[Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Summary:

Time for more discussion, yay

[Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 08:26

04 link: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-15170411/policy-discussion-age-policy-changes

Following the previous discussion, this thread is put up to discuss the potential implementation of an age unraising and any additional policies which should or need to be changed. It is asked that this thread (mostly) be approached under the assumption that the policy does indeed pass, in order to make this discussion as efficient as can be and not end up with a half-hearted policy that appeases neither side.

The previous discussion has resulted in some fruitful discussion and interesting points brought up, summarized below, but some of the points ended up being irreconcilable or simply subjective.

The arguments in full

Impossibility of Discussion

• Many of the points raised both for and against the change assume the existence or lack thereof of minors onsite, their amount, and what they go through. Due to the lack of any data in any particular direction of such events, these points are impossible to argue about. (1, 2)

This is Pointless

• Many of the users involved in these discussions talk over eachother or have their minds already set in stone, making this discussion somewhat of a charade. (1)

Age Gate Effectiveness

• An 18+ age gate would be trivial for most 16/17 year olds to pass, due to a reasonable similarity in maturity and the ability to lie.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• Additionally, it's likely that many minors are already on the site and we're simply unaware (willingly or otherwise) of the fact. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • In either case, it's impossible to know, as we have no data on the amount of people who lie on apps. (1)
  • It should be acknowledged, however, that this policy is unenforcable in the absolute majority of cases, and only distances policy from practical reality. (1, 2)
• A commercial age verification system may be able to adequately solve this issue in regards to users who join in the future. (1)
  • Any age verification system could be scary to users who appreciate the internet's anonymity. (1)

Minors, not Toddlers

• Much of the discussion frames 16/17 year olds as being more immature than they are, making it unproductive. (1)
  • Adequately mature 16/17 year olds are the exception, not the rule. (1)

Historical Precedence

• The site has had a 15+ year gate for many years, and operated fine in regards to maturity, content, etc., whereas much of the discussion is framed as to ignore this. (1)

Staff Overwork

• More minors would create more maturity issues for staff and stress them out. In particular, Crit staff. (1)
  • As staff are meant to serve the community and not the opposite, a ruling that is based on staff overwork is flawed. (1)
    • As staff are unpaid volunteers, their workload should still be considered. (1)
  • With recent changes to Crit's functioning, they believe they can handle an change in limit. (1)
• Zyn notes that she's seen less vehement response to criticism and maturity issues on the forums, and less creepy DMs. (1)

Upvote Addictions

• Minors could develop upvote addictions which would negatively impact their health. (1)
  • Due to the "Age Gate Effectiveness" issue outlined above, this issue will occur regardless. Additionally, this issue is also present with the adults of the site, and so is unrelated to the age limit. (1)

An Issue of Priorities

• The age limit change was brought forth to deal with abuse, however the proper solution should instead be to treat the actual abuse rather than shift the issue to the abused. (1, 2, 3)
  • The rhetoric around how to minimize liability rather than protecting the userbase is "ghoulish". (1)

Abuser Blackmail

• If a minor is abused on the wiki, their abuser holds leverage by threatening to reveal their age publicly and getting them banned. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • AHT currently has an amnesty clause for cases involving minors. (1)
    • The general userbase's lack of knowledge regarding this clause proves it's not enough to counteract the fear users could experience. (1)
    • This clause, and any such similar clause, has inherent problems if and when the abuser provides publicly available proof. (1, 2, 3)
      • Any proof posted by an AHT'd user can simply be ignored. (1)
  • People of all ages are hestitant to report sexual harrassment, and so this is a strawman. (1, 2)

Staff Reach

• Staff should not be expected to moderate offsite communities. (1)
  • While staff shouldn't be expected to moderate all of the offsite, willingly ignoring events on the offsite would endanger the community. Additionnally, Disc and AHT already do take into account off-site events, making this an odd point. (1)

Subjective Maturity

• Maturity has more to do with social factors than it does with any inherent biological ones, and being 18 doesn't make someone suddenly mature. Were it about this, the age limit should be 25. (1)

An Anomaly in Limits

• Almost all other SCP-related spaces allow 16+ users, and the wiki is the only one that does not. (1, 2, 3)
  • The discord, allowing 16+ users, has shown to be welcoming to them and handling their existence well. (1)
  • By being in allowed in all such spaces, especially the non-official ones, they're already as exposed to potential predators as they would be on the main site. (1, 2)
• The solution should be the opposite - to increase said spaces's limit to 18+. (1, 2)
  • This solution would not solve the problem, and merely exacerbate it due to the "Lesser of Two Spaces" point detailed below. (1)

