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

[stormy tom]

Why would you not want to interact with a fandom as a whole? That seems pretty toxic, as grouping a large chunk of people as bad, when not all of them are bad, is harmful.
There will always be weirdos in a fandom, but not wanting to interact with an ENTIRE fandom doesn't make sense.

There's also a thing called genuinely not having an interest in or liking something! I understand it can appear harmful but I'd rather just tell somebody to back away than continually talk down about their interest to their face if I don't know they have it.

Then that would happen amidst a conversation, and there would be no need for a DNI. If this were to come up in conversation, and someone brought up that subject, you could just say you don't want to talk about it, as you would in a face-to-face convo.
And if you happened to express dislike about something, and the other user takes issue with that, then they could say that, hey, I like that thing. And you could agree not to talk about it if having a discussion about your differing opinions isn't an option. Otherwise, it could lead to some interesting conversation! A DNI shouldn't be a substitute for engaging in reasonable disagreement. (of course unreasonable disagreement is already something worth blocking someone over, possibly reporting if it's harassment)

[Sa⸸an]

But most of the people on CS are children and don't understand problematic creators/etc.
They are just happy kids enjoying warriors or whatever.
It's easy to separate content from creators for people who are older and wiser, but to say something like DNI if you like warriors, would leave a young one confused, "why can't I comment on this person's oekaki bc i like the cat book??"

getting rid of dnis as a whole is the easier route in my humble opinion

nonono, Im using that as example why someone would want to avoid a fandom period. You asked, I provided an example.

Also, that's... underestimating kids. Most of the time DNI are being used I see them used by minor heavy communities. When I see someone being canceled, it's mostly minors who do know better even if a bit extremest?? To assume minors don't know better... is kinda agest? Like in my experience the party that cares the most about this stuff and get upset their triggers aren't being respected... are "children" I don't think that's a valid point in why DNIs should be banned.

Why I do consider them to be banned at all: Most DNIs generally mention triggers/things that shouldn't be discussed on CS anyways, often being considered NSFW or are already banned topics or topics restricted to very specific forums. By talking about those triggers you are usually default breaking CS rules based on common knowledge of common place triggers. Their kinda pointless in that regards.

Like CS shouldn't be a place you'd encounter most triggers, when discussion of various forms of abuse and LGBTQA+ issues two topics that vaguely cover most triggers, and those topics are very heavily moderated and or banned outright from CS. So a DNI could just be a pointless warning anyways, because if someone does go a DNI, they arent not only going against your DNI but also CS guidelines.

Again, my concerns about the rules are mostly loop holes and potential abuse of offsite policing.

[.:Scruffy:.]

I understand and respect the use of DNI lists, but I agree with the rule because DNI lists only sometimes protect you - not everyone you interact with will be interacting with you in good faith, and if you make an enemy they have an entire list of things to upset you with. It can be quite dangerous. This trend of minors oversharing online right on their profiles or trade rules is a little unsettling.

[Total K9]

I understand and respect the use of DNI lists, but I agree with the rule because DNI lists only sometimes protect you - not everyone you interact with will be interacting with you in good faith, and if you make an enemy they have an entire list of things to upset you with. It can be quite dangerous. This trend of minors oversharing online right on their profiles or trade rules is a little unsettling.

Very well said! Much shorter than what I had said lol. I 100% agree with you! Thank you for the response. :)

[Michael's Fan.]

But most of the people on CS are children and don't understand problematic creators/etc.
They are just happy kids enjoying warriors or whatever.
It's easy to separate content from creators for people who are older and wiser, but to say something like DNI if you like warriors, would leave a young one confused, "why can't I comment on this person's oekaki bc i like the cat book??"

getting rid of dnis as a whole is the easier route in my humble opinion

nonono, Im using that as example why someone would want to avoid a fandom period. You asked, I provided an example.

Also, that's... underestimating kids. Most of the time DNI are being used I see them used by minor heavy communities. When I see someone being canceled, it's mostly minors who do know better even if a bit extremest?? To assume minors don't know better... is kinda agest? Like in my experience the party that cares the most about this stuff and get upset their triggers aren't being respected... are "children" I don't think that's a valid point in why DNIs should be banned.

