Subject: I appreciate it. {= )
Author:
Posted on: 2022-01-10 19:42:42 UTC
Thanks for the additional detail. Like I said in chat, I trust that the ban was warranted—the mods are certainly not in the habit of banning people for trivial things, and Dachaefill's explanations strike me as disingenuous compared to what I could see for myself—but I think it's important to have stuff like this made clear for the record.
~Neshomeh
Hey Guys, On the discord earlier i made a major mistake by referencing a major plot point from the TV show Rick and Morty without thinking how it would apply to the rules. I was relying on an overally strict interpretation of rule 3 I believe and as a neruodivergent I often make mistakes with understanding people. I would like to formally request to be unbanned but if the community feels that I was too egregious in my fan faction I will accept that. Rest assured if unbanned I would try to send a quick plotline of my stories to a mod at first to make sure I wasn't breaking any rules. Thanks, Dachefill
Hi board people.
Dach appeared in the discord several hours ago, and was summarily banned. The ban occurred after dach violated the rules, was told repeatedly to read them, did not do so, continued to break rules, and while they were making politically inflammatory posts that were judged to be extremely unlikely to be anything other than trolling.
This is the briefest possible summary. If anyone wants to give a longer rundown, be my guest. I'd give it a go, but it's past midnight here. I just figured someone should at least do the bare minimum right now.
A few of the rule breaks and general disregard for decency are as follows, in no particular order:
One of the first posts they made was fishing for a fight over politics, including subsequent statements of endorsing polarizing figures/corporations and general disregard for the well being of others for the same.
Not reading the rules and, after being confronted over this after it was specifically brought to their attention multiple times, waving off their behavior off as [misquoted] "not trying to offend".
Posting an uncensored screencap of the blacklist in #general_chat after being told to read the rules.
Catalyzing a roleplay with a newbie (who genuinely seems new to the internet and has made their own mostly unrelated egregious stumbles tonight) that could be categorized less as a roleplay and more as an attempt to murder the English language. This is also, to my understanding, the "fanfiction" they mentioned in their post here.
I would have put direct quotes in this but the mods have scoured every single message Dachaefill posted in the server. That's how bad it was.
(Also, and this is a personal response to the post that started this thread here on the board: don't try to scapegoat what you've done tonight on neurodivergence. This community has many neurodivergent people in it of all stripes and we don't screw up so badly our posting history gets nuked within hours of our arrival.)
Was Dachaefill only told to read the rules? Did anyone attempt to explain the rules? Did Dachaefill ask for an explanation at any point?
Because, frankly, I find BL2 a bit perplexing myself, since I don't understand the reasons for it. Mind you, I don't believe it could possibly be mistaken for a rule about vore (the Blacklist can be reviewed by anyone here, FYI), but I do believe it's possible that someone could innocently start a conversation about Pickle Rick from Rick and Morty and not understand why that would be a problem. Cartoon anthro food is fairly common and not usually subject to restriction. Same with talking about food in general, incidentally, which I've been warned for myself and is not clearly prohibited by BL2.
I see this as an opportunity to review that rule and see if we can improve on it, so I'd appreciate more information about that aspect of the problem.
I'd also like to know what actual behavior is being characterized as "fishing for a fight" and get at least a general idea of the political topics that were problematic. I understand wanting to avoid detail to spare anyone further discomfort, but for those of us who weren't there, emotional and vague descriptions aren't the most useful.
Thanks again for the explanation you DID provide, though. Something is better than nothing. {= )
Oh, and absolutely agreed on your last point, though this is why I want to verify whether explanations were given/asked for. We must allow for the fact that a neurodivergent person might need things explained in a different way than they are currently presented.
~Neshomeh
I have work today, so limited time, but I've read everything in this thread, and I'm taking it on board. Thank you all for your help.
Meanwhile: another Discord server I'm in has the equivalent of our Blacklist, but they call it a Trigger List, and it has a sub-channel to itself so it's plainly visible in the sidebar. I propose that renaming the list to "Trigger List" would help prevent confusion about what it is and whether the listed topics are completely banned or not, since "blacklisting" something does usually mean that it's forbidden.
I don't know if giving it its own sub-channel is necessary, since I don't think it's much of a stretch to go look in Rules, but then again, why not?
~Neshomeh
ETA: Visibility. Don't all comment at once now...
The other problem seems to be clarity in some cases, which I'd say might be solved in some cases by simplifying things and playing it safe? Stating some things in general terms might be easier than trying to cover all the ground.
