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

[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.

[Michael's Fan.]

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.

I was talking about the younger age range of minors, not the older teenagers, but rather ages 0-12.

[SnapDragonJoy]

I think this is a good rule.

My beef with Do Not Interact lists is all the goofy acronyms people have on them. Like "DNI if you *insert many letters here*" Then I have to go and Google them letters and the definitions themselves are triggering or just plain weird.

Also, people interact with people everyday. You interact with people at school, work, grocery store, and extra curricular activities. You have no idea if those people are on your Do Not Interact list.

If you wore your Do Not Interact list on the front of a T-shirt for example, how many awkward stares would you receive? Like if the cashier at a grocery store had/did/likes one of the things on your list and refused you service. Because service is interacting with you. They couldn't even talk to you because talking and even looking at you is interaction.

If you wore your Do Not Interact with me shirt out to the mall or went to the movies, how many people would not interact with you because of it?

And on your shirt you'd have to spell out all the acronyms.

Bullies would see your shirt and go out of their way to interact with you. Because that's the nature of a bully.

Those lists just sound like trouble. And I bet they were for the staff here. The moderators/staff/creators here are all human beings and have lives outside of Chicken Smoothie. They really didn't have time for someone who had say a thing on that list like "DNI if you throw rocks" and then Billy threw a rock at you, then you turn to the moderators and say, "Billy threw a rock at me!" All the staff can really do is say, "Billy, don't throw rocks." And that's it.

This is basically just a pet trading website. If someone likes bananas and you don't but you don't know that they do and they offer a trade, do you stop and say to yourself, "Oh golly, this person could potentially like bananas. I can't trade with them." Then cancel the trade. Nobody would be able to trade anymore!

Sorry if I ramble, my little brain is a strange one. ^_^;

[.:Scruffy:.]

Yeah, kids/teens are smarter than people think. They usually understand.


Also, on the earlier talk of having DNIs mention fandoms because they think liking something = supporting the creator is silly, imo. Almost everything you watch, read or play has some problematic element either to itself or its creator. It doesn't automatically make someone a bad person (though I certainly have a very small amount of specific fandoms in mind that I do not trust the fans of much, but I will not mention those here.) Even Disney has moral issues, but almost everybody likes Disney movies. If you try to avoid everything problematic, you'll have nothing left to enjoy.

[Michael's Fan.]

Yeah, kids/teens are smarter than people think. They usually understand.


Also, on the earlier talk of having DNIs mention fandoms because they think liking something = supporting the creator is silly, imo. Almost everything you watch, read or play has some problematic element either to itself or its creator. It doesn't automatically make someone a bad person (though I certainly have a very small amount of specific fandoms in mind that I do not trust the fans of much, but I will not mention those here.) Even Disney has moral issues, but almost everybody likes Disney movies. If you try to avoid everything problematic, you'll have nothing left to enjoy.

heck, even the reason facebook was invented is considered problematic, if we got down to the nitty gritty of EVERYTHING people enjoyed; like you said we would have nothing left to like.

[Minimanta]

And yesterday was the first day I learned about these lists.

The internet has done weird things to the human race. What even... o.O

[DinoShark]

A lot of people seem to be debating on whether or not this is a good rule. I'm not a super active member within the community and I never really publicly state my opinions regarding things like this. However, I am this time.

I am someone who deals with anxiety, online and in real life. When meeting people online, even if I get along with them, it's hard for me to talk to them consistently.

Even if they make you feel safe, DNI lists make you vulnerable. It's basically letting people know what can easily trigger you and or make you uncomfortable. You can argue that this keeps certain people from interacting, but lets be real here, it's the internet. Even if someone falls into the category of people you do not wish to interact with (and they are well aware of it) they may still choose to interact with you. And this only opens up the door to online drama and harassment.

I've also seen some people ague that they don't wish to interact with certain fanbases. While this is okay, it's a bit absurd to expect an entire community of people to never interact with you. On top of that, just because someone may choose to consume a certain variety of content, even if said content is problematic in some way, this doesn't mean that person agrees with the creator of that content or even the content itself. For example, if I find out that the creator of one of my favorite childhood shows ended up having a shady history does this mean I'm no longer allowed to enjoy their cartoon? No, because I am able to separate a creator from their content. I am able to realize that the creator might not be the best person while still enjoying the cartoon.

Lastly do you truly think that every single person on the internet who choses to interact with you will read your DNI list? I can promise you not everyone will. Just as some people skim through someone's trading rules, they may do the same with your DNI list. As a result, someone on your DNI list may end up interacting with you without even realizing. This can very easily lead to conflict. If one of the main purposes of a DNI list is to make one feel more safe and secure, then the fact that it can do the complete opposite shouldn't be overlooked.