Why I do consider them to be banned at all: Most DNIs generally mention triggers/things that shouldn't be discussed on CS anyways, often being considered NSFW or are already banned topics or topics restricted to very specific forums. By talking about those triggers you are usually default breaking CS rules based on common knowledge of common place triggers. Their kinda pointless in that regards.

Like CS shouldn't be a place you'd encounter most triggers, when discussion of various forms of abuse and LGBTQA+ issues two topics that vaguely cover most triggers, and those topics are very heavily moderated and or banned outright from CS. So a DNI could just be a pointless warning anyways, because if someone does go a DNI, they arent not only going against your DNI but also CS guidelines.

Again, my concerns about the rules are mostly loop holes and potential abuse of offsite policing.

How can I be agest if I've literally been a minor... i understand how minors work...

[Startedraining]

Tbh great rule addition. Kinda loving the arguments I’m reading. They’re bringing up a lot of new/modern/non-forum internet rules that we’ve really strayed away from. If some admins posted this 10 years ago on a forum, people would not be making such a fuss.
This site is MODERATED ACTIVELY. Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook and Instagram ARE NOT moderated and it is under the USERS responsibility to keep themselves safe. That ISNT the case on CS, these are not bots, they’re real people who are going through reports. This isn’t modern social media. I literally cannot stress that enough.
(And I don’t think DNIs keep you safe, personally, and if I’m being honest, I don’t even read people’s DNIs on other sites, because it doesn’t matter and its imo performative at best especially for fandom drama.)
The bottom line is that CS staff is right, protecting minors on a site primarily based with minors with strict rules about personal identification onsite is justified. DNIs of any kind divulge personal information, and the exceptions people keep bringing up like “flashing images” is already against the rules and not only justifies a block, but also a report of the user.

The rules they make to protect minors is their right and a moral obligation, and someone reading a DNI before even replying indirectly to someone on a forum is neither a requirement nor a moral obligation for any involved party and doesn’t warrant a report (but a block if you can prove they somehow didn’t read your list).

[Michael's Fan.]

Tbh great rule addition. Kinda loving the arguments I’m reading. They’re bringing up a lot of new/modern/non-forum internet rules that we’ve really strayed away from. If some admins posted this 10 years ago on a forum, people would not be making such a fuss.
This site is MODERATED ACTIVELY. Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook and Instagram ARE NOT moderated and it is under the USERS responsibility to keep themselves safe. That ISNT the case on CS, these are not bots, they’re real people who are going through reports. This isn’t modern social media. I literally cannot stress that enough.
(And I don’t think DNIs keep you safe, personally, and if I’m being honest, I don’t even read people’s DNIs on other sites, because it doesn’t matter and its imo performative at best especially for fandom drama.)
The bottom line is that CS staff is right, protecting minors on a site primarily based with minors with strict rules about personal identification onsite is justified. DNIs of any kind divulge personal information, and the exceptions people keep bringing up like “flashing images” is already against the rules and not only justifies a block, but also a report of the user.

The rules they make to protect minors is their right and a moral obligation, and someone reading a DNI before even replying indirectly to someone on a forum is neither a requirement nor a moral obligation for any involved party and doesn’t warrant a report (but a block if you can prove they somehow didn’t read your list).

HARD agree. People ten years ago wouldn't have made as big of a fuss because the internet was more hardcore then. People understood that they shouldn't put their triggers out there, making them easily made fun of or trolled by bad people. People also understood better that the world isn't responsible for every one of your triggers, and not everyone can accomodate to them. (for example, like I said earlier... if someone was triggered by red and said DNI if you have red in your profile, it would be hard to dictate that, and the people with red in their profile aren't responsible. However, something like blood is a well understood trigger that most can accommodate to, especially on a childfriendly website to begin with.) One of the main rules of the internet is DONT PUT WHAT YOU DISLIKE out there. It makes you a target. And putting your age makes you a target. Which is why DNI minors is not smart, because minors shouldn't be declaring their age anyways. Especially not smart on a child-friendly, minor majority website.


