Talk:Pillowfort

TOS' unfolding discussion

I made a link to a unfolding discussion this afternoon to a discussion on Pillowfort started by a fan named Drift. The fan was angry about the changes in the Terms of Service and stated that they were "disturbed" by it. At least seven (at last count) fans responded saying they didn't understand Drift's point of view. One fan said they were very happy about the TOS as they were thirty years old and someone their age enjoying it was creepy. Other fans chimed in with messages of support for the TOS, and didn't understand why Drift was "disturbed." I was going to archive the conversation, but wanted it to become larger. Sometime, between 2 and 6 pm, the post disappeared, and was replaced in the same link with a message that had the same introduction: ("I’m very disappointed and frankly disturbed by the updated community guidelines regarding explicit content and I am sincerely considering asking for my money back...") but veered off into a different avenue, one that was more supportive of the TOS. I don't know if the original fan deleted their their post (and all the replies), or if staff did, but in any case, it's odd. I wish I'd archived it sooner. post overlay; archive link --MPH (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some info? Drift (not original post), ^{original post, now gone Archived version} --MPH (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

More info is Hi if y'all don't tag your BetaUsers posts about the TOS change I'm about to spam y'all with requests to tag your posts about the TOS change; archive link -- it appears to be a situation of etiquette, face-saving, discourse, and control. --MPH (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

large scale deletion?

The last edit comment says only added more examples to section on user control and privacy, but the net result was a loss of -11,673 characters. I am not familiar with Pillowfort, but the edit comment doesn't seem to reflect all of the changes. It looks like the section "Fan's Ability to Curate and Erase" was deleted--was that moved to another page?--aethel (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I added "Fan's Ability to Curate and Erase" back to the page. Removing it was unexplained and unacceptable. --MPH (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand wanting the page to reflect the site as it is currently, but rather than delete all of this historical stuff, perhaps condense it and moving it to some sort of "As of 2018" or "History" section would be better? https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Pillowfort&type=revision&diff=1520816&oldid=1520780. --MPH (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

page is outdated, maybe too outsider-focused and probably needs more fandom-related content

For one thing, some of the links are to the io url. For now they redirect fine but they may not in the future. For another thing, there's nothing about the site as it currently exists in late 2019.

Another thing I noticed is most of the quotes on this page are from tumblr users talking about pillowfort. I think it makes more sense to quote pillowfort users/posts.

Lastly, the 9th largest pillowfort community now is dedicated to femslash. That seems significant but it isn't mentioned here. Some of the other most popular communities there are for kingdom hearts, "fandom olds", yuri on ice, star trek, overwatch, etc. Seems like this page is currently more about pillowforts features than fandoms.

I can fix/add some of this myself, but what do others think? What should be added? Should anything be removed? TimeFan (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should go for it, TimeFan. I was working on this page exactly a year ago, but got distracted. I'm also an "outsider" to this platform, so I'd be very happy to see this page improved by someone who isn't. :) --MPH (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think that the info is out of date and mostly from an outside perspective because the page was made because of the Tumblr exodus last year, and iirc we could barely ever even get pillowfort to load and none of us were members? So the page is basically just a reflection of the information we could find on it.

I think that the outsider info should stay on the page (or, somewhere on fanlore) rather than be removed, though. Per PPOV, I think it'd be wrong to remove the opinions provided just because the opinions were stated on tumblr/by people who are not pillowfort users, because I definitely think that those opinions still have value! But they should definitely be contextualized and balanced by the opinions of pillowfort users and more current information. - Hoopla (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

While I know I'm jumping in on this nearly 5 years after the fact - I'm working to add more up-to-date information to the page that reflects Pillowfort in 2024, but it strikes me that the page goes into too much detail about features - e.g. the whole reblogging debate. I would argue that it's not that relevant to fandom specifically, which is why we're here after all. A lot of this is about Tumblr and Pillowfort posting culture, but not necessarily specific to fandom. So I may go through and prune some of it or look for quotes that talk about this where the context is specific to fandom. enchantedsleeper (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

enchantedsleeper, I believe it is an excellent choice of path to edit the page more correctly. But looking a little at the issue of reblogs, I just think that the topic is pertinent but it was mainly focused on user issues rather than the fannish community. I'm archiving the reference content and I believe I found some posts that focus on what's needed. For example, a user talking about their fears about content being censored by the reblog policy and the loss of prompts and evolution of their fannish works due to this policy, even some alternatives were explored, such as those presented on AO3 (orphan/divorce) -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the context, Ellakbhesse! I need to look at those quotes more closely. It might be a case then of setting the scene more around the quotes, but I won't take out anything that is fannish. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have found some other comments focused on fannish themes due to one of pillowfort's Tumblr posts having more than a thousand notes with people talking about the reblog policy. Many on the topic I covered in the previous talk to which I will add more references soon (PS.: a post about the questions of whether to reblog or not to provide context) -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)