List of discouraged behaviours

The “L” word and the “P” word really go over my line. This isn’t referring to having a standard Kanbe Kotori figure or watching Non Non Biyori or sharing Key Summer Sale material obviously. How gross and scary it is aside, as mentioned earlier there are probably a few users here who have had horrible pasts filled with potential abuse or damaging harassment or bullying that don’t need any more extra reminders of it. They may be very young and going through this right now for all we know. It doesn’t make any sense for a family environment to glorify some of the worst stuff out there when there are so many other important, fun, relaxing, and enlightening things to talk about instead. It also goes against what Key stands for in the first place.

I’m not against any scientific or psychological discussion as long as it doesn’t border on grossly offensive. While I greatly dislike h-scenes, some VNs are apparently worse without them and facts won’t change just because I wish they could. All this said, I would never think to bring up in-depth talks about money or sex either.

1 Like

So, what exactly do you want?

Randomly posting NSFWs in public channels is discouraged, so it’s not supposed to happen anyway.
Banning all discussions about sex is obviously going overboard, but the way it stands right now, the tendency is that we don’t want to see public talk about sex just for the sake of pleasuring yourself while the rest is fair game.
Next, do we discourage the glorification of pedophilia? I say we totally should.
Do we ban the word “loli” and all content related to it? Absolutely not. That would be tantamount to insulting hundreds of thousands of people and very much uncalled for.

Lastly, we cannot possibly account for every idea, image or word that could remind some users of a horrible personal experience and ban it. The most common and obvious ones, we can mention on the list:

but it’s not supposed to be a long list the way I see it. Therefore, if a user is uncomfortable with the usage of a certain word or topic, this part of the CoC comes in:

And if you feel hurt, excluded or made uncomfortable by the actions of another or the group, speak up! It’s everyone’s job to help each other.

Speak up, explain why it’s a problem and aim for mutual understanding. If it’s a particularly sensitive topic concerning private information you would rather not disclose, I suggest contacting a mod so that they make the request of avoiding specific words in your stead.

1 Like

At the end of the day, I guess this all boils down to empathy. We can’t outright say “don’t talk about lewds” because that’s too blurry a line that we can draw. At the end of the day, if other people start getting uncomfortable with the sort of discussion that is being had, it should be our responsibility to take not of that and work towards making it less uncomfortable for everyone.

I think we’re all in agreement about this though:

Many people are endeared to younger characters in a “must protect” sort of way which is totally acceptable. Although, personally, I’d rather they not be referred to as “loli” if they are literally children (since loli refers to older characters who have underdeveloped features)

1 Like

That is a niche definition that I’m not sure has ever been that widespread… But sure, maybe we should just avoid the term ‘loli’ altogether where possible. Same as with ‘trap’, it comes from a culture of sexualisation.

VNs also come from a culture of sexualisation. You wanna avoid those, too?

Look, the term “loli” is being used on pretty much everything that’s small and female nowadays, regardless of actual age or degree of sexualisation. It’s applicable to way too many characters in everything related to anime. It’s a multi-facetted part of the culture we’re discussing. Trying to avoid the term is like having an amputated limb. It’s doable but super awkward, and so is the atmosphere around it. Besides, treating the term itself as something bad goes against our principle of judging based on intent, not content or wording. It means many things, so why focus on the worst meaning among them?

The trap thing was an extreme case but I’d rather not use the same logic for every potentially misusable term.



You’re right though. It’s more important to judge on the basis of intent of why the words are used, hence why I kinda snapped recently when they started talking about police sirens etc.

1 Like

There is no point in making extra efforts to specifically protecting children in online communities such as this one. When young people roam the internet, the last thing they want is for strangers to show up and protect them. After all, the internet is one of the few places whey can enjoy freedom and evade the watchful eyes of the adults.

Publicly linking NSFWs is discouraged, so porn is not supposed to randomly jump into people’s faces here. And we all agree that pedophilia is not to be glorified, even as a joke. That is protection enough.

