Admin Post: Revised "Ratings & Warnings" Document Open for Comment

[dawn_felagund]

Back in June, we held a discussion in the #town-hall of the SWG's Discord server about add warning tags to the archive for in-universe prejudice as well as ratings and warnings more generally. The moderator team and inclusivity committee decided to dig deeper into the question of warning tags for in-universe prejudice. We also came to the understanding that the current Ratings and Warnings document was out-of-date, both in terms of expectations and especially in terms of tone.

The current document was rewritten in 2010. It has been revised over the years but not substantially so. Back then, with just three years experience running the site, we expected pushback/maliciousness in the [mis]use of ratings and warnings that just never manifested. What we have learned is that people make legitimate mistakes, and many, many people are fearful of being called out, censored, or reprimanded for messing up. As mods, also, we almost never receive notices from members that a fanwork is incorrectly labeled, so the system we have is being used correctly most of the time by our members. Given this, the former defensive approach is no longer appropriate, and we're looking at something clear and direct but much softer in tone.

The draft of the new "Ratings and Warnings" document is here.

You can comment on this document in several ways.

You can leave a comment directly on the document. You can leave a comment here with your thoughts, and there is an open discussion in the #town-hall on our Discord if you're a member there. If you'd rather communicate privately with the mods, you can email us.

This document will be open for comment through next Wednesday, 1 September 2021.

Comments

[heartofoshun]

I am sure the discussion will be livelier on Discord than here. But I am still using a smallish laptop and cannot participate there. The two words I find difficult are "objectionable" and "sensitive." Those are commonly used but hard to define. What I find objectionable are belches, farts, and potty humor and other forms of vulgarity (I challenge anyone to define vulgar to the taste of all) but I can usually close my eyes and skim over such things if the story is otherwise a good read.

The presence of many things in a story are often considered objectionable or not at all depending upon age, cultural differences, and religious or political beliefs. I am sensitive to things that other people find fascinating or entertaining. I will continue to only mark Gen fic (as I interpret it--things I believe almost anyone could read without finding them offensive) and decline to rate everything else.

I do not see my primary job as a writer to torture myself with self-censorship. I suppose I will lose some readers for that. Maybe if I wrote more often I would still get a few new readers who had heard through word-of-mouth that my work is really not as bad as they might imagine.

The most upsetting thing I read this year was a memorial in a church flower garden. Actually, I think it was intended to be exactly that.

[dawn_felagund]

The two words I find difficult are "objectionable" and "sensitive."

I'm open to suggestions here! I don't think we'll ever achieve precision; I've rather given up trying. You're right that no system can hit everything that every person will find "objectionable" or "sensitive," but I don't think that's the point. We know there are categories of content that contingents of readers wish to avoid at least some of the time, and there is a cultural baseline shared by most people in English-language Tolkien fanfic fandom that understands what falls under that [admittedly vague] umbrella of "objectionable and sensitive." Like a knife fight: yes. Animal abuse, a blowjob behind a 7/11, screaming at a small child ... yes, yes, and yes. A person juggling pineapples? No ... even if there is a reader out there deathly allergic to pineapple who gets itchy just reading it.

But if there are better, more precise words, I will switch out in favor of them. These two are the best I've been able to do so far.

I actually would make the case that "potty humor" would absolutely fall under "sensitive and objectionable" and should bump up the ratings accordingly, if one chooses to use ratings. A story that leans on potty humor "that is not graphic or pervasive" would be Teens, similar to how this kind of humor bumps movies into PG-13 territory. It certainly wouldn't be a General story. Once the descriptions do become "pervasive or graphic," yes, it would become Adult. One of the most disturbing horror stories I ever read, initially published in Playboy and reprinted in a "best of year" anthology, wasn't even really horror except for the fact that it contained extremely, extremely graphic detailing of a mishap that involved no blood or gore but lots of poop, enough that it definitely became horror.

[heartofoshun]

That last line almost changed my position on warnings! (Yikes! Did you do that on purpose?) I'm laughing but not because it didn't freak me out. You know most of my squicks--unexpected toddler death, for example. I always opt out when Laura and Alex have a great evening watching horror movies! As far as SWG ratings, etc., I am satisfied with having a choice to use "Creator Chooses Not to Rate" and/or "Creator Chooses Not to Warn." I guess my point is not that better words exist than "objectionable" or "sensitive," but that warnings will always be uneven and some of us will always feel like the outlier and have to grow a thicker skin. So I sometimes lose patience. Not because I have rhinoceros skin myself or do not find things objectionable.