And putting DNI for something that is already against CS rules is useless, it's already a reportable, bannable offense. Just block if it's something that's not against the rules.

[Sa⸸an]

But most of the people on CS are children and don't understand problematic creators/etc.
They are just happy kids enjoying warriors or whatever.
It's easy to separate content from creators for people who are older and wiser, but to say something like DNI if you like warriors, would leave a young one confused, "why can't I comment on this person's oekaki bc i like the cat book??"

getting rid of dnis as a whole is the easier route in my humble opinion

nonono, Im using that as example why someone would want to avoid a fandom period. You asked, I provided an example.

Also, that's... underestimating kids. Most of the time DNI are being used I see them used by minor heavy communities. When I see someone being canceled, it's mostly minors who do know better even if a bit extremest?? To assume minors don't know better... is kinda agest? Like in my experience the party that cares the most about this stuff and get upset their triggers aren't being respected... are "children" I don't think that's a valid point in why DNIs should be banned.

Why I do consider them to be banned at all: Most DNIs generally mention triggers/things that shouldn't be discussed on CS anyways, often being considered NSFW or are already banned topics or topics restricted to very specific forums. By talking about those triggers you are usually default breaking CS rules based on common knowledge of common place triggers. Their kinda pointless in that regards.

Like CS shouldn't be a place you'd encounter most triggers, when discussion of various forms of abuse and LGBTQA+ issues two topics that vaguely cover most triggers, and those topics are very heavily moderated and or banned outright from CS. So a DNI could just be a pointless warning anyways, because if someone does go a DNI, they arent not only going against your DNI but also CS guidelines.

Again, my concerns about the rules are mostly loop holes and potential abuse of offsite policing.

How can I be agest if I've literally been a minor... i understand how minors work...

Saying minors won't get how a DNi works and respect it is just a incorrect statement in my opinion, because again based on my experiences with social medias and DNI, minors seemingly were the ones with the DNIs and the ones to be more likely to be actually respectful of them while adults were more likely to disregard DNIs and be generally malicious.

I didn't say YOU we're agest, I said I found this reason for banning DNI agest because it assumes all kids aren't gonna know what a DNI is asking of them, or what a DNI is, heck if your a minor, you literally disproved your own argument as evidence minors do know what DNIs are and can make the choice to be respectful of them.

I'm not saying I disagree with banning the DNIs, I just don't agree with this particular reason because in my experience Ive come to associated DNIs with the younger generation gen Z which a good chunk of Gen Z are minors, while most people disregarded and ignoring DNI to be adults. The argument just comes across as agest point to make in general and kinder undermines kids in their general intelligence, like hey I hated being seen as dumb and I for fact most kids still hate being seen as dumb

[Celozon]

-snip-

But even without that mindset it personally makes me uncomfortable and I'm kinda creeped out about the idea someone would do that at all. Because in theory, if a user can confirm that an off site account is your own, even if it's not linked or connected in anyways to CS, it can be reported upon as if it was, and the idea anyone would dig into that or go that far and CS is basically rewarding that behavior by basically giving into what the bully wants.

Not to mention their argument for this is 'its easier" than finding... literally any other solution. It's a rule that potentially clashes with Toyhouse censorship and labeling rules, and I'm trying to bring up a potential VERY valid loop hole, and their just insisting that loop hole doesn't exist giving me the impression they didn't think out the rule at all, or do secretly acknowledge the loop hole, but are trying to fix the solution with the minium about if effort needed, as if their still not going have to keep an eye out for anything resembling a DNI even if not at first glance.

Black lists are a form of DNI list. You are asking a using to not interact with your digital business.

TW are a form of DNI list, you asking users to be cautious if not to just avoid your content because it has potential even if still site friendly triggers. You can also word a TW to comes across as very DNI like.

They act like its black and white, but when the rule finally comes to place (which it is) their gonna find it isn't, it's most certainly not their gonna find people who are gonna make them have to tweak the rule.