I don't think a separate channel is necessary, at least right now. Our "intro and rules" page is quite short at the moment, and the trigger list is displayed prominently when opening it. It's something to consider in the future if the rules page gets longer, though.
—doctorlit
Just out of curiosity.
And I personally would keep it in the rules, but I can be swayed/outvoted. It helps to get a refresher on the rules when I go to look up a certain BL topic, although I might be the only one who rereads the rules when I go to find what, say, bl8 references.
-kA
Edit: Spelling error in title.
so here's the series of events that made one point I brought up. I remember the political conversation most clearly (and it has the most posts from other people as context clues), so I think I can reliably explain what happened. It may seem like I'm intentionally phrasing things in a way that makes Dachaefill come off badly, but I really am trying to not do that. Some of what they said is just that inflammatory.
One of the first things they did was ask if anyone wanted to "discuss political opinions" or something to that effect. After being pointed to the correct channel for that topic, they subsequently endorsed anarcho-capitalism and said that governments never helped with anything. Multiple people pointed out things that governments directly contribute, including fire departments, and their response was that fire departments are extraneous because they personally have never received benefits from one while Elon Muk had directly helped them because they've driven a Tesla. This was the first time in the conversation that Elon Musk, or any other specific person or corporation, had been brought up. Dachaefill was the only person to bring up Elon Musk or corporations during the entire conversation.
At some point they also either said or heavily implied that even disregarding public schooling Elon Musk and Google should just fund schools privately, and directly said that the police should have more power.
Please keep in mind that this alone was only one part of why they were banned, and in particular is suspect because it was one of the first things they did upon entering the server. The topic of politics isn't a forbidden one, and this is the only community I've been in where political conversations can genuinely end on either mutual understanding of some sort or an agreement that the conversation isn't going anywhere and should probably be left alone.
I've been regularly active on the server for years and can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen the moderators called to sort something out (including for explicitly political conversations), and Dachaefill managed to require us to call the mods multiple times in the very brief time they were on the server.
(edited for clarity)
Thanks for the additional detail. Like I said in chat, I trust that the ban was warranted—the mods are certainly not in the habit of banning people for trivial things, and Dachaefill's explanations strike me as disingenuous compared to what I could see for myself—but I think it's important to have stuff like this made clear for the record.
~Neshomeh
In general, I think the blacklist is a good idea; after all, most of us - if not all - have themes and topics that may not only bring us heavy discomfort but an actual trigger (not talking about mild annoyance or unwillingness to debate subject, but actual psychological shutdown response). And that's fine. Do I personally think we shouldn't skip/spoiler those subjects? Yes. Hiding in a safety bubble can only be good for a certain period of time.
As per the taboo in question - sentient food/food shown as animals/saying things like "invite [food] to the party ... I just don't understand it and probably never will. But I don't have to, and I don't try to understand it; just respect it. On the other hand, I'm afraid the situation might evolve into an excuse to not speak on sujects generally viewed as harmless, just because one person doesn't want to hear it, instead of just not participating. I do not wish to call out people or say that these particular topics are not valid to be on the blacklist, so I'll use myself as an example: a lot of people in the Discord server likes frogs and toads. I personally can't stand the sight of them. I'm scared of them, because they can stand still and then suddenly be very jumpy and unpredictable. So if somebody happen to post a frog picture, I'll just comment "eugh, froggo" and leave the channel for some time to not look at it/hear about it (animated/not-real frogs are fine though). I'm not gonna ask to put it on the Blacklist, because I find it too silly to bother others with. Same thing with death - I am severely thanatophobic and the thought about my own inevitable death always comes with the worse attack of panic. But there's another twist - fictional deaths are fine, same with deaths happening to people far from me/unknown to me personally. So I'm not asking for that to go on the blacklist. Alcohol is another thing: my father is an alcoholic, and alcohol is the reason my family's broken. But when people say they're drunk, or we joke around it, I will not say "stop talking about it" because I know it's my problem and not everyone is like my dad. It wouldn't be fair to the others.
So, yeah. I support the idea of the blacklist for heavy and controversial subjects (although I still think they should be discussed), but I'm afraid we might not be able to find a limit to it.
is that triggers like this are a subjective thing. We can't know the inner workings of other people's minds, but we have to trust our fellow Boarders' word that those topics are too harmful for them to engage with. It might be easier for you and I see how fire is more overtly frightening than a teddy bear getting ripped up, but that doesn't mean the latter isn't just as triggering for the persons it affects as death is for you, or bees are for me.
