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

[rileypillow]

I have a question for staff. Are trigger warnings still okay, provided they are not a disguised DNI list and are appropriate? I know DNIs and TWs are very different, but I just wanted to check <3

[Aaron✦]

I have a question for staff. Are trigger warnings still okay, provided they are not a disguised DNI list and are appropriate? I know DNIs and TWs are very different, but I just wanted to check <3

Yes, trigger warnings are still fine! Though please bear in mind that all content posted or linked to must follow Chickensmoothie rules, even if they have a trigger warning attached to them.

[rileypillow]

I have a question for staff. Are trigger warnings still okay, provided they are not a disguised DNI list and are appropriate? I know DNIs and TWs are very different, but I just wanted to check <3

Yes, trigger warnings are still fine! Though please bear in mind that all content posted or linked to must follow Chickensmoothie rules, even if they have a trigger warning attached to them.

Thank you so much! I’ll keep this in mind, since I have several things linked on my CS profile with TWs :)

[Erwin Smith]

I just kind of wish you ( staff ) would allow your members to participate in discussion before giving out rulings like this. We give you money & have for years, and then you turn around and hurt large portions of your site & then silence us for trying to, like, talk about it. It's extremely frustrating. I've played many pet sites for many years & none of them punish players for having a voice more than chickensmoothie does.

I asked this on page 9 or so. I agree with this; I think considering things like this the users should be asked to make a discussion about the topic before it was made a rule.

For lots of things on site, discussions are useful. When it comes to issues that we've had moderating, there is a huge disconnect between what is actually happening behind the scenes and what the end user sees. The first post (and follow-up posts in this thread) have made it clear that the number one reason these lists have to go is because they are directly endangering users. I have not seen any rebuttals to that that don't amount to "ban some parts of DNI lists but not others" which we already considered, discussed, and is in the first post. It is completely understandable that the safety issues we've faced have not seemed as important to users who have not seen them, because they have not seen them.

Any discussion before this particular rule change would be without all of the information as to why we want to ban them in the first place, which we cannot tell you because of user privacy. I think user discussion is genuinely very useful and an argument can be made that we should do more of it, but in the case of moderating, I have not seen anything suggested that we did not discuss prior to the rule change.

Hi. This is very problematic as a response, especially if it is a staff stance. Here’s why:

For lots of things on site, discussions are useful. When it comes to issues that we've had moderating, there is a huge disconnect between what is actually happening behind the scenes and what the end user sees.

We as a user base understand this purely on the basis that you guys are working to ensure that the site is safe, often without any sort of compensation for your time and efforts. This goes without saying for any voluntary job that a person has, no matter how intricate or unique it is. Personally I’ve been formerly a moderator at previous websites and do understand the general ins and outs of what Chicken Smoothie moderation looks like. Currently I volunteer in hospitals to entertain those on hospice. I cannot and will not expect you to know what happens there behind the scenes; nor wish to put that upon you.

With that said, discussions are always beneficial. Always. Not « for a lot of things on site »
They’re always beneficial. They illustrate many things as they have done in the past, present and future and allow users to not only provide feedback, but also to illustrate an opinion on a topic which then can be beneficial towards the site. Even if the staff in the end go « yeah we are still banning it » at least the discussion is there to prove why you are banning it.

This thread is honestly proving this point. The initial panic in the first few pages are purely because the topic is being banned. People who use DNI’s are scared because their prophetical safety blanket is being ripped from underneath them without warning and are worried / concerned about it. People who don’t use it are indifferent or for the removal.

The first post (and follow-up posts in this thread) have made it clear that the number one reason these lists have to go is because they are directly endangering users.

And that’s fine, that’s what has been discussed here and brought up by users as well in the last several pages. We know this is the reason why the ban is being put in place. That’s is what a discussion is meant to bring up. I wouldn’t include the first initial post on Simon’s purely because that is a staff standpoint, I would include what is being said in the thread as more of a contribution because it’s helped illustrate what and why mods have said and discussed what they said.

I have not seen any rebuttals to that that don't amount to "ban some parts of DNI lists but not others" which we already considered, discussed, and is in the first post.

Again, that’s because the conversation and discussion took place after the rule change. There was no point fighting back for those who want to discuss back why the rule shouldn’t be happening because there was no way to reverse a rule once it’s been settled (whether it’s to the detriment or benefit of the community etc)
Basically what I’m saying here is by going straight out and making this a rule, you’ve forced the user base to discuss this topic from an unfair standpoint for those who are for DNI’s. This hasn’t very much happened before as most conversations were fair previously:
- LGBTIQ+ v Religion
- Art theft
- Specie rules
- Offsite bullying (Hello #chickensmoothie on Tumblr)

They were more moderated over time purely because of how situations would develop. Thé Christianity thread began to be run by a moderator and all the threads were moved from general chat to 18+ because it was a user move. But users had an input to how this result would come to play. Users had a say in a sense. And you already had discussions bringing up why your decisions where what they were.

