Content guidelines/sexual content

[Assurbanipal_II]

This thread concerns the conflict between content guidelines and sexual content on this site, and the apparent lack of moderation and blatant disinterest in this matter by scribblehub.

We all know that scribblehub is by this point de facto the literary equivalent of pornhub. It doesn't surprise thus that we even share the last word in common. Maybe we should rebrand and change our name into smuthub. At least, it would do justice to our excellent reputation, but I digress.

We know that something like content guidelines actually exist and there is an interesting section called prohibited content.

So my question, how serious is the scribblehub moderation about this section of the guidelines? How serious are they about enforcing them? Or do they just exist on paper to escape potential legal lawsuits by proving they enacted the best industry standards?

Because I stumble quite often across that bear proudly their "incest" and "sexual abuse" tag.

Unless I am mistaken, both cases would fall under point 4, and we don't even have to be creative.

As far as I am informed, incest is still a chargeable offence in all states across the US. So if that doesn't constitute an "illegal sex act", what does then?

But I am sure, Tony takes this issue seriously as he was very serious when it came to solving the problem of our toxic community.

 

[Leti]

But I am sure, Tony takes this issue seriously as he was very serious when it came to solving the problem of our toxic community.

In Tony we trust.

 

[GDLiZy]

The only thing I know he doesn't tolerate is underaged sex.

 

[OkuraTsukiko]

But I am sure, Tony takes this issue seriously as he was very serious when it came to solving the problem of our toxic community.

In Tony we believe

 

[BenJepheneT]

I don't think anyone would care, and this isn't a point against your post. I would literally put money in the conclusion that this post fades into obscurity and no action gets taken. The main content of the site would probably move to other platforms and we'd lose a considerable reader-base but that's just about it. And if the content is still allowed within the site we'd just maintain the status quo we have now, since we already have the reputation of being pre-greenlit Xvideos for authors.

The way I see it, the pros of leading a mass exodus towards works violating the guidelines simply don't stack up to the cons, and there isn't much pros or cons to begin with either. The effort it'll take to wipe the filth and degeneracy simply don't amount to the projected result. Tony would have to enlist a team of mods to moderate every new story and pre-existing story to make sure they don't cross the line. And moderation alone is already a big work, and that isn't including the sustainable effort to keep it up to the near future.

That is, unless he's willing to pay people to do it. I know some dudes personally that will eat out of your diarrhoea ridden asscheeks for the price of a subway footlong but that's wading into financial territory already.

 

[Luxican]

I've read that a lot now( that this site is famous for it's huge amount of smut and not so keen on BL), so maybe I have chosen the wrong site to publish smutless, slowburn romance...

 

[DarkGodEM]

Don't romanticize/ make rape something adorable and don't fuck children.
That's as far as those rules are enforced

 

[minacia]

Because I stumble quite often across that bear proudly their "incest" and "sexual abuse" tag.

Unless I am mistaken, both cases would fall under point 4, and we don't even have to be creative.

As far as I am informed, incest is still a chargeable offence in all states across the US. So if that doesn't constitute an "illegal sex act", what does then?

This is sort of an interesting topic because I think Tony distinguishes between a depiction of something illegal versus “encouraging” something illegal.

For instance, murder/rape/slavery are definitely illegal, but they appear in many stories.

It’s a slippery area because it could be argued that plenty of stories even approach it positively, whether with “murder hobos” or similar... which leads one to question whether it is “encouraging” or not?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I don't think anyone would care, and this isn't a point against your post. I would literally put money in the conclusion that this post fades into obscurity and no action gets taken. The main content of the site would probably move to other platforms and we'd lose a considerable reader-base but that's just about it. And if the content is still allowed within the site we'd just maintain the status quo we have now, since we already have the reputation of being pre-greenlit Xvideos for authors.

The way I see it, the pros of leading a mass exodus towards works violating the guidelines simply don't stack up to the cons, and there isn't much pros or cons to begin with either. The effort it'll take to wipe the filth and degeneracy simply don't amount to the projected result. Tony would have to enlist a team of mods to moderate every new story and pre-existing story to make sure they don't cross the line. And moderation alone is already a big work, and that isn't including the sustainable effort to keep it up to the near future.

That is, unless he's willing to pay people to do it. I know some dudes personally that will eat out of your diarrhoea ridden asscheeks for the price of a subway footlong but that's wading into financial territory already.

There is a reason my post has a slight sarcastic undertone. But I know you know that I know.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

This is sort of an interesting topic because I think Tony distinguishes between a depiction of something illegal versus “encouraging” something illegal.

