The reality is only YOU can curtail your online experiences and what you view. Don't expect others to do it for you.

tangentially related to the trigger warning discussion, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to be more specific about what subeta means by pg-13? because i will say, having been here for a good 15 years, i've seen profiles win spotlight that contained some pretty heavy themes lol but then ~4 years ago i had [pets=thespian/cristophe] rejected for "not being pg-13" which was a huge bummer, especially because i've absolutely seen more depressing/graphic stories win before ;; like... idk the rules feel kinda inconsistent haha

I think it would be fair for Subeta to say something along the lines of "All content must adhere to Subeta guidelines, and we encourage users to put content warnings on any content they create that they feel might be upsetting to other users," on the profile editing pages, but yeah, requiring trigger warnings is not feasible, partially because it's too subjective. I had a friend who was triggered by ceiling fans because that's what they saw when they were abused. We can't do anything about that because no one would ever think a ceiling fan would be upsetting to someone else, but we could ask people to try and warn against the more obvious things like how movies have content warnings to help parents for example decide if they want their kids watching it.

Also clarifying what pg-13 means on Subeta could be good if it's currently a bit confusing. I have to admit I haven't looked at it too closely.

In short: I personally support encouraging content warnings but I do not necessarily support requiring content warnings.

I do want to add to the trigger warning conversation that trigger warnings are a bad idea? There was a meta-analysis of 12 different studies looking at the psychological effect of trigger warnings and found that 1) they don't actually stop people from consuming the content, even in those with diagnosed PTSD or likely PTSD diagnoses, 2) The content that would have had a trigger warning did not significantly impact the emotional response of people with PTSD and likely PTSD. 3) Viewing a trigger warning itself DID increase anxiety, more so than the same content when not provided with a warning.

Source, plus several of the referenced articles

For those that DO avoid material based on a trigger warning, that (avoidance) is actually a maladaptive coping strategy that has been fully shown in multiple trials. Avoidance of an emotionally triggering situation makes the reaction to that trigger WORSE. People with social anxiety need exposure to social situations in a safe environment to help adjust and cope with the stress of that situation. Individuals with PTSD are treated through real or imagined exposure to their triggers in a safe environment. Reading a story on a pet profile is about as safe an environment as you can possibly get.

Re: the reputation system Now that we've been through two rounds, is there any more clarification on that? Specifically: what is a good reputation score number? Or are we not there yet and I should not worry about it? Related, perhaps, or perhaps not: are there no more pets to review because I am so super bad at it Esmerelda is politely telling me to scarper, or are there no more pets to review because I have way too much time on my hands and have gone through all the available ones?

My reputation score hasn't budged so I assumed that wasn't going to be a thing in the pilot but excellent question. As for the second, I think Keith is only putting a small number of pets into the pilot queue at a time, so you may well have run out (or the 500 other people reviewing got the ones you didn't see enough eyes and votes). Alternately, you are on-site friends with a bunch of people in that queue and so have limitations on what pets you can see.

Just wanted to add that I agree that optional TW can certainly be a thing! It's just making them mandatory and having spotlight reviewers mark profiles that is kind of difficult to implement imo. Subeta is ultimately run by one dedicated owner, a couple of part time staff, some volunteer moderators and three squirrels in a trenchcoat. The point of this community review project is to help staff, and I feel like mandatory TW is only going to ADD a ton of work for staff that would need to police this.

I also agree that a small list of things that are absolutely a no go for the spotlight would be helpful. As Thespian said, it's not always clear where the line is for PG-13 in the context of the spotlight. What is usually agreed to be PG-13 is the MPA rating, which is actually a very wide and permissive rating. PG-13 allows for quite a lot of things (see: https://rating-system.fandom.com/wiki/PG-13_(MPA) and this very detailed guide: https://www.filmratings.com/ratings-guide/ ). Movies that deal with objectively quite intense topics like Hotel Rwanda, Malcom X or Dunkirk and horror movies like The Ring are all rated PG-13. (It's also important to remember that there's a whole team of experts that rate movies. We're just a handful of people having fun on a pet site, so a simple list of topics would be more than enough to judge where to draw the line)

I don't disagree that the efficacy of trigger warnings is questionable, but that particular study didn't measure trigger warnings that matched the participants' triggers. If I'm triggered by X but not bothered by Y, you have to test X on me. Testing Y trigger warnings seems ineffective, making it difficult to come to a hard conclusion from that study. As they say themselves, "It is possible then that people overall did not avoid warned of content because they did not find it personally distressing."

I will say, that personally, I have chosen not to consume content (books or movies) after learning it contained things I was not in a headspace to consume. I don't have PTSD or anything so it's not like I was avoiding exposing myself due to some mental health problem, I just didn't feel comfortable reading about certain things at certain times, and I appreciated knowing in advance those things were in there. I think that muddies the conversation even more, because we have trigger warnings for people with actual mental health issues and they may or may not work, and then we have content warnings (which are often used interchangeably with trigger warnings) which have been used for ages before the concept of trigger warnings came up, and they seem to fulfill their purpose pretty well.

i have to say im kinda shocked a story about grape was allowed on here? i would think thats pretty ntense for a pg13 site but then again, maybe not?

i thought we did have a site rule about keeping it pg13 already but it might need more clear cut "whats not allowed". this is the site with fetus pops and bowl of ebola after all.

oh thank you! I forgot about the friends thing entirely. A few of them are VERY pet heavy, I believe. It's weird how worried I got over the reputation thing like I was messing up big time XD Much obliged!

If it was the story I also happened to review, it wasn't a story about assault. A side character was mentioned to have been assaulted which made them change and eventually hurt themselves, and how that loss was part of the MC's motivation and narrative. It was a paragraph in a multithousand word story.

Ohhhhh okay, that makes better sense.

If it was the story I also happened to review, it wasn't a story about assault. A side character was mentioned to have been assaulted which made them change and eventually hurt themselves, and how that loss was part of the MC's motivation and narrative. It was a paragraph in a multithousand word story.

I'm glad that I didn't get the chance to review this one because that would be triggering, as a survivor myself, I know that I can't escape the subject, but I want at least a TW and give me a few seconds to decide if I'm in the right state of mind to dive in into it or not.