Amount of Users

• This policy would stop a large amount of users from joining the wiki, many of which could be prolific or influential users. (1)
  • The wiki is already bursting at the seams with content, so this could exacerbate the content overflow issue. (1, 2)
  • Said users would likely just lie to join and create content. (1)
  • "More content" should not be a reason to put users in danger. (1, 2, 3)
• The idea that the users would "just wait" ignores the possibility of a user losing interest in the span of two years. (1)

Unprepared Staff

• Staff's systems are not built to handle minor harrassment cases to an acceptable degree. (1, 2, 3)
• Staff's efforts should focus on pointing to out-of-site resources rather than trying to play "heroes". (1)

Children in Adult Spaces

• Having minors in adult spaces is inherently irresponsible. (1, 2)

Community-Popular Predators

• Staff has, in the past, acted in henious ways towards minors and keeping the wiki 18+ could help avoid this. (1)
  • This age limit does not solve the problem of harrassment, but rather moves it to other spaces inhabiting the same users, and so only cleans staff's conscious. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Especially so, as the majority of harrassment occurs on offsite spaces such as IRC or Discord rather than the mainsite. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • This policy would only move the "blame" for harrassment from staff to the harrassed users. (1, 2, 3)

Lesser of Two Spaces

• By being in official spaces, we can reduce minors's involvement in unofficial spaces which often have little to no protection. (1, 2, 3, 4)

Limit as Status Quo

• The limit should not be assumed to be a default, as it is an ongoing change to the status quo and comes with its own set of problems. (1)
  • The limit is assumed as a default due to protecting a vulnerable group. (1)
    • It's argued the limit is negatively impacting said group, and therefore this reasoning fails. (1)

Undelivered Promise

• Many of the age limit's supposed pros were overturned by the passage of time or never come to be in the first place. (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Neither of the proposed options will adequately solve the mentioned issues. (1)
  • The issues the age limit raise didn't solve should be solved before a lowering is even discussed. (1)
    • As the age raising is used as a rhetorical band-aid to avoid resolving said issues, lowering the age limit would speed this process up. (1)

Welcoming Queer Community

• As the site is an openly welcoming queer community, it can help users who feel otherwise excluded to develop their writing skills. (1)
  • As queer people are more likely to be harassed online, this indicates a larger need for user protection. (1)

Option-Select Rhetoric

• Much of the discussion is framed as if staff reducing the age limit and staff listening to their userbase are mutually exclusive options, which ignores the parts of the userbase which support the change, and make the conversation devolve faster. (1, 2)

---

Key questions to discuss:

• Where should the age limit be updated if/when we change it?
• What additional policies should be looked at as a result of this change?
  • In particular, what changes would be required to the Anti-Harrassment/Disc Teams, if any?

This discussion will go on for a week.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 08:27 by psychicprogrammer Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 14 Sep 2022 12:17

Current policies to vote on

Should we lower the age limit Y/N

What should we lower our age limit to if we do 13/15/16 (ranked choice)

Should we add a section to rule 0 stating that users must act as mature adults on the site (so bans can still be handed out for being indistinguishable than underage) Y/N

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 14 Sep 2022 14:30

We already have the maturity rule. Why add it as a section and not just reorder the rules so it's second on the list?

Last edited on 14 Sep 2022 14:31 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Ethagon 15 Sep 2022 09:57

I don't think a ranked age choice is a good idea here because I've seen no comment that had something other than 16 in mind. (And ranked choice has made problems in the past)

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 08:33

Locke proposed in SCPD that we ban any SCP user from joining SCP related NSFW groups, I think this is a massive overstep on part of staff and is completely unworkable.

However I think a different version is workable and might be useful, in that staff cannot be in private SCP related NSFW groups. If you can find it on google, like twitter and reddit, then it is fine. But NSFW discords in particular are not allowed.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 08:52

This feels overly specific? Like, I'm not sure how useful this would be in terms of enforceability (private) nor really covering all of our problems.

No particular opinion on it being a rule or not though.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Dexanote 11 Sep 2022 08:59

Banning any SCP user from joining SCP related NSFW groups is a fantastical overreach, though it's unironically good that somebody brought it up. It's good to have all options on the table still, despite how unworkable many are.

What many of us had generally discussed and agreed on a few years ago was that if staff are in NSFW spaces on the same accounts they use for staff work (for example, Discord) they don't draw attention or link their SCP identities directly during activity in said groups. So like, don't put "Moderator at the SCP Wiki" in your f-list profile or don't go by Dexanote[or insert your wiki name here] on NSFW platforms. Personally I think this is a good place to start?

