i wish that staff would just make these much more specific examples and clarifications known in the first place. if they'd learn this from their past mistakes instead of continuing to step on the cartoon rake over and over while expecting different results, they'd probably save time on not having to make a second post to explain what the first post failed to. they keep showing that they're very good at making thorough lists and explanations of their actual intentions and yet somehow can't pick up that *maybe* it's a good idea to continue to utilize them.
pretty sure the community would have had a bone to pick with staff's phrasing no matter what words they used on the first iteration of the rules. they were always going to need some level of clarification or rewriting. that's not unique to flight rising though - it's just not possible to account for all the ways a passage could be misinterpreted/misunderstood before it's been published, especially in dicey situations like this one. i'm certain staff put a lot of thought into the topic of hatchling skin moderation before they presented their rules to the userbase.
you're absolutely right that the community would find something to squawk at if they so wished, but having the examples they provided in the first place would have mitigated SOME of it where it wouldn't have been this massively explosive. sometimes it's an issue of 'players can't read/infer', but this was a case of 'staff needed to be more clear', and that's been a trend for a while. people don't want to wait to figure out if their skin won't pass because it doesn't meet "no lolita-inspired clothing" when lolita-inspired clothing is a vast fashion culture that spans dozens upon dozens of genres and sub-genres of style, and to ban it all would ban huge swaths of fashion.
I feel like the moderation team just has no idea what good user feedback loops look like and it impacts everything down to rule changes like this, where if they'd run it by even a small group of users prior to publishing, their original wording would have been immediately called out as being liable to misinterpretation to anyone who can read.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Hatchling skin rules revised
(Anonymous) 2024-05-18 03:02 am (UTC)(link)Re: Hatchling skin rules revised
(Anonymous) 2024-05-18 03:52 am (UTC)(link)that's not unique to flight rising though - it's just not possible to account for all the ways a passage could be misinterpreted/misunderstood before it's been published, especially in dicey situations like this one. i'm certain staff put a lot of thought into the topic of hatchling skin moderation before they presented their rules to the userbase.
Re: Hatchling skin rules revised
(Anonymous) 2024-05-19 06:05 pm (UTC)(link)you're absolutely right that the community would find something to squawk at if they so wished, but having the examples they provided in the first place would have mitigated SOME of it where it wouldn't have been this massively explosive. sometimes it's an issue of 'players can't read/infer', but this was a case of 'staff needed to be more clear', and that's been a trend for a while. people don't want to wait to figure out if their skin won't pass because it doesn't meet "no lolita-inspired clothing" when lolita-inspired clothing is a vast fashion culture that spans dozens upon dozens of genres and sub-genres of style, and to ban it all would ban huge swaths of fashion.
Re: Hatchling skin rules revised
(Anonymous) 2024-05-18 07:11 am (UTC)(link)Re: Hatchling skin rules revised
(Anonymous) 2024-05-18 07:57 am (UTC)(link)FR staff and mods mostly suffer from that meme "what would a banana cost, 10$ ?" type of self-made problems.