—doctorlit is deathly afraid of bee stings, by the way
I'll be up front that my ability to trust people about their triggers online was broken when someone tried to get first me, then hS kicked out of the community due to things we'd supposedly said to them when neither of us had spoken to them for years. Fortunately, that accusation was easily disproved, but it's too, too easy to say "this thing harms me" and get away with emotionally manipulating people when there's no way to prove or disprove it. Therefore, while I always have and always will follow the blacklist, I remain skeptical.
And, I agree with Nemo on this: most of us have things that make us uncomfortable, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be everyone else's job to spare us from discomfort. I don't love being surprised with pictures of spiders, and I don't love hearing that people are being irresponsible with alcohol, either. There was a time I would have called alcohol/drinking a trigger for me. However, my arachnophobia (which is, by definition, an irrational fear) doesn't trump the right of other people to like spiders and advocate their good qualities (which they do have!), and the fact that my dad was also an alcoholic and messed up my family doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to engage in the ubiquitous worldwide culture of drinking in my presence. I don't believe we have a right to never be uncomfortable, and some issues are so specific to an individual, or so unavoidable in the world, that it's unreasonable to ask the world to change for you. Rather, it is your responsibility to learn the skills you need to cope. For myself, it was empowering to decide to learn more about drinking culture and find that I could trust people close to me (like Phobos) to be responsible drinkers, and I would advocate that anyone take that approach over avoidance if it's safe and possible to do so.
Basically, I would just ask that we all take a good, hard look at ourselves and try to be as objective as possible when determining what is harm vs. what is discomfort, and weigh the efforts you make toward coping for yourself against how much you ask other people to bend for you. We must respect that people have limits on what and how much they can safely engage with at any given time, but we must also respect the limits of a group's capacity of spoons for taking on people's personal issues. All of these things can fluctuate over time, so it's important to practice situational awareness of self and others.
~Neshomeh
is either a flat-out PTSD/lived trauma trigger, or a major source of anxiety. And thanks to the difference in brain chemistry between individual people, those of us who don't suffer from a given trigger shouldn't assume that anyone who does is necessarily able to learn coping strategies to overcome that trigger, though that's certainly something to hope for. All we can do is support our friends and keep them from having bad flashbacks as best as possible.
To move away from this community for a moment, I have one real life friend, a long-time school friend, who I still see at least monthly, and is in his thirties, like me. For this man, the topics of heart attacks/surgery, suicide, and bank robberies are off the table, and he also has to avoid cigarette smoke because of a particular bad event in which that smell recurred. Will he ever get over these triggers? I don't know, and I love him either way. I'll happily dodge those topics for the rest of our lives, if need be. I care more about not hurting him than I do about my freedom of topic discussion.
—doctorlit
As I said before, I will continue to follow the blacklist regardless of my personal opinions.
I will do that because, as a long-time community member who has seen many, many people come and go, I consider my duty to the group first, the individuals second. I've seen wonderful people with legitimate trauma who I'm happy to support, but I've also seen narcissistic emotional vampires who would have sucked the life out of us as long as we put up with it, and they're rarely obvious at first glance. As in real life, there must be a balance between responsibility to the individual and responsibility to the group.
I'm challenging BL2 to verify that it is adequately protecting an individual while not causing significant avoidable confusion and frustration to the group.
The thing is, interacting on the level of a club is not the same as interacting on the level of your close, personal friends. Not everyone in a group like this can be close, personal friends with everyone else or give the top level of priority to every possible issue. In my view, helping us keep track of what issues to give priority is what the blacklist is for, and those of us participating in good faith will do our best, but there are limits.
Furthermore, relating to the discussion of Harry Potter and that one Marvel character with the fancy hat: if (and I do mean "if"; I'm questioning, not stating) this fanfic group's ability to have on-topic conversations about big fandoms is significantly hampered by fear we'll say something wrong without knowing it, I think that's a sign we're out of balance and need to stop and assess ourselves. But determining if (again, really "if") that's the case would require feedback from lots of people. So I guess we'll see whether and what more feedback turns up.
~Neshomeh
I wasn't there to see what happened yesterday, but I know that BL2 has already been rephrased at least once for the sake of clarity. I'm pretty sure it was discussed on the Discord, but I can't find the relevant piece of the backlog.
Maybe it should have an addendum or something that specifies BL2? That'd probably help.
(Sorry if my formatting's bad, I'm typing this from mobile.)