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 10:16

Wait, so unless i'm misunderstanding, what Psychic just suggested is already in effect.

Our current policy is staff can't be in a NSFW space if their activity in it draws attention to their involvement in SCP. To join a private, SCP-related group, you inherently need to have attention drawn to your SCP user.

Ergo, unless you join said spaces under a different account and don't tell anyone of it, you'd be violating the rules.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 10:23

Turns out this is already in the charter, we should probably require new staff to read that.

Or at least have a staff induction package

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Ethagon 11 Sep 2022 10:48

A staff induction package seems like a very good idea in general, I think.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Dexanote 11 Sep 2022 18:39

Ooh yeah i like that.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 08:56

Alright so… We have the age specified in the site join page (but not site rules funnily enough) so I think that's the only place we need to change it?

Other than that, I do believe we need to have changes to Disc and AHT (and I implore people to suggest such fixes!) but I can't think of any that would be specific to minors. Any change that would benefit us when there are minors onsite would benefit us no matter what. Not sure what changes we should do generally speaking, but I'll let the rest tackle that.

Other than that… most of the changes we'd need are changes that we need regardless due to user influx, I believe? (Changes to crit functionality and such, some of which are already underway.)

Any changes we'd do to the discoverability of adult content is changes we need to do anyways since they're equally as discoverable without a site account.

I can't think of rule changes we would need specifically for this and wouldn't need generally.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

psychicprogrammer 11 Sep 2022 10:17

Oh right forgot to mention, I prefer 16 to 15 as the age limit due to maturity reasons.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 11 Sep 2022 10:18

Seems 16 is the consensus, right? Like I'm fine with either but almost all of the discussion assumed 16.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

stormbreath 11 Sep 2022 20:17

I'd also agree with sixteen as the bare minimum for lowering the age limit. (I also beg people to just use "raise" and "lower" for the age limit because I've seen people argue against "unraising" and my mind twists itself into knots trying to understand the takes.)

---

As for what would need to happen to have a 16+ age limit: We would need an effective way of making sure that minors are not voting on, commenting upon, or posting NSFW content.¹ If we are to have an age limit that includes minors, we cannot let those minors interact with the 18+ content. I personally do not think that this is truly possible while we continue to host that content, so that thought process would necessarily result in us removing all 18+ content and banning it from the site. (Which would be acceptable to me, to be honest). But we have to be able to make sure we have an environment in which minors cannot interact with NSFW content with anything to all suggest we condone that behavior.

At the end of the day: I think it's indefensible to have 18+ content and a 16+ userbase. Our readership is whatever — we will never be able to control or regulate it. We have to focus on what we can control and do our best at making sure our content lines up with our userbase. There are two options. We chose to slim the userbase in 2020. If people hate that, we can slim content. We have to get rid of one. There is no compromise.

Footnotes

1. All of which I know to have happened on the site in the past.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 20:20 by stormbreath Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Lazar Lyusternik 11 Sep 2022 21:10

I'm not seeing a way of mitigating this other than either not age unraising or mass-edit/deletion of age-restricted articles, the later of which is likely to be unpopular.
I'm also not discounting a non-destructive solution to the problem, but if it exists, it's not obvious.

In either case this needs to be addressed directly in the policy, and probably sooner rather than later.

Last edited on 11 Sep 2022 21:12 by Lazar Lyusternik Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

WizzBlizz 12 Sep 2022 00:58

If this issue is going to shoot down the proposal, then I'll point out that the site has an incredibly strict understanding of what "adult content" actually is. I can think of exactly one adult page that wouldn't get a "MA 15+" rating at the highest by my country's (Australia) government rating agency. I can find more mature stuff in my high school's library. This isn't to say these warnings are necessarily bad; Content warnings are always a plus and the great number of under-15s who read the site should be deterred from these pages. But for the purpose of this discussion, let's just remember what kind of content we are actually dealing with.

This goes somewhat beyond the bounds of this discussion, but the vast majority of "adult" content should be renamed to "Mature", with a rating of 15+.

Last edited on 12 Sep 2022 11:51 by WizzBlizz Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

gee0765 12 Sep 2022 01:21

i was going to say something like this but u got to it first. seconding this message, basically

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 12 Sep 2022 11:32

Thirding here. Not a lot to add, but too many people have been hyperfocusing on Storm's suggestion so I feel the need to add my opposition to it.

