Confused by the site rules

[jeff1005]

I admit to being rather confused by the site rules. For example:

"AI-Generated Content and Youth Protection​

AI-generated content that depicts toddlers in sexually explicit situations is strictly prohibited. Additionally, if the content involves toddlers or exhibits a level of realism that is too advanced for our current hosting server, it will be removed. Such violations will result in immediate removal, underscoring our commitment to maintaining a secure and respectful community environment."

Banning the depiction of toddlers in explicit situations makes perfect sense, but.....what constitutes a "toddler"? At what age does a toddler become a child, which also needs to be defined. If the intention is to restrict "loli" content, then this makes little sense as almost all underage chars seem to be of the early-pubescent variety (probably around the 12-15 years old). Simply looking young cannot legitimately be used as a reason for banning them; in real life, many girls look way below their actual ages. My niece keeps being stopped while driving despite being the mother of two; however, her youthful appearance would never justify the police actually banning her from driving!

Even more puzzling is the comment about removing content that "exhibits a level of realism that is too advanced for our current hosting server". So, devs must not produce VNs that are realistic enough to fool a (possibly) antiquated server; is that really the intent of this rule?

I have a feeling that I'm going to ruffle a few feathers

 

[Kavinsky]

I admit to being rather confused by the site rules. For example:

"AI-Generated Content and Youth Protection​

AI-generated content that depicts toddlers in sexually explicit situations is strictly prohibited. Additionally, if the content involves toddlers or exhibits a level of realism that is too advanced for our current hosting server, it will be removed. Such violations will result in immediate removal, underscoring our commitment to maintaining a secure and respectful community environment."

Banning the depiction of toddlers in explicit situations makes perfect sense, but.....what constitutes a "toddler"? At what age does a toddler become a child, which also needs to be defined. If the intention is to restrict "loli" content, then this makes little sense as almost all underage chars seem to be of the early-pubescent variety (probably around the 12-15 years old). Simply looking young cannot legitimately be used as a reason for banning them; in real life, many girls look way below their actual ages. My niece keeps being stopped while driving despite being the mother of two; however, her youthful appearance would never justify the police actually banning her from driving!

Even more puzzling is the comment about removing content that "exhibits a level of realism that is too advanced for our current hosting server". So, devs must not produce VNs that are realistic enough to fool a (possibly) antiquated server; is that really the intent of this rule?

I have a feeling that I'm going to ruffle a few feathers

cough cough ai is just to say we enforce it but not monitor it.

 

[That One Guy]

tbh that your even asking this gives me some very serious concerns. Leaving that aside, toddlers in adult games is just a no. I have an ideology when it comes to young characters in adult games. It's what I call the age of accountability. The young character must be old enough to understand what is happening and be aware enough about the situation to make an informed choice. So for me 12 is a reasonable cut off. Anything under that age should be forbidden. Even though this is all fantasy for entertainment we still need to have some kind of moral standard.

So about what you consider a toddler and what you don't to me is completely irrelevant. If you think it could be a toddler than it's too young by far.

As far as realism I think they mean in cases of violence or forced sexual instances. It's a tough subject to cover in a more specific sense as a lot of this stuff is situational and fetish dependent. Try to keep in mind we are here to enjoy it being fake, the fantasy of the unrealistic situation. We are not trying to learn how to do it or experience vicariously what it would be like in the real world.

I'm doing my best to be objective and answer your questions fairly but I gotta say having someone ask this raises many red flags for me.

 

[jeff1005]

tbh that your even asking this gives me some very serious concerns. Leaving that aside, toddlers in adult games is just a no. I have an ideology when it comes to young characters in adult games. It's what I call the age of accountability. The young character must be old enough to understand what is happening and be aware enough about the situation to make an informed choice. So for me 12 is a reasonable cut off. Anything under that age should be forbidden. Even though this is all fantasy for entertainment we still need to have some kind of moral standard.

So about what you consider a toddler and what you don't to me is completely irrelevant. If you think it could be a toddler than it's too young by far.

As far as realism I think they mean in cases of violence or forced sexual instances. It's a tough subject to cover in a more specific sense as a lot of this stuff is situational and fetish dependent. Try to keep in mind we are here to enjoy it being fake, the fantasy of the unrealistic situation. We are not trying to learn how to do it or experience vicariously what it would be like in the real world.

I'm doing my best to be objective and answer your questions fairly but I gotta say having someone ask this raises many red flags for me.

The reason for asking is because vague definitions in site/club/institution rules causes untold problems. If rules are to be followed, then they should be specific, not airy-fairy definitions. By your own definition (of me), your avatar with the label "small breast enthusiast" could be seen as giving "serious concerns" (as you put it). You deliberately avoided pointing out my initial comment, which was "Banning the depiction of toddlers in explicit situations makes perfect sense". I feel that that trolling a thread which is asking for clarity on a site rule is distinctly disingenuous.

 

[That One Guy]

The reason for asking is because vague definitions in site/club/institution rules causes untold problems. If rules are to be followed, then they should be specific, not airy-fairy definitions. By your own definition (of me), your avatar with the label "small breast enthusiast" could be seen as giving "serious concerns" (as you put it). You deliberately avoided pointing out my initial comment, which was "Banning the depiction of toddlers in explicit situations makes perfect sense". I feel that that trolling a thread which is asking for clarity on a site rule is distinctly disingenuous.

I wasn't trolling I was giving my honest feedback on what I thought the question was. I figured banning for infractions kind of spoke for itself. I mean if the site owner took the time to clearly define everything we would need a degree in law to make sense of it or it would be so ridiculously long that it would probably take multiple posts to cover everything. So I gave the answer I thought you were looking for.

 

[Kavinsky]

no fucking todlercon lol