Here there is none. None concern before the rule. You can use the discussion now because I mean; it’s there. But it’s definitely unflavoured because there’s no way for there to get anything out of it as a normal flat discussion.

It is completely understandable that the safety issues we've faced have not seemed as important to users who have not seen them, because they have not seen them.

Again; cool. Thank you for your time in keeping the site safe. The end goal is to keep the site safe.
Again; a conversation and a chance to discuss would be nice.

Any discussion before this particular rule change would be without all of the information as to why we want to ban them in the first place,

Then what’s why as moderators you post your points of view in the thread for the userbase to see. You’ve done this before:
- Again LGBTIQ+ v Christianity (religion thread too, I’ve stated Christianity because this took place on this thread)
- Rares list

You don’t have to devolve and be like « yeah so this user was targeted » No, that’s silly. A simple “from our side we’ve received user reports about this topic and in regards to it have concerns of why this should be banned x y z etc etc etc” you’re first paragraph in your post Aaron is a good summary as an independent one.

I’m regards to without all the information, that’s why you can at least see what users are thinking? You can at least see what the communities POV is? You can have a taste as to what and why the community believes in a certain POV??? I’m not asking you to act on full behalf of the community’s opinion and whatever is decided. What should be happening is it being taken into consideration at minimum. And for the discussion to just be allowed in the first place and not shut down like your comments are suggest.

I think user discussion is genuinely very useful and an argument can be made that we should do more of it, but in the case of moderating, I have not seen anything suggested that we did not discuss prior to the rule change.

The argument is being made. It’s being made in front of you. Right now.
You should be doing more of it, not you directly Aaron; but staff should be doing more of it.
Would you like me to start a “site suggestions” thread on it? I’m happy to do so, that way a discussion can take place for users to discuss how and whether staff should allow user discussions to take place before rule changes.

The second part isn’t the point here. Unfortunately by saying “I have not seen anything suggested that we did not discuss prior to the rule change » is honestly coming off as very dismissive of every person on this thread. “We discussed every angle so why are you guys discussing it?”

[LordGhoul]

I've been on this website since 2009 so I've seen the rise and fall of things like homophobic and political stickers on userpages and some other crazy things that have long gone, don't think I would've ever expected DNI lists to make it into a website like chickensmoothie - since it's supposed to be anonymous and child-friendly and is about adopts, games, innocent discussions. The moment you make these lists you're inviting discussions to the site about controverse or mature topics that don't at all belong here but also reveal way too much. By that I mean like the trigger lists users used to have on Tumblr where everyone could see all their triggers and it gave evil people easy ways to attack the user by deliberately sending them content that triggers them. Be incredibly mindful of who has access to that kind of information, it's always an open invitation for trolls and people out to harm you when it's in public.

If you want to feel safe on this website, that's what the rules are for, and there's plenty of settings to avoid seeing possibly upsetting content unprompted. But mostly it's all just strangers in innocent discussions or forum games or people trading virtual pets, and there's no need to know everything about the people you interact with as it's usually brief or contained within this forum, and if somebody is giving you trouble just block them. These lists don't make sense, most people won't even read them anyway. If someone appears suspicious just block them and you're good. Don't see why we need to start arguing with the moderators over things there's better solutions for, and that don't involve giving out personal information.

People that don't moderate this website don't get to experience the whole extend of the work involved and sometimes banning makes more sense than trying to make uber specific rules about what goes and what doesn't. I can guarantee they've been trying to work around banning it for a long time but it just didn't work out anymore and that's why they made that decision now.

Hi. This is very problematic as a response, especially if it is a staff stance.

No it's not. It's literally the standard practice for moderators of a website and most of the time users don't even get a chance to say anything at all, so cs is already more open in that regard. It's not "problematic", it makes complete sense.

We as a user base (...)

You don't speak for all of us. I have no idea why DNIs made it to this website in the first place, it's more harmful than doing any good at all. It's like wearing a t-shirt that says "don't kick my butt" on the back, in your mind it protects you from getting kicked, but the truth is more people will feel inclined to kick your butt. And you're reminding people that got their butt kicked of their own unfortunate situation on top of it too, when all they wanted was browse some innocent content on this website.

You just don't want to interact with specific fandoms? Then don't seek them out. Someone you don't like for whatever reason interacts with you? Block and ignore them. Much better options and you're not revealing yourself.

[Seasonal]

@Zetirian
Ultimately, discussing and deciding on rules is the staff team's job, not the user base's job. We have always added rules as the site grew and as those rules became necessary. We have even added rules after community discussion, so I think there are plenty of opportunities for open dialogue between the staff team and the user base. In fact I think that communication has been better than it was in previous years as it's something that we've actively been working on improving.