So. I'm not getting in on any part of this but the Blacklist, save to say that no, I never saw any request for an explanation of any part of the rules or really any evidence of them having been read, save for a screenshot of the unspoilered blacklist a couple minutes before being banned, in the middle of everyone yelling for them to shut up and leave.
The PPC Blacklist, I've discovered, is a very weird beast. Most servers with blacklists use them to detail what things cannot be brought up in the server at all, and those that allow them when spoilered and tagged or put in a certain channel (or both) don't use any kind of numbering system. For example, if someone wanted to post a BL9 picture, they would have to tag it as "destructive fire" or "burn injury". This makes a lot of sense, since in most places, no one can actually remember everyone's problem subjects. But we are small, and we are strange, and we are very bad about actually formalizing our social rules. (Did you know we've soft-listed Harry Potter? Most people don't, and there's no way to check.)
So, no, I can't say I personally blame a newbie for not knowing to not talk about this Pickle Rick thing, strictly speaking. But I think that if someone does sit down and try to understand the Blacklist, it wouldn't really be a difficult conclusion - any more than, say, VeggieTales.
BL2 is, in the Intro and Rules channel, worded as: "References to people or animals being food and/or preyed upon, as well as food being presented in the shape of people or animals, or being self-aware". Maybe I've been here long enough to learn all the ins and outs, but in my eyes, food that is capable of intelligent speech that responds to other individuals speaking is almost certainly self-aware. My proposed change to make this clearer is adding or changing it to conscious, because that's much harder to mistake for something else and definitely closer to the real line.
The point of BL2 is a little hard to pin down in a concise manner, and it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Gingerbread men, for example, are a fun holiday tradition - but serve to deeply upset multiple community members. Why? It doesn't really matter, in my book. If it hurts people, they should be able to avoid it. That's why our blacklist policy isn't "you can't do this at all"; it's "you have to warn people and give them a chance to not see it".
(On a more personal note, Nesh, I was definitely the one who got onto you for posting food outside the Foodstuffs channel, and that was out of line. I'm sorry. Nine times out of ten, that shouldn't be a problem.)
But yeah. No explanation was asked for, but neither did it seem like an explanation would have helped. If someone hasn't read the rules in the first place, going into the details of them won't do a ton of good; it's usually just a confusing back-and-forth.
What does soft listing mean? Also when did this happen I haven't been paying much attention recently.
I am a relatively new newbie and I'm not really sure how this Blacklist and warning for topics works. For example, this is from something I wrote:
Would this be the kind of thing that needs to be warned for? Did I do that right?
I don't want to freak anyone out, I just want to understand how this works.
-Claire
In that instance, I'd imagine the sentence would be interpreted as a standard reference to fantasy violence rather than BL2, but not being the person BL2 is relevant to, I can't say specifically. In general? I completely understand that it's a confusing topic. Just doing your best to ask if you're confused, spoilering or putting things through rot13 if you're asked to, and suchlike, is absolutely appreciated and good enough. Thanks for asking. Also, hi. We haven't talked much, but you seem really nice when I've seen you on the Board.
Coming on to the Board and interacting with people has been what you might call a growing up experience for me. I'm trying to do the right thing, behave maturely, and hopefully not do anything too stupid. Staying home because of covid has not been good for my social interaction skills.
-Claire
So thank you, you've done wonderfully. In truth, I think as people it's hard to ever be 100% sure you're not going to accidentally hurt anyone, you know? Misunderstandings happen, communication is hard, especially over text. As long as you're kind, as long as we keep talking to each other, we can work things out, at least. Goodness, sorry for being all pretentious. My point is, I guess, you're doing great.
> Why? It doesn't really matter, in my book.
I believe it matters because knowing the reason behind a rule helps me to understand the nuances of it, and it helps me to know that it's a real issue (e.g. due to an uncommon eating disorder, perhaps?) and not just someone making the world tiptoe around them instead of learning to, e.g., separate a childhood fantasy* from reality. It's how my brain works: I respect rules more when I understand them, less when I don't. I'm certain it's not just me, too.
* I say this because I definitely played pretend with my food as a kid, and I can imagine that fantasy getting stuck and causing distress, but I would expect it to be dealt with via either growing out of it or therapy. Since I don't know the real reason, I can only speculate within my own experience. I don't mean to demand that anyone discuss their sensitive issues in public, but I do want to be clear that I'm open to my experience and understanding being expanded with more information, and it would probably help more people besides me.
