A discussion on CHYOA Rules

[SeriousBrainDamage]

Fictional races fall perfectly under the sci-fi or fantasy respectively, so they already have that category. If you write a story about fucking elves, you are creating a world where elves exist, therefore you are writing fantasy. I see no need to complicate things with that mentioned non-human category. Furries, on the other hand are a much more specific trend and subculture and they could refer simply to real people dressing as furries and stories about that subculture. So, that could be a category.

I was more reacting to other's posts rather than proposing something.
I understand it is pretty difficult to streamline a neat and omnicomprensive category list, I won't even try to complie one.

As in other cases, things like elves and zombies can fall into different categories, depending the angle you come from.
Furries like fur, period.
In real life they get off by wearing costumes, but if you search that kind of porn tag on the internet you will hardly find stories about people wearing costumes, rather stories about fictional furry creatures.
Under this light, a werewolf story might be considered furry as well.

But again, this is the obvious conflict between a kink categorization and a narrative categorization.
We keep on trying to straddle both worlds..

So we have to divide fictional beings into animal-like and human-like.
If they pass the Harkness test, they are in that sense human-like.

The Non-Human category was rather for pairings of one "non-human human-like being" and one "human-like being" (human or not).

I'm not following you, sorry.

 

[SeriousBrainDamage]

Furries, on the other hand are a much more specific trend and subculture and they could refer simply to real people dressing as furries and stories about that subculture. So, that could be a category.

To further expand, this is exactly, in my opinon, a good example of a bad way to make categories.

If by furries you intend the real life pratice of consenting adults to wear fur costumes to have sex it's one thing.
Despite the overrapresentation in mainstrem media, it's a super-niche fetish, that owes much of it's current popularity to it's naive and nerdy allure.
As a fetish, is very manistream friendly.

It's completely different from stories about fictional characters which happens to have fur.

What compares this two entirely different subjects is just the fact they appeal to the same audience, that of proper furries, but the second type has a much more vast audience backing it up.
It is that of people interested in hentai and erotic comics, fanfictions too.

From a generic reader's standpoint, the two kind of stories are nothing alike.
It would be just confusing for her/him to place them together.
I for one, would read gladly about non human characters, while I would have no interest at all in a story about everyday people wearing fur costumes to have sex.

So whereas the real-life-furry-kink is just that, a niche kink, that should fall into the much broader category of fetishes/kinks to no overcrowd the category list, furry as a category label is just a poor and inaccurate (yet popular I concede) substitute for more inclusive terms such as non-human/fictional creatures just like monsters would be.

Too broad of a category?
I may as well be, I don't know, it just feels more right to me.

 

[gene.sis]

I'm not following you, sorry.

Passing the Harkness test:
human-like being: any human or fictional being that behaves like a human (including humans)
non-human human-like being: same as above but excluding humans

Not passing the Harkness test:
animal-like being: any fictional being that behaves like an animal (or rather not like a human)
animal: an animal

2 beings have sex.

A:
being 1: a human
being 2: a human-like being

B:
being 1: a human-like being
being 2: a human-like being

C:
being 1: a human-like being
being 2: an animal-like being

D:
being 1: a human
being 2: an animal-like being

E:
being 1: a human-like being
being 2: an animal

F:
being 1: a human
being 2: an animal


A and B = fine
C, D, E, F = bestiality

 

[SeriousBrainDamage]

Passing the Harkness test:
...

By all means.
I said take into account to mean pass the harkness test.

 

[gene.sis]

By all means.
I said take into account to mean pass the harkness test.

^^
I referred to the definition of bestiality and that it is also bestiality if there is no human involved. (Or if the animal part is "animal-like")

 

[blank97]

it is also bestiality if there is no human involved.

So animals having sex is bestiality. I did not know that.

 

[gene.sis]

So animals having sex is bestiality. I did not know that.

With "no human involved" I meant "it could also be a human-like being"

So it isn't bestiality when animals mate.

If there is a pairing of an animal and an animal-like being, it could be considered against the rule anyway. Or if it is forced. Hm...

 

[blank97]

If there is a pairing of an animal and an animal-like being, it could be considered against the rule anyway.

What if the animal can talk by some magic or some other reason. As I understand it Harness test requires being able to talk, intelligence level of humans and adult for that species.
What if an animal is all those things? Is it still against the rules of chyoa as I could not find any such story that had animal talking and fucking.

 

[gene.sis]

Harness test requires being able to talk communicate with lanugage, intelligence level of humans and adult for that species.

What if an animal is all those things?

That's not possible as an animal doesn't have these traits.

 

[Gatsha]

Maybe I am missing something, but the simple question seems to be, if something which is clearly physically an animal talks and thinks like a human and then fucks a human, is that beastiality?

I edited my post because if the specific example I'm asking about IS beastiality I'm probably not supposed to write it by the rules, even though it was definitely not intended to arouse lol. Sorry about that!

