Regarding The Recent Ban

Recently, a (now former) FWG member made a series of controversial posts on Twitter. While we should point out that the FWG staff does not police members’ social media, there are certain positions so intensely radioactive that we cannot abide their presence in our ranks. The guild would not stand for it. The fandom at large would not stand for it. Thus, our hand was forced.

It should also be noted that this did not occur in a vacuum, and the aforementioned posts represent only the latest in a series of questionable and ill-advised public statements, many of which resulted in complaints.

The FWG has always preferred that members self-regulate their behavior. Even when lines are crossed, we would sooner exercise patience and magnanimity than we would punitive measures. The number of persons who have received such marked disciplinary action is small indeed, and each of those occasions remain regrettable to us. Nevertheless, our commitment to the FWG and its mission sometimes make it necessary. We hope you all understand.

Best wishes,

The FWG staff

5 thoughts on “Regarding The Recent Ban

  1. As only a recently added member with, perhaps, an insufficient social media presence, I would ask for clarification here: what is the nature of the specific statements made by the offending member, and what guidelines (specifically) are there concerning members’ postings?

    1. The person in question had made a series of Tweets which I can only describe as pro-zoophilia.

      As mentioned, we don’t police members’ social media and do not generally concern ourselves with “bad takes.” We would only take action in extreme cases like this one. I hope this helps.

  2. It’s within your discretion according to the bylaws. Still, it seems odd when the FWG officially “welcomes and supports all backgrounds and ideologies” including the areas of “sexual identity and expression”.

    I see an exception for “hateful ideology”, but this is rather the reverse – one people love to hate (rather like furry as a whole).

    Once I figured out what you were talking about, the tweets in question don’t seem overly provocative – if anything, they’re academic, as you might expect, given the author. As such, they predictably don’t seem to have garnered attention beyond a few following the author; nor, for that matter, did I see anyone bring up the FWG. The only reason I saw them is this post; ironic as I do follow the subject’s stories – just not their tweets.

    As for “radioactive”… all I can say is that there are many such topics in the fandom (enough that we ditched the idea of it as a rating above “adult” on IB, instead settling on keyword blocks) – and I hope for the guild’s sake that you underestimated their tolerance. Certainly, “have sex, not vore” is a controversial position; but perhaps it shouldn’t be, in a fandom based on the idea that animals can be people too? 😿

  3. I really don’t think that the guild has any business policing people’s behavior outside of guild activities. And the code of conduct is pretty hazy. My politics lean to the right, pretty far when compared to most of the people in the guild. I’m often told that my beliefs are ‘hateful’ etc etc. Or that they’re offensive. All because people don’t agree with them.
    So how long before I get the boot for that? And what about people insulting each other outside the confines of this group? Is that going to get them in trouble here? It’s one thing to not allow nasty arguments to take place here, but policing it outside of here? And then whose side are you taking? Because those things always go both ways.
    So again, I disagree with policing member behavior outside of the guild’s forums and other properties.

    1. As GreenReaper notes, it sounds like you (FWG staff) don’t have any grounds to expel a member for promoting his own “sexual identity and expression” regardless of your (or my) personal condemnation of it. If the facts are as stated above, the Guild should publicly apologize and reinstate this person. If you don’t do that, you’re violating your own stated code of conduct. In that case, you should amend the code to say “you can be kicked out if ‘we’ decide your beliefs are ‘radioactive’.” That will give you a ton of wiggle room.

      By the way, was “the Guild” consulted, or was this a private staff vote? I’m not sure who “forced” you to take action. Did somebody threaten you in some way?

      Will you be issuing an apology and retraction, or an explanation for why the COC policy on tolerance does not include beliefs you find “radioactive”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.