering topics from the fandom or converse with you at all about the fandom that triggers you. I've had plenty of lovely conversations and trades with people who support something that triggers me (in fact, I can't think of a negative interaction at the top of my head), so I really don't see this as a very common or dangerous occurrence especially on CS where content allowed in signatures, avatars, posts, oekaki, etc. is heavily monitored.

[Lacuna]

although i do have a question: do BYIs count in the ban, considering that they tend to go hand-in-hand with DNI lists? i admittedly have one myself but i made it with the intention of just listing some things about myself and the person can choose to interact with me based on what's in the BYI.

If you just have a list of things about you that follows CS rules (doesn't share personal info we don't allow, most importantly) that's fine. You can call it a "before you interact/follow."

[Teekl]

I'm personally glad to see this rule put into place. A lot of people basically use DNI lists as a way to express anti-fandom sentiments. I don't doubt that some fandoms are genuinely triggering for certain people, but there are also plenty who just list it because they prefer to lump all people together and morally judge them based on their interests. It feels like an easy way to bypass the "no anti- statements" rule and bring a lot of negative energy to the site. And, as others have been saying, DNI lists are more likely to make you a target than keep you safe. You think the people you listed on your DNI list are going to have much desire to respect your wishes, after you highkey insulted their identity/beliefs/interests? The best solution is to just foe/block people, honestly.

[Mewfles]

although i do have a question: do BYIs count in the ban, considering that they tend to go hand-in-hand with DNI lists? i admittedly have one myself but i made it with the intention of just listing some things about myself and the person can choose to interact with me based on what's in the BYI.

would like an answer to this! Seems kinda in a gray zone as I don't see it as a problem nearly as often as DNIs ^^
edit: it was answered ty!

[Filth King]

I'm quite happy to see this rule added.

I never felt it really matched the atmosphere of the site, and I was seeing some rather silly ones like banning specific names or favorite characters, often of which weren't problematic themselves or from problematic sources.

[Erwin Smith]

So.

I’ve never heard of DNI at all. Before reading this update; so I come in with a fresh pair of eyes. I must be getting old. I googled and learned what they mean. I hope this is enough for my two cents worth.

On one hand, yes you need to set your boundaries for your own reassurance than yes, much power and bless to you.
On the other, I can also see how it may be detrimental and lead to you being « targeted »

However. That choice should be up to the user and their guardian on the site. And the users who use and post on the site. If anything this should be added potentially somewhere in fine print. As everywhere evolves over time, it’s up to the staff and users to evolve to accomodate the community. But this can only be done through effective communication and by the last 13+ pages, I don’t think that’s happened and it’s probably even safe to criticise it in a sense.

This has been a very decisive conversation between all parties but I’m finding myself seeing the mods / staff and other valued users defending the situation more and pushing the conversation back to explain what’s happening and why it’s occurring to users. So where do we fall?

We have a decisive answer. But is it the right one? I don’t have a DNI list, I don’t believe in them for myself. But I’ve now been educated on their usage and their practical meanings and how they operate. If they make someone feel better then that should be acceptable, like an accomodation of sorts right?

That’s not my major point though.

My question on the topic, was there any user discussion before this was requested and put into place as a rule?

Most rule changes often happen because there was community feedback (no matter how delayed, there still normally is community feedback none the less)

Was there any in regards to this rule change? I know CS staff spoke about it, this is highlighted from Simon’s original post here:

After continued experience moderating DNI (Do Not Interact) lists, CS Staff has discussed the pros and cons of allowing them and come to the conclusion that DNI (Do Not Interact) lists will no longer be allowed on Chicken Smoothie. Users may not list DNIs on their profile, trade rules, or forum posts, nor may they link to other sites that contain DNI lists.

But I feel strongly that the community who use and operate the site should of at least been consulted or at least been involved in discussing them. I can give examples where this happened previously where users made the initial conversation happen.

- Off site bullying
- Art theft / character theft / role play rules
- Anti ‘x’
- Continuous issues between religion threads and LGBTIQ+ threads.

This is the conversation now with the rule looming over head. But I believe a conversation with users probably would of been practical before then. Even an opinion piece for them. Even a community discussion page in Adult chat would of given some sort of stance I think?