Regarding nuance: IMO, the nuance of a human being temporarily transformed into a pickle (as happens in the Rick and Morty episode) is distinct from the nuance of food being presented with human-like features or awareness (as the rule is worded). Is that not valid?
I also saw someone asking if they could RP as a character with "Gourd" as part of their name. I wasn't sure what the answer to that question was. Can we clear that up?
> Did you know we've soft-listed Harry Potter? Most people don't, and there's no way to check.
I actually just heard about this, and I'm baffled. Y'all are really being asked not to talk about anything Harry Potter-related without censoring it now? I'm 100% behind no longer supporting JKR and her big F.A.R.T. behavior (will not be going to see the next movie in theaters), but in a community based on fanfiction, it seems unreasonable to avoid discussion of an enormous fandom that, whatever BS the author does now, still had a positive impact on a lot of people here and elsewhere.
~Neshomeh
so this topic is a whole mess. the person who asked said they'd be ok not interacting with ppc stuff if it didn't make sense for blacklist, the discord mods were generally of the opinion that it didn't make sense to blacklist it, numerous suggestions other than the blacklist were proposed, the conversation dropped off as discord conversations are wont to do with no conclusion reached. well-meaning ppcers have been asking people to spoiler related topics out of concern, which is why Cal coined the term "soft-listed". it's not actually on the blacklist but people are asking others to almost treat it as if it was.
to further complicate things, the person later clarified it isn't all discussion of hp they wanted hidden/expected to be hidden. however no one is exactly sure what they meant. so there's no official policy, not a lot of clarity on what the specific problem is, and the person in question hasn't been spending a lot of time in any ppc spaces as they are, to an extent, just sort of drifting away from the community as sometimes happens. (trying not to get into too many specifics to not make things awkward, I worry I'd seem like I was talking behind someone's back)
the topic should probably have been moved to the board. I considered bringing it up but... would have felt weird making a post about an issue someone else was having, when I couldn't even tell if they wanted to be part of the ppc anymore.
I uh. Haven't even gone by Larfen in a while. Good grief it's been a minute. I've sort of drifted out of PPC (I'm sure youse've noticed) for a variety of reasons, foremost of which being that I haven't actually had any interest in writing in the setting for a while and have just kinda. Generally drifted off, as it were. It happens! I've been hoping to still stick casually around the Discord server a little but, ah, we'll see.
Alright, so, I am very sorry for the confusion I've caused in regards to that Harry Potter crap. I really regret bringing it up in the first place! I hate Harry Potter very very much. It represents hate to me, and also infuriating apathy. It's upsetting to me that there are people out there who sincerely prioritise their nostalgia for a piece of media (important to them as it may be) over the safety of real trans women who are being really, in real life, affected by JKR's money and influence. I see people debating this stuff all the time and the entire thing just suggests to me a certain lack of importance attributed to the safety and rights of trans women in like, wider culture. Like it isn't being taken as seriously as I wish it was.
And this is not to say its friggin, 'problematic' to read Harry Potter or to remain fond of it, or that by abstaining from it you are somehow physically making the world safer for trans women, but it's just... representative of a disturbing trend? That it's such a big deal is signifier of something deeper and more concerning? Something like that. I feel I must emphasise that I don't think you're like a bad person if you still like Harry Potter and still read it or whatever. It's all just, in a holistic sense, sort of disturbing, if you know what I mean?
I don't intend for this to come off as like, accusatory or anything by the way; this community has always been a genuinely trans-friendly space, no bullcrap, no posturing, so on. It's just, that's what seeing it reminds me of, you know? It isn't a good vibe, it doesn't make me feel good, and I really don't want to end up, like, being rude to someone just because they posted some Harry Potter meme they found.
It's obviously not practical to blacklist something like Harry Potter at all and that, of course, I can't expect everyone to stop talking about it just because I hate it real bad. It's plain not something the blacklist is designed for. I wasn't thinking straight when I requested it and I hadn't really come to terms with my drifting away from the community at the time. Just a case of me simply not matching with the community culture, and not really something that's fair of me to expect out of the community. My apologies for that, I really didn't think it'd be, like, a whole thing! Apologies, also, for the lack of communication on my part as a whole.
> it's not actually on the blacklist but people are asking others to almost treat it as if it was.
...which occurs in at least one other situation, with me specifically, regarding a norse god (a rather popular one, typically the bad guy). I gave the reason why his name should be spoilered is because he's bad luck for my religion, being too... ashamed? I guess? to truely say that his name is a trigger for me due to my mother's horror stories about saying his name and me assocating myself with him at particular moments in my life that I'd rather not talk about. It gives me flashback, similar to bl9 for me.