Just to clear some things up;

- We do not punish you for enjoying non-CS friendly stuff on other sites as long as you don't link them. Even if someone found your insta with a DNI list, as long as you do not link it here, we will not punish you for it.
- The offsite harassment rules here however may cover things even if you don't link them. This is directed specifically at offsite bullying and harassment, such as going onto a different site to complain about another CS user. That is covered by our offiste harassment rules and can be punished as long as it can be proved it is you.

I won't go into further details on those now cause this topic isn't about that. If you have questions, concerns or need clarification on a rule, you can send in a help ticket to staff.

Regarding TW lists vs DNI lists. TW lists are fine as long as the list & content it is warning you about is safe for CS. Such as have 'TW spiders' for a character page, because the character has a pet spider. On Toyhouse, TW and DNIs may be used interchangeably, but that is not how we view them here in regards to this rule. There is a wide difference between the two for the purposes of this rule, an in the cases where is is muddy are unclear we will review them on a case by case basis to determine if someone is trying to get around the rules or not.

Just in my experience as a mod (not just for CS but also through running other things), users will try an find loopholes for nearly every rule there is no matter how clear the rules are on it. I can tell you that we are more than prepared for users to try and attempt to circumvent this rule, and we know how to recognize when someone is doing that. We do not think this is black and white, it almost never is. But for users, it is black and white. DNI lists are not allowed and disguising them as something else is also not allowed.

As a side note: Yes blacklists are a form of DNI, but since they have not been allowed on CS for some time now (with some specific exceptions) that is not an issue here.

[gothic knight]

But most of the people on CS are children and don't understand problematic creators/etc.
They are just happy kids enjoying warriors or whatever.
It's easy to separate content from creators for people who are older and wiser, but to say something like DNI if you like warriors, would leave a young one confused, "why can't I comment on this person's oekaki bc i like the cat book??"

getting rid of dnis as a whole is the easier route in my humble opinion

nonono, Im using that as example why someone would want to avoid a fandom period. You asked, I provided an example.

Also, that's... underestimating kids. Most of the time DNI are being used I see them used by minor heavy communities. When I see someone being canceled, it's mostly minors who do know better even if a bit extremest?? To assume minors don't know better... is kinda agest? Like in my experience the party that cares the most about this stuff and get upset their triggers aren't being respected... are "children" I don't think that's a valid point in why DNIs should be banned.

Why I do consider them to be banned at all: Most DNIs generally mention triggers/things that shouldn't be discussed on CS anyways, often being considered NSFW or are already banned topics or topics restricted to very specific forums. By talking about those triggers you are usually default breaking CS rules based on common knowledge of common place triggers. Their kinda pointless in that regards.

Like CS shouldn't be a place you'd encounter most triggers, when discussion of various forms of abuse and LGBTQA+ issues two topics that vaguely cover most triggers, and those topics are very heavily moderated and or banned outright from CS. So a DNI could just be a pointless warning anyways, because if someone does go a DNI, they arent not only going against your DNI but also CS guidelines.

Again, my concerns about the rules are mostly loop holes and potential abuse of offsite policing.

How can I be agest if I've literally been a minor... i understand how minors work...

it's absolutely possible to be ageist even when you've been a minor, but this is not one of those examples.

Also, that's... underestimating kids. Most of the time DNI are being used I see them used by minor heavy communities. When I see someone being canceled, it's mostly minors who do know better even if a bit extremest?? To assume minors don't know better... is kinda agest? Like in my experience the party that cares the most about this stuff and get upset their triggers aren't being respected... are "children" I don't think that's a valid point in why DNIs should be banned.

i feel like maybe there's a disconnect between what people consider as "minors." there are definitely people under 18 (minors!) who are aware of these concepts and have the proper context to them and have opinions on them. but generally, those minors are going to be teenagers.

there are almost definitely minors on this site in a much younger age range that should not be exposed to these concepts in a lawless place like the internet with no context for what they're seeing and nobody to explain it to them. that's just asking to possibly traumatize them or lead them down a path to something more dangerous. i'm saying this as someone who was a kid who had pretty much free reign of the internet and ended up in places seeing things i shouldn't have seen.