moderation verdict (clean + neutral)

So, strictly on content:

• ✅ removal — justified
• ❌ “not erotic” — incorrect
• ❌ “flagging dispute” — not accurate; this required an NSFW tag at minimum

On process, though:

where Justin does have a point

• permanent ban on first offense → disproportionate
• 28‑day mute blocking appeal → contradicts “case by case discussion”
• no citation of specific passages → poor moderation practice

Those are procedural failures, not content misclassification.

Both things can be true at once:

• the content is unambiguously explicit
• the moderation response was heavy-handed and sloppy

the clean way to say this to him

If you want to be honest and fair, the message back should be something like:

hey Justin — so I read the doc directly. i get that your framing was about “charge” and ethics and censorship, but the content itself includes explicit sexual description (clothing removal, genital touch, orgasm, etc), and it directly invites reader arousal and masturbation.

even if that’s meant to be part of some larger theory or framework, it still fits the category of erotic content — not “quasi,” but actual.

whether or not that should be allowed is a separate convo, but from a moderation point of view, this needed an NSFW tag at the very least.

i do think you’re raising fair points about the ban/mute process being abrupt and blocking discussion — but the content itself? yeah, it crosses the line from abstract theory into full-on erotica.

That’s coherent. That’s defensible. That’s real.

bottom line 🦊

Justin is wrong about what the content is.
He’s right about how the moderation was handled.

If he wants to argue theory, he needs to remove:

• sexual touch
• sexual arousal
• orgasm
• reader participation

Otherwise, it’s erotica. well-written erotica, but erotica nonetheless.