Announcements & News

i get this, and i agree to an extent, but you have to also understand the implications it has. people tagging scars, certain body types or features, etc falls under this. Im a physically disabled person with a very uncomfortably skinny/malnourished body type because of my disability. its not a “huge reach” to point out dogwhistles and rhteoric that harms me, so please dont call it that. Because i was a child too once, a disabled child. i just think its important to have better clarification and nuiance on what exactly “no scars on children” means, because like i said: i was a child with scars.

[quote name="kiyote" date="2024-05-17 11:05:27" ] Quote: They are absolutely erring on the safe side of 'no violence against children.' Same with the zombies - it's the classic 'no killable kids in video games' rule. You do that and suddenly you're banned in several countries and forced to accept the most extreme maturity rating in others. It's a huge reach and horribly in bad faith to claim the site is being ableist here. This is just basic EULA. … … Glorification of idealized body image has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's 100% a ban on implied violence against children and they can't trust everybody not to skirt around softer, more understanding rules. i get this, and i agree to an extent, but you have to also understand the implications it has. people tagging scars, certain body types or fearures, etc falls under. Im a physically disabled person with a very uncomfortably skinny/malnourished body type because of my disability. its not a “huge reach” to point out dogwhistles and rhteoric that harms me, so please dont call it that. Because i was a child too once, a disabled child and i think its important to have better clarification and nuiance on what exactly “no scars” means. [/quote] I do understand the implications, but I think there are healthier ways to express that concern. I take umbrage to accusations that the site is motivated by any kind of body type erasure agenda and especially the ones that [i]eugenics[/i] and ableism supremacy have anything to do with this decision when there is an extremely, extremely obvious motive. [b]Depictions of injury and death to children in video games is zero-tolerance against the law in many countries.[/b] So... even calling this a dogwhistle is a reach, because a dogwhistle is [i]intentional[/i]. It is very unfair to suggest FR is doing this out of hatred or distaste as opposed to just... not wanting to limit where FR can be accessed. It's not unfair to say this is an accident, or unacceptable, or a very unfortunate implication they need to look into, or to suggest they change the rules into something more complex but allowing representation. And it's reasonable to argue that they should be more assertive in the vetting process and have looser rules that allow healthy rep while stamping out problematic submissions, and that the resulting firestorms are just a hazard of development rather than something to be avoided at all costs. But FR is historically incredibly inclusive and a good-faith actor that investigates issues as they arise. To my understanding, the only issues they have not addressed yet (familiar and coli accessibility with hand impairment, hand/eye issues and captcha) are the ones where the obvious solutions affect site stability and implementing accommodations requires complex solutions not to be exploited. They've done nothing to deserve this kind of suspicion or hostility. I agree with wanting more clarification on the rules (esp regarding prosthetics, which weren't addressed at all), but you have to understand why FR made this move in the first place. It's [i]not[/i] hatred. It's fear of legal repercussions.