This information mainly comes from reports, which users do not have access to. Regular users have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes so it would be impossible to have an unbiased discussion without taking those hidden factors into consideration. I can assure you that we took into consideration what the community's reaction would be, from every single angle that has been addressed here so far. We decided that, given the pros and cons, this was the best decision while considering each individual factor.

Rules evolve over time, and we have removed rules that felt unnecessary or were no longer needed. I think the seven bullet points on the front page give a very thorough explanation on why this rule was added. We aren't going to remove rules just because a few people don't agree with them.

[low tide]

- snip -

I'm generally pretty open to anything or at least willing to consider said thing, however, saying that "because you are part of this group/like this thing, I won't even consider that we could be friends", is super upsetting to me and reeks of entitled discrimination. To me, "oh, you're a furry/otherkin/Lib? Don't talk to me!" is the same as "oh, you're a gender/ethnicity/religion? Don't talk to me!"

- snip -

please do not compare homo/transphobia and racism to people ridiculing and mocking furries and otherkin. while belitting someone for their interests and lifestyle is horrid, they are not the same and frankly it's a little demeaning to compare my struggles in day-to-day life as an asian gay man to online discourse because someone finds it funny that you believe you're a fairy or a wolf in another life.

[Aaron✦]

i haven't gone through this entire thread, so maybe someone else has said this.

but it's also incredibly easy for people to lie online - or if not outrightly lie, then to hide things. age, gender, sexuality - people can and do falsify entire personas, for safety (living with transphobic family) or for kicks (to invade communities and hurt others). the person someone is on chickensmoothie may not be at all like them on other sites.
so, even if somebody seems to be clear, that may not even be the truth. you could quite literally be handing your boundaries and triggers over to someone who has horrible intent, but will pretend not to. who will pretend to respect you, befriend you, have good laughs with you - and then you find your personal information being leaked to the world.

i understand this isn't as severe a concern on chickensmoothie - unless someone gets you offsite, i suppose - but the point is how people can lie. you don't know their true intent with just a glance.
you can't be so anxious as to never connect with anyone, but you can't be on the other end either where you feel free to share everything and trust everyone who seems nice enough.

for that, i think this is a welcome change.
i understand it's nice to have a safety net, but when you think about it... it doesn't do much aside from look pretty. i have many triggers and discomforts myself - so i use filters and blocks wherever i can, and reconsider being in that place if i can't.
i'll ask people i'm close with to keep these in mind, and dip out of conversations if something comes up with a group i'm not comfortable with knowing just yet.
[removed]

everyone deserves to have a comfortable, private space suited exactly to them - but a public forum is the exact opposite of that by design. if you want your personal rules enforced, you have to be the one to enforce them, through filters and blocks as mentioned before. if you see someone you dislike, even if they haven't interacted with you yet, you can block them. heck, you could block me if you don't like what i'm saying, if my profile theme bugs you, or anything - that's your call.

[dissy]

I just kind of wish you ( staff ) would allow your members to participate in discussion before giving out rulings like this. We give you money & have for years, and then you turn around and hurt large portions of your site & then silence us for trying to, like, talk about it. It's extremely frustrating. I've played many pet sites for many years & none of them punish players for having a voice more than chickensmoothie does.

i quite literally do not care about dni's. i solely care about the fact that it only came to user attention after it was set in stone. im not contributing to the discussion, i will not be replying to quotes. this was my personal last straw with the staff. im quitting. after 44 pages of posts and reading, the user ive quoted has said it best. there is no room for user discussion. even if its not rule breaking, content is removed on a whim. i cannot express how grateful i am for not being hired onto the staff team however many moons ago i applied. i personally do not like DNI's and they probably never should have had a home on the site. but policing other games and links.... yeesh

[Becah]

I just kind of wish you ( staff ) would allow your members to participate in discussion before giving out rulings like this. We give you money & have for years, and then you turn around and hurt large portions of your site & then silence us for trying to, like, talk about it. It's extremely frustrating. I've played many pet sites for many years & none of them punish players for having a voice more than chickensmoothie does.

i quite literally do not care about dni's. i solely care about the fact that it only came to user attention after it was set in stone. im not contributing to the discussion, i will not be replying to quotes. this was my personal last straw with the staff. im quitting. after 44 pages of posts and reading, the user ive quoted has said it best. there is no room for user discussion. even if its not rule breaking, content is removed on a whim. i cannot express how grateful i am for not being hired onto the staff team however many moons ago i applied. i personally do not like DNI's and they probably never should have had a home on the site. but policing other games and links.... yeesh

Personally I fail to see how staff is policing other games and links? If someone posts a link to CS that staff deems harmful to their users, I think it's reasonable to ask the poster to remove the link from the website. It would work the same way if someone links to a website aimed at people over 18 for example, I don't think anyone would have an issue with this being removed. You can do whatever you want outside of CS as long as you're not linking it on this site.