[dawn_felagund]

I'm pretty iron-stomached (as you know) and that story disturbed me enough that it has stuck with me across at least 15 years. It didn't have a lick of sex or violence in it but was one of the most Adult (in terms of ratings) things I've ever read.

warnings will always be uneven and some of us will always feel like the outlier and have to grow a thicker skin.

I've evolved a lot in my own thinking about warnings from "this has to be a perfect, accurate system that precisely captures every possible flag on a fanwork!" to viewing the system as something negotiated within our community so that everyone feels there is a sincere attempt to respect their needs. This was hard for me because my brain tends toward the precise and quantitative and this is anything but. I personally don't like warnings and like ratings even less, though I've done my best to use them across the years ... but I also respect that there are topics that people may want a break from.

Interestingly, I went through the first 25 stories on the site yesterday and only three of them even used warning tags. The rest used CNTW, Check Notes for Warnings, or just didn't list anything at all (including for Teens-rated works). One could probably do a really interesting historical study on how use of warnings has changed over the past 20 years.

[erulissedances]

Warnings and ratings have been controversial forever. I think you're trying to do the best you can with this, and I can't find anything too objectionable in what you're proposing. I think I'd probably choose "I choose not to rate" most of the time, because if there's one thing I've realized over the years, people have a wide variety of what they consider "objectionable". My squick is not your squick and is not their squick.

Your heart is in the right place, and you're right, ratings do need to be revised and improved periodically. I think what you're proposing will work, and that's really the key, isn't it?

- Erulisse (one L)

[dawn_felagund]

Our system works remarkably well. We receive almost no notices from members of rating/warning violations. When we have, they are always accidents. (It used to be really easy to miss the Rating field on the old site and it defaulted to General so ...) It just really wasn't necessary to keep that ... almost combative ... approach to mistakes with ratings and warnings, especially as the conversation has gotten intense elsewhere and people worry about being wrong.

Thanks for the feedback! ^_^

[zdenka]

Can you elaborate a little on how the In-Universe Intolerance tag is expected to be used? I wasn't around for that discussion. (Something about the phrasing makes me mentally itch a little (stealing from your pineapple example!), though it's hard to articulate why. "In-Universe Prejudice" sounds more natural to me, though admittedly I wasn't around for that conversation and I'm open to hearing why that phrasing was chosen.)

The new Ratings and Warnings document generally looks good to me. I made one formatting suggestion which you can take or leave.

[dawn_felagund]

Sure! The conversation started when we received a request to add a warning tag for In-Universe Racism, which opened a broader discussion of whether we wanted to offer creators the option of tagging fanworks that included various forms of bigotry/prejudice/intolerance that are a part of the legendarium. We hadn't updated the warning list since 2008, and the fandom looks very different now. We considered the tag on the basis of allowing users to filter out those fanworks, if they were not in the mood for that content, and also to allow users to "filter in" fanworks that discuss topics like race and gender that are of high interest in the fandom right now.

We discussed it among the mods and the inclusivity committee, then took it to the #town-hall channel on our Discord in June. At the time, our recommendation was for a single blanket tag: In-Universe Bigotry. The word bigotry went pretty quickly in favor of prejudice. After a discussion of the various forms that bigotry/prejudice/intolerance could take, we settled on intolerance as the word that we felt covered the broadest range--though still not perfect.

We also settled on the blanket tag as well as a handful of more specific tags that, based on a study of the fanworks on our site, seemed to be the most useful.

As for how it is to be used, it's no different from our existing warning tags: You can tag fanworks if you want to and feel they contain in-universe intolerance of some form. You can use Choose Not to Warn. You can use CNTW in conjunction with warning tags if you are comfortable with some tags but not others. You can also use Check Notes for Warnings if you want to warn for particular content but don't feel like the tags communicate what you want. Unless we believe someone is acting maliciously, we do not treat incorrectly tagged fanworks as a "strike." Fanworks are not expected to be tagged retroactively.

If you're on our Discord, I can link you to the discussion. If you're not and would like to be, I can share an invite *and* link to the discussion.