For instance, murder/rape/slavery are definitely illegal, but they appear in many stories.

It’s a slippery area because it could be argued that plenty of stories even approach it positively, whether with “murder hobos” or similar... which leads one to question whether it is “encouraging” or not?

I would disagree. The wording is very clear in this regard. The guidelines prohibit "illegal sexual acts", not "encouraging illegal sex acts".

Content under this category automatically constitutes "encouragement" in virtue of its mere existence. Violation is always presumed. No further evaluation necessary.

You can clearly see the difference by comparing the last paragraph to the previous one.

Encouraging non-consensual content speaks about "stories that encourage", so the story as a whole needs to promote it.

While illegal sex acts just speaks "content that encourages".

 

[BenJepheneT]

slowburn

I think it's already a mistake to upload a story that requires any sort of investment and commitment from a reader-base with the attention span of a grasshopper

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I think it's already a mistake to upload a story that requires any sort of investment and commitment from a reader-base with the attention span of a grasshopper

Grasshoppers are tasty if you fry them.

 

[AryaX]

"Age of Consent" ... To my knowledge the only known planet in the known universe with the same length of a year as earth... is earth...

The age of consent must always be 18 years, even if the years are longer or shorter than on those here on earth ?

Or... are fantasy worlds required to have the same length of year as we have here on earth?

Does the 18+ years rule apply to non-humans as well?

 

[minacia]

I would disagree. The wording is very clear in this regard. The guidelines prohibit "illegal sexual acts", not "encouraging illegal sex acts".

Content under this category automatically constitutes "encouragement" in virtue of its mere existence. Violation is always presumed. No further evaluation necessary.

You can clearly see the difference by comparing the last paragraph to the previous one.

Encouraging non-consensual content speaks about "stories that encourage", so the story as a whole needs to promote it.

While illegal sex acts just speaks "content that encourages".

It does say “encouraging illegal sex acts” though in the definition/description of the entry...

 

[NotYourTypicalMan]

even if they got confronted, the Spell card 'actually their real age is over hundreds year and they dont even related by blood' will active

 

[DreamOfRen]

even if they got confronted, the Spell card 'actually their real age is over hundreds year and they dont even related by blood' will active

Some of us just make them legal age though. I've never written a story where the MC was less than age 18.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

It does say “encouraging illegal sex acts” though in the definition/description of the entry...

As said, the encouragement is presumed.

It is like illegal weapon detention which requires endangerment of public safety. But such is presumed by the act of detention alone. No need to prove further.

Otherwise, Tony would outlaw encouraging acts, and not the acts themselves. ^^

 

[OkuraTsukiko]

even if they got confronted, the Spell card 'actually their real age is over hundreds year and they dont even related by blood' will active

That is likely to happen tbh, kinda like a reverse Uno Card but add a pinch of salt

 

[minacia]

As said, the encouragement is presumed.

It is like illegal weapon detention which requires endangerment of public safety. But such is presumed by the act of detention alone. No need to prove further.

Otherwise, Tony would outlaw encouraging acts, and not the acts themselves. ^^

I mean, I think that’s a presumption though. Obviously we don’t know what Tony thinks about the matter.

My interpretation is that Tony only cares if the content is encouraging, and he doesn’t care if there’s just a mere presence of incest. (Otherwise he would have done something about it already)

Likewise, rape is definitely illegal and certainly no less illegal than bestiality or others. By clause 4 under your definition, no depiction of rape is allowed. It’s strange that clause 3 would be a unique exception allowing for rape whereas in all other situations it’s banned for the mere presence (it could also be argued that polygamy and exhibitionism is also illegal).

I would argue that it’s Tony’s intent to emphasize that it’s the “encouraging” nature of any content that makes it against the rules.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I mean, I think that’s a presumption though. Obviously we don’t know what Tony thinks about the matter.

My interpretation is that Tony only cares if the content is encouraging, and he doesn’t care if there’s just a mere presence of incest. (Otherwise he would have done something about it already)

Likewise, rape is definitely illegal and certainly no less illegal than bestiality or others. By clause 4 under your definition, no depiction of rape is allowed. It’s strange that clause 3 would be a unique exception allowing for rape whereas in all other situations it’s banned for the mere presence (it could also be argued that polygamy and exhibitionism is also illegal).

I would argue that it’s Tony’s intent to emphasize that it’s the “encouraging” nature of any content that makes it against the rules.

I would argue he just doesn't care and puts it up to avoid legal trouble.