User talk:Tim Pierce/Furcadia

Undue weight?

This section is worded alright (although if I remember correctly, the vore place is not particularly popular), but wouldn't having a section discussing the sexual aspect, with no equivalent section on other content, give the article undue weight? At the least, it would be helpful to add something like "While adult-oriented activity is not officially permitted on most of the main maps," to the beginning. -kotra (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why it would constitute undue weight. Most of the Furcadia article is about the conventional, non-adult-oriented themes of the world. I don't object to making the change you describe but I don't actually think it's necessary.

I deliberately left out any attempt to quantify how popular these maps/dreams are -- that seems like arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin.

Maybe the right place to add these dreams would be "Mature Maps and Dreams", after "Main Maps" and "Other Official Maps"? That's also in the section that explains the MPAA-style rating adopted by Furcadia, which helps put them into context. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue in my mind is that I don't think any themes are currently explored in the article (aside from the anthropomorphic animal/mythical animal theme, which is neither explicitly sexual or explicitly non-sexual). Presenting the "adult-oriented" side without presenting also the "child-oriented" or simply non-sexual side would lead to a lack of balance. Perhaps it would be better to have an all-inclusive section about "Content"? Sexual or adult-oriented content could have a paragraph, as could whatever other content is there nowadays. For example, non-explicit roleplaying (anime, medieval swords & sorcery, feral animals, that sort of thing), mini-games ("build-a-home" and "lazer tag" dreams used to be a big thing), and general standard chatting (this is I believe by far the most common activity, but, again, original research).

As for the popularity of various maps/dreams being an issue, I agree completely that we shouldn't try to quantify it (it would be hell to source, for one). I just brought up that vore dream because mentioning it at all makes it seem like it's a notable area; and I think it was originally brought up as an illustration of the most potentially objectionable areas found, not a fair representation of the adult-oriented content. It would be better to mention the most popular adult areas instead, but I don't personally know what they are. Not a big deal, in any case, so it won't harm much by including it. -kotra (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article does not currently explore any themes at all, for example:

Several popular types of dreams are build-a-homes (where you can buy a temporary house from staff for free and decorate it with items, but is usually deleted after you leave the dream), hangout dreams (Usually featuring a bar or café area) and roleplay dreams. Furcadia hosts a wide variety of roleplaying dreams, ranging from strict-continuity roleplay (In which the dream is its own independent world) to persona play (Roleplay that is light and is governed by few rules). Roleplaying dreams also come in a myriad of different forms, ranging from feral (Feral wolf and horse dreams are immensely popular, concentrated in the Northeast region of the popular 'main map', Allegria Island) to furre to human. Many dreams revolve around fantasy plots and themes, based on popular books, television programs and even ancient mythology; some dream ideas are created entirely out of the minds of their creators. (Furcadia#Dreams)

and:

• Challenges, a game-oriented area that includes boards for chess, checkers, "pillow wars," and others.
• The Wylde, a main map for Ferians which includes thirteen different biomes with habitats upon which players can upload their dreams.

etc.

I don't object at all to adding a section called "Content" and putting this and other non-adult content under that heading, if you want to draft it. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Embarrassing. You're right, I missed that. Do you mind if I add a draft "Content" section to the page? -kotra (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By "the page" I mean User: Twp/Furcadia. I can draft it in my own userspace if you prefer. -kotra (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, feel free to edit here, it's all good :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by aa45955

"Limited to users at least 16 years old" implies the falsehood that these areas have sufficient protection against underage people gaining access. Those areas aren't restricted in any way, other than being labeled that they're intended for 16+. And the rule is unenforceable as there is no age verification in Furcadia, not to mention the fact that people are permitted to roleplay characters below the age of 16 on those maps anyway.

If you're going to specify that The Vore Club explores vorarephilia, then you should also specify that The Yiffy High School explores sexual ageplay in a high school setting.

How about: "Furcadia forbids players younger than 16 from entering these maps"? That avoids any language like "prevent" or "restrict" or "limit" which might imply enforcement.

The problem with the Yiffy High School is that the web site for that dream is very coy about goes on there. It doesn't say that it "explores sexual ageplay in a high school setting," even though reading between the lines makes that pretty clear. On Wikipedia we are limited to reporting what has been documented elsewhere. We can say that the Vore Club involves vorarephilia because the web site says, "This dream is for vorephiles and vore role-playing (RP)." The Yiffy High School doesn't describe itself in any terms so clear. If you can find some kind of reliable source that says "The Yiffy High School explores sexual ageplay in a high school setting" then we can quote that source in the article, but absent that, we really need to steer away from applying our own original research.

I understand your frustration with this process. I would ask you to please understand that Wikipedia's goal is to apply the highest standards of objective reporting to the content its users have submitted. You are right to object to language like "limited to users at least 16 years old" because it takes Furcadia's stated policies at face value; however, by the same token, we can't add "The Yiffy High School explores sexual ageplay in a high school setting" because it, in turn, takes your interpretation at face value, which carries its own risks. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Compare this also with movie ratings; R ratings (in the United States) say a viewer "...under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 21 or older"; but in many places this rule is unenforced. Similarly, in Furcadia, the rating says (I'm paraphrasing) "nobody under 16 is allowed", but the actual enforcement is left largely to parents (by setting the provided parental controls or by supervising). So I don't think it's a stretch to say "limited to users at least 16 years old", because that's the official stance, much like the official MPAA stance on their ratings; and if the parental controls are activated, it's also the actual fact. "Furcadia forbids..." is fine too though, and is admittedly more accurate for those situations when the parental controls aren't activated. -kotra (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The dream is called "Yiffy High School." Type "yiff" into Wikipedia to see what that means. They're being coy on their website, but considering the name of their dream translates directly to "High School With Furry-Themed Sex Play" I don't think saying they do high school themed furry ageplay is much of a stretch.

I'm not frustrated with the process anymore, I tried and that's all I can do. Now I'm just enjoying observing the process, it's interesting to see how it works since I've been reading random Wikipedia articles hours a day for years and had no idea.

And as far as "forbid" in place of "limit", I think that's even worse because it sounds biblical to me and I still think that implies active enforcement. How about "intended for"? "labeled for"? "listed for"? "directed at"? "aimed at"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa45955 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of us here are well aware of what "Yiff" means, but just because it says "Yiff" in its name does not automatically mean sex. It may imply it, but that's not to say it's permitted. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I realize what "yiff" means but it doesn't mean "ageplay." I'll add a note to the draft about the slang meaning of "yiff" because it seems relevant, although I don't think it adds much beyond saying that "Yiffy High School" is an area with a sexual theme, which is implicit from including it in this section. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is totally on subject but you may find this to be rather witty. RP9 (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)