Thank you for the formatting suggestion--it added clarity! I've accepted it.

[zdenka]

Glad the formatting suggestion was helpful!

Trying to articulate this, I think the reason why "intolerance" in the tag poked at me is that, to me, intolerance sounds very binary: We will not tolerate people in X group (at all), e.g., we won't let people of X group live in this town, if you're X you can't be hired for this job, being X in this country is illegal. In my experience, prejudice is more of a broad spectrum, both conscious and unconscious. But maybe I should read the discussion first.

I am only technically on Discord, in that I have an account and on rare occasions poke my head in to lurk in for 5 minutes. :) But I think I have the Silm Discord linked. I'd appreciate the link to the discussion, at your convenience.

Being more specific, is the In-Universe Intolerance(/prejudice/bigotry) tag meant to apply only to situations that apply in the real world, e.g. homophobia towards a same-sex couple? Or is it also meant to apply to things like Elves being prejudiced against Dwarves and vice versa?

[dawn_felagund]

Here's the link to the discussion.

Being more specific, is the In-Universe Intolerance(/prejudice/bigotry) tag meant to apply only to situations that apply in the real world, e.g. homophobia towards a same-sex couple? Or is it also meant to apply to things like Elves being prejudiced against Dwarves and vice versa?

I've received multiple requests at this point for a list of the warning tags with definitions of each, which I guess I'm gonna have to honor. (I kid! ... but it is something I've never done in the past because it feels so daunting.) We'll likely post the new "Ratings & Warnings," then work on that and open it for comment at a later date, so I don't have an "official" answer to this yet and it may change, but I can give my sense of where I see it going, having thought of this very issue of definition a lot in the past few days.

I think it applies broadly. The "in-universe" is key, imo. Tolkien centered issues of intolerance/prejudice within a fantasy context, like the intolerance between Elves and Dwarves that you note. He also had some ideas that, decades later, we see as offensive (such as the high number of evil characters who are described as dark-skinned). Personally, I'd use it for both. If I have characters in a situation where one group is showing intolerance/prejudice toward another group, I'd use it. I'd also use it in situations where I am continuing some of Tolkien's more offensive conventions, such as explicitly describing villains as dark-skinned. (If I don't use that description though? I wouldn't use the tag, trusting my readers would imagine the villains looking however they choose.)

There are some ideas that don't arise directly in the legendarium, like your example of homophobia, but that some creators address in their fanworks. I'd use it there too, making the case that Tolkien's universe is being expanded by the fan/creator, making it "in-universe."

That's where I'm falling, unofficially, for now.

[keiliss]

In my early fandom days you'd get NC-17, a pairing, and an obscure summary, after which you were on your own. It could be positively vanilla or it could contain violent rape - at some point if it got uncomfortable you backed out and made a note to be cautious of that writer's work. The pendulum has swung very far in the opposite direction now, expecting warnings for literally anything that could raise an eyebrow. I don't personally think either is right -- the back cover of a book will give you more than a two line summary but equally it won't warn you about every possible trigger inside, but I'm not sure we'll ever get that sensible balance online. There are too many variations in ages and backgrounds and norms. I think you're doing very well in the face of these expectations.

[dawn_felagund]

Thank you!

Interestingly, I took a look at the first 25 stories on the Most Recent list yesterday and only three tagged specific warnings at all. A few used CNTW and Check Notes for Warnings. Most had no warnings at all. So it doesn't seem we have a culture in place that favors ... exuberant ... tagging for warnings. I look at tag lists on AO3 sometimes and just boggle. (Does anyone read all of them??)

Where I hung out in the early days (aside from here!) I remember warnings being mostly used to protect people from having to read sex, especially slash. That soured me on them from the outset because I didn't see that as something people needed protecting from. So I am not personally fond of warnings. BUT. I also recognize myself as an outlier because I have a high tolerance for just about anything, including graphic violence. I can think of three things in my life that bothered me to the point where I perseverated upon them, two of them written and one in a documentary.

I've tried to think about warning tags less about protecting people from triggers--as the site owner, I'm unable to take on that responsibility if someone's triggers rise to the level of trauma--and more about providing means for creators to communicate with their readers. The high emotions that often tend to accompany this issue (where you're going to send someone into emotional crisis if you make a mistake in tagging!) seems to contribute to making it seem so impossible and fraught.