The crux of it was to point out that "human-like behavior" doesn't necessarily seem to be a good enough definition of what will disqualify a "human / human-like" relationship as beastiality in all cases. There are some cases where the human-acting being looking too exactly like an animal will flag something as beastiality in the minds of many (or at least me!), I feel.

 

[blank97]

What if the animal can talk by some magic

That's not possible as an animal doesn't have these traits

There are many stories here that use magic or some other explanation to do impossible stuff. What if the story gives the 3 required traits to animals? Is it still not allowed? In my opinion if animals start having dialogue, it stops mattering that they are animals, its not like author has to use images and by not using images I think you are not breaking any rules.

But I couldn't find any such story that is why I am asking is talking animal considered bestality?

What is the difference between a centaur and a horse who can talk and went to college? If in a fictional world animals are smart enough why can't they fuck humans?

 

[Conan The Librarian]

So animals having sex is bestiality. I did not know that.

So it isn't bestiality when animals mate.

I don't think that two animals mating is bestiality by itself, as it's just a thing that animals do. However, I would consider bestiality to describe such act in an erotic fashion, since that would imply that the author expect the reader to be aroused by the acts and descriptions of animals.

Even if there is no sexual act, the way something is framed drastically changes it's implications. To put it bluntly: It's not the same thing to say that a cat or a child are cute than to say that they are hot.

 

[blank97]

However, I would consider bestiality to describe such act in an erotic fashion, since that would imply that the author expect the reader to be aroused by the acts and descriptions of animals.

What if those animals also have dialogues and are described in a way that proves they are mature and of human level intelligence? Is it still not allowed?

Only problem I see with this is if authors start using images of animal sex. If there are no images and animals are described to have all the traits needed in harkness test what is the problem? Why are there no stories with this idea?

 

[insertnamehere]

If there are no images and animals are described to have all the traits needed in harkness test what is the problem? Why are there no stories with this idea?

Because if the creature passes the Harkness test, then it is by definition not an animal, at least by CHYOA's rules.

 

[blank97]

Do you hate me for some reason? I feel like on all the post I have made on forum, you have opposed me on every thing. I am seriously starting to thing, you hate me but I don't understand why? Please tell me why and I will try to rectify whatever mistake I've made.

Because if the creature passes the Harkness test, then it is by definition not an animal, at least by CHYOA's rules.

Ok, I will be clear with you now, in my story I am writing a sub plot(not the main one) that have talking animals that went to school to get education and become pet and I want them to fuck a character as a humiliation but I don't know if it is allowed. At first I thought since I am writing these animals in a way that passes harkness test this should be fine but I got worried after seeing this thread where @gene.sis said this:

Passing the Harkness test:
human-like being: any human or fictional being that behaves like a human (including humans)
non-human human-like being: same as above but excluding humans

Not passing the Harkness test:
animal-like being: any fictional being that behaves like an animal (or rather not like a human)
animal: an animal

I tried finding stories with talking animals but couldn't find any so I started asking questions about Bestiality in this thread.

If you do not understand what I am trying to say just see any animated film with talking animals e.g. "bee movie"
I chose that as an example as there is even a hint of romance between a human and a bee, although a bee is technically an insect not animal but if you think bee and human are fine, I doubt human and dog(educated and able to talk) will be a problem.

Please tell me this is fine as I am almost done with that chapter (As it is unpublished right now,you can read it only if you are a moderator(I am talking about you @gene.sis )) and I have hinted about it in a couple of chapters before.

 

[insertnamehere]

Do you hate me for some reason? I feel like on all the post I have made on forum, you have opposed me on every thing. I am seriously starting to thing, you hate me but I don't understand why? Please tell me why and I will try to rectify whatever mistake I've made.

First off, this is my thread. The initial suggestion presented here is mine. Obviously, I'm going to respond to comments on it.

I did not contradict or oppose you just now in any manner. You asked a question and I answered it.

The same can be said for many of your posts on this forum. You seem to assume that every response to your messages is somehow attempting to contradict you, even in cases where the responder is agreeing with you or trying to help you. For example, in this thread, a user offers a solution to your problem, and for some reason you attempt to argue with him. In this thread, I mention that your suggestion would be great for the small, often ignored number of CHYOA users that like to get knee-deep in Game Mode... and you try to argue with me. In this thread, a moderator states the difficulties with introducing a naming convention, and you assert that he, the moderator, is wrong. And that's all just in the span of a single day.

The only times I have memorably disagreed with you is when you have made sweeping declarations about the CHYOA community without having been a part of them for very long. For example, at one point you asserted that only established programmers use Game Mode. I've also found it distasteful when you base your assumptions upon some sort of perceived superiority. For instance, you've said something to me to the effect of, "You would understand this even if only you did a little programming in high school," blissfully unaware that I have tutored high school kids in programming. Again, I'm getting this all from about a week's worth of discussion.

I do not find you to be particularly unreasonable. However, the intention and emotional content of your responses to other users on here suggests that you interpret the words of others in an overly defensive light. Do not assume that others are trying to pick a fight with you, and you will feel much better about discussions here. I can assure you, the words:

Because if the creature passes the Harkness test, then it is by definition not an animal, at least by CHYOA's rules.

carry absolutely no hatred.