@KaiMiang , I’ll be honest here, but I mean no harm. Please consider this carefully and try not to take this personally. You are free to refrain from using certain terms but if you declare that the very word “loli” is something that children must be “protected” from, you are insulting everyone who uses this word or favors characters this term applies to. And that’s not fair. “loli” is a term for fictional characters in anime-related media. It’s not supposed to be used on real-life people, just as every such term. So why accuse them of mixing up fiction and reality in such a horrible way? It is uncalled for to insist that the term “loli” is directly connected to real-world pedophilia. It has several meanings, many of which are perfectly innocent and positive, like

The same could be said about “trap”, but in this particular case, we have been informed - by people who are knowledgeable about the problematic - that the term is already being used on real-life people to demonize them and to justify acts of violence against them (There’s been some discussion in the spring cleaning topic). So to my understanding, while no Kaza user has ever intended any harm, the word had to be discouraged because it stood at the very center of a real-world problematic and therefore made certain people very uncomfortable.

I feel like we’re getting on a very big tangent here, so if you guys wanna continue this somewhere else feel free to, but I’d like to keep the focus right now on the Code of Conduct.

I think the topic of sex and how to tackle it on Kazamatsuri is something we’ll all need to continue reviewing over time, it’s not something I can give a clear answer on just here. But we need to think about what’s most empathetic, and ensuring that many people feel comfortable at Kazamatsuri, and that requires striking a balance between being too liberal and being too strict.


Very well. But do keep in mind that a part of what I said is relevant for the entire list, as well as the CoC:

I’m sure about 99% of the things said by Kaza members have not, and will not be, said with bad intentions in mind.
However, every discouraged behavior and every word on the bad words list can be interpreted as an implied accusation.

I see where Naoki-Saten is coming from, and as long as there is no obvious negative connections then let’s just leave it at that for now since Aspi put it fantastically, I’m just not in any sort of mind to continue any discussion related to it and REALLY don’t want to.

I’m good with the CoC and mission statements as they stand. :happy: Is there a timeframe for showing the Dangos at this moment?

Should be first.

Jokes aside I like it as it is, but I have concerns with the following points:

Combined with:

I’m worried that this mortal combination will end up with someone saying they don’t want a certain word being said, even if the word’s meaning is by no means offensive at first sight, and then, if anyone says otherwise, the person can say that they are minimizing their suffering, automaticaly needing a mod to deal with the mess. A mess, I might add, that is pretty common sight around discord from time to time.

Let me show an extreme example:

  • Lol, why would you need need a special hammer to hit that nail
    +Idk, that’s what my carpentry teacher told me
    *Please, don’t talk about hammers and nails, it makes me really uncomfortable
    -What, why?
    *(Insert traumatic abuse experience involving hammers and nails)
    +Well, I’m sorry about that, but they are common objects, we can’t just stop using their names
    *Please do stop, it’s a really sensitive subject
    -Oh come on, it’s just a hammer!
    *You are “minimalising my suffering”
    -But it’s not like they are a word that we can avoid
    *Idk, just don’t use it, it’s a discouraged attitude anyway
    Etc etc etc and a mod had to be called that day.

By no means are these two discouraged behaviours wrongly stated in any way, it’s just their interaction and possible exploitation that I’m concerned about, as it might give unnecessary work to the mods.

Appart from that, I really like this list, I think it was necessary to allow better automoderation and solve problems before they escalate out of control.


A few questions and concerns:

I can kind of understand this one, but I’m a bit confused on where Kaza draws the line.
The other day someone posted Rin wearing a Trump hat, and it was taken down and it seems the Kaza staff had a go at them, though I didn’t get to read their reasoning because it seems the relevant posts have been deleted. But way back, this was posted in Little Busters Memes:

One referenced a political figure and one is referencing a political position, but they’re both “real world political topics” and they’re both jokes. Under what standard was the other one taken down while this one is allowed? The “inflammatory” clause? So… we’re allowed to joke about some political ideas and not others? That seems awfully biased. Again, I didn’t get to read the Kazamatsuri staff’s reasoning, and maybe if I did I would agree with them, but that’s why I’m asking for clarification now.

@Pepe brought up something earlier but there doesn’t seem to have been any further discussion about it:

Under this policy, are we not allowed to talk about the “Make A Change” shirt? Again, I want to ask for clarification on that. The point has since been updated to