The reason why I bring this up is because I just wanted to mention that there is at least one other thing soft-listed with a semi-active member who wants to be a part of the PPC, so this isn't necessarily a one-time thing. It's happened at least one other time.
-kA
Edit: The reasons why I didn't have it added to the blacklist is because I am one person who has this trigger and he is a canon character from a really popular canon. I didn't want to block people from sporking it in #badfic.
but if this particular god shows up in a mission, even if it's a side mention about fishing them out of a plothole or somesuch, would you want to avoid the entire mission or just the side mention scene? I think I mention them in a mission in beta right now, so I might as well ask for whenever it gets posted.
...in the rest, it should be fine. Thank you for asking.
-kA
To start with the Potterverse thing, one of the trans women among our number is uncomfortable with engaging with that canon, due to the knowledge that its author wants people like her not to exist. That series basically represents hate to her, at this point.
And blacklist 2: the individual who requested this item grew up having regularly recurring nightmares about getting caught and eaten by monsters, leading to a general fear of getting eaten alive. This fear can get triggered not just by mentioning people getting eaten, but also animals getting eaten, and also anthropomorphized food/beings sapient beings made of food, including this Pickle!Rick nonsense.
Obviously not giving names, purely to avoid leaving a record for trolls to find and turn into targeted bullying.
—doctorlit, hopefully not overstepping anyone's privacy while also providing clarity?
To my understanding, the question of understanding BL2 or explaining the rules did not really come up, because the person in question said extremely controversial things in different ways in different channels at once. Piecing things together after the fact has been difficult because the messages pretty much got nuked, but from my interpretation, they. -posted the entire blacklist unspoilered and repeatedly said things that hit BL2 in general -made inflammatory political comments in another channel -in a third channel yet, rped with another newbie in a way that, from context, was both sexually explicit and possibly noncon?
So the reason BL2 wasn't really explained to them is that people rapidly came to the conclusion that they weren't acting in good faith. As I wasn't there, I can't say if this was rightly or wrongly, but from what I pieced together, especially in the roleplay thread, they were repeatedly told to stop both out and in character.
However, I don't think it's entirely wrong to point out that BL2 is a confusing topic. In general, my experience on the Discord is that the topic does not come up infrequently. Someone will say/show something they didn't realize was BL2, have it Xed, and either they'll see it and spoiler it or a mod will take it down if they're offline at the time. Generally, it hasn't been a problem.
Tonight, however, there was a pretty confused newbie who didn't have that time and experience learning things, a lot of other stressful things (two newbies were banned for trolling, one the person in this thread, the other claiming that they were there to "call out" a recent newbie, because they'd been looking over at someone else's screen, seen them checking out the PPC, and came to ask us... why we like fanfic in an aggressive manner) and the mods were also not able to respond immediately.
In general, tagging BL2 usually works okay, as both people assuming good faith and a mod dealing with an individual post if it crops up hasn't been a problem. In this case, the questions of "wait is this ok or not" got buried. The main problem with BL2 in this case, as I see it, is the blacklist's nature as a rule. The rule isn't "don't talk about stuff," it's asking to spoiler certain information. Because it's a communal agreement about a personal request rather than a hard and fast rule, since it concerns triggers that seem innocuous to most as well as things generally considered heavy, it's difficult for anyone except the person in question to say whether or not something hits a blacklist topic. Which means, generally, if that person is offline, it gets buried and becomes confusing because no one can answer that.
There were some flirty undertones at first, but the newbies got asked to tone it down. After that I didn't pick up anything remotely sexual. A couple gags about characters forgetting their clothes somehow, but that seems more like the kind of thing you'd find in a funny animal-themed kids show rather than anything untoward. It was mostly just chaotic lolrandom humor.
I'm not gonna respond in depth right now, because it's late for me, too, but I will say I don't believe for one second that the mods would have banned someone just for a misguided fic link or a single wrong word.
~Neshomeh
I apologize again though I did read the rules as soon as I entered the server. However, I did not realizing posting a screenshot of the rules would be against the rules nor did I that saying the word cvpxyr (Rot 13 to be safe) would trigger people. If I knew that I would have never done it. I will also say that the way rule 3??(food) is written makes it sound like it is just a no iber (rot13) rule. Also politically, I stand by what I say though I agree that it is definitionally on the fringes. I don't know if politics is allowed here or not so I won't mention what I said.