We'd need to relook at our rating system, since, once again, the original proposal that created it was poorly thought through.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Jerden 12 Sep 2022 17:51

As someone who's read… God, all the adult content on the site?… I'm not really going to disagree with you on this point, it's actually very subjective what counts as adult content.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Ethagon 13 Sep 2022 10:12

I think this makes sense, but that still leaves the question of how we deal with the few works that are/would be really 18+. We'd probably need extra criteria to rate these (and hopefully a lot less subjective) and a splash that looks slightly different for them. It also leaves the question of what we do if we actually find out (which should be rare with how we currently handle age) that a user engaged (i.e. voted or commented) on a +18 work.

And just to say it again, I think deleting even these few actual +18 works is an absolute no-go.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

Uncle Nicolini 12 Sep 2022 02:45

personally I find getting rid of content that is positively rated and just so happens to be nsfw a bit much. I agree that minors shouldn't be interacting with it but like you said , we can't control the readers, we can only control the users with accountd and are site members. I think raising the age limit to 18 is the answer here and deleting others works is an unfair suggestion that frankly shouldn't have even been made.
.
As a disclaimer, I do have some skin in this game since at time of writing I have one adult marked page that is positively rated.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

LORDXVNV 12 Sep 2022 18:20

I am of two minds of this.

On one hand, any solution that requires deleting work is no solution at all. In the words of a retired admin,

CENSORSHIP IS NOT OKAY, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Such a move would delete about 100 pages. For reference, raising the deletion threshold to +10 for pieces older than a year, a suggestion that has never and likely will never be made in seriousness — the so-called "glitterbuss threshold" — would delete about 20 pieces. And yet that has inspired a firestorm of even greater proportions.

Yet this stance seems like a moral half measure to me. It will be an open secret that minors consume the NSFW content on the scp wiki — a natural side effect and one that nurtures subterfuge, as I described in my earlier post. But it will be an open secret. We will be making a decision not for moral rightness but to cover our own assess.

The knowledge that minors consume NSFW content is an existential threat to the SCP Wiki

Our audience is comprised of minors. If we did not know that fact, we could raise our age limit to 18 and make no change to our works. But it seems to me that raising the limit in the full knowledge that minors comprise at least a third of our audience is the sin of Pontius Pilate — I wash my hands of thee.

If we truly wish to ensure minors do not interact in any way with 18+ content for moral reasons, we must delete it all regardless of our age policy.

And that is censorship.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

(account deleted) 13 Sep 2022 16:00

Many other sites, like Reddit or Twitter, allow minors on their site while also allowing mature content, and they get off scot-free. Hell, even Wikipedia has many articles that would definitely be considered mature, and they don't even have content warnings. What is preventing us from being able to allow both Mature content and minors? Is it incorporation, or lack thereof? Our own morals?

I feel like there is a way to have both minors and mature content. We just need to figure out how to make it work.

Note: I am not saying we should do this. I just believe it is a possible path we could take if needed, and may be worth considering if there arent better options.

Last edited on 13 Sep 2022 16:02 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 13 Sep 2022 12:16

Ok I'm replying to this on its own because I feel like it's a productive form of discussion:

WizzBlizz has mentioned how a lot of the works we tag as mature might not really warrant an 18+ age rating. Up until very recently our Adult Warning was really basic and didn't even include info on what the article included, so I think this is a good time as any to discuss making it more thorough.

Do we think Wizz's claim has validity, and if so how do we tackle it?

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

OptimisticLucio 13 Sep 2022 12:18

IMO Wizz is entirely right there, but I'm not sure how we'd really decide what gets what age ranking.

We could make a list of guidelines for what gets what ranking, but that may be way too much work for staff. We could just cut out the listing of an age entirely, but that creates problems when it comes to outright smut being on the page.

We could just disallow outright smut, but that already got pushback upon the mere mention of that being a possibility, so I'm not sure there.

Last edited on 13 Sep 2022 12:22 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

torcsandantlers 14 Sep 2022 01:53

I think we need to reframe how we're talking about "adult" articles a little bit. The adult content warning is less of a "this media should only be consumed by [insert age here]" and more of an ability to allow users to make an informed decision. I don't think this needs to be a stumbling block to lowering the age gate for the site.

We don't know what nation, what culture, etc our users are from, and we'd need to know that and applicable laws comprehensively to create age ratings for pages. Hell, in some places we're offering content inappropriate for folks under the age of 21. Since what is and is not "adult" is so subjective, I think we can rely on giving the splashpage as warning so that they can make their own decisions.

Re: [Policy Discussion] Age policy changes

WizzBlizz 16 Sep 2022 10:11

I agree with this.