 

[blank97]

First off, this is my thread.

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I just searched harkness test and got here.

I did not contradict or oppose you just now in any manner. You asked a question and I answered it.

Well I asked "Is it not allowed on CHYOA to write stories about talking educated animal if it is , why is nobody writing these types of stories?" You said they are not animal. It looks to me like you are opposing me.

You seem to assume that every response to your messages is somehow attempting to contradict you, even in cases where the responder is agreeing with you or trying to help you

I only try to have a discussion not argument. You somehow turn everything into an argument.

For example, in this thread, a user offers a solution to your problem, and for some reason you attempt to argue with him.

If you are talking about @Almax . As I said in that thread, I was not able to explain the problem clearly. I wanted to just display the addition. And even you said the current way of adding is a nightmare.

In this thread, I mention that your suggestion would be great for the small, often ignored number of CHYOA users that like to get knee-deep in Game Mode... and you try to argue with me.

Again I was not arguing I was stating my opinion that if game mode is made easy to use more people will use it.

In this thread, a moderator states the difficulties with introducing a naming convention, and you assert that he, the moderator, is wrong. And that's all just in the span of a single day.

Well the moderator said

It would indeed be useful to have 2 or 3 characters that can't be used by authors.

I don't know what you are referring to when you said that I said that the moderator is wrong. I remember having a good discussion with gene.sis about naming convention, the above quoted text is an example of that.

For example, at one point you asserted that only established programmers use Game Mode.

I never said "established programmers". I said since only few people are using game mode, most likely those people have some coding experience(even if it is just school level) as the CHYOA guide's explanation of game mode looks like a rudimentary programming language especially the if statements. At least when I read it, I was thinking it works like coding even if just a little bit.

some sort of perceived superiority

Are you sure you are not reflecting? I always try to be humble, you are the one who seems to have a problem with me.

For instance, you've said something to me to the effect of, "You would understand this even if only you did a little programming in high school,"

I was talking about myself not you. I have read only a little programming in high school and even that forces me not to use + or = in a variable's name. And if I used the pronoun 'you' it was in a general sense not targeting you(@insertnamehere ) individually (if english language does not have the use of 'you' as a general sense, I apologize I just used it as I would in my native language.)

blissfully unaware that I have tutored high school kids in programming

Sounds like sense of superiority to me.

Do not assume that others are trying to pick a fight with you, and you will feel much better about discussions here

I do not want to fight with you but maybe because I am not a master of english language, when I read your replies I can't help but feel like you are trying to fight me.
Look @Almax was mediating because he thought the two of us were fighting. I know I wasn't so it must be you.

I think you two are sort of agreeing then, aren't you?

If you find anything that I say offending just chalk it up to my stupidity and ignorance towards English language. I have no intention of fighting or arguing with anybody.

And I appreciate that You liked this post of mine. Have a good day.

 

[insertnamehere]

Well I asked "Is it not allowed on CHYOA to write stories about talking educated animal if it is , why is nobody writing these types of stories?" You said they are not animal. It looks to me like you are opposing me.

See, this is exactly where your lack of reading comprehension is obvious. No reasonable person would take the above exchange, which I will not reproduce because it's right there, to be at all a conflict until you decided to respond with the words, "Do you hate me for some reason?" You asked a question. I answered it. I honestly don't know how to defend myself further than that. You're conjuring some sort of grand rivalry out of absolutely nothing.

I'm not going to respond to you any further. You've made a series of (somewhat insulting) assertions that can only vaguely be chalked up to a language barrier - some of them are blatant lies - but I really don't care. Unless you can back your words up with some sort of evidence or explanation, I will treat them as random musings with no bearing on reality.

 

[blank97]

, Do you hate me for some reason?

Just chill dude. After the previous encounters (the ones you mentioned), for some reason I was enjoying this maybe it is my inner child (if English doesn't have this word, let me tell you it does not mean i am pragnent just that i was acting childishly to remember my childhood) I was just messing with you. No hard feelings.

somewhat insulting

Please believe me, I was not serious I didn't mean to insult you. If you felt that way I apologize.

 

[gene.sis]

Maybe I am missing something

Well, have you, in your real life, ever seen an animal that can communicate with language and has at least human intelligence?

So a creature who passes the Harkness test can be used, even if they look like an animal. (But that's not an animal.)

What if the story gives the 3 required traits to animals? Is it still not allowed? In my opinion if animals start having dialogue, it stops mattering that they are animals,

If an animal gets transformed into a creature who passes the Harkness test, they can be used, even if they still look like an animal.

But I couldn't find any such story

There are definitely some published stories around.

I am asking is talking animal considered bestality?

If you call it animal, I'd lock it.

I am almost done with that chapter

So if you remove " of the animal", you could go on. (I haven't looked at the earlier chapter.)
(There are no sexual situations yet, so the chapter would be fine anyway. Though follow-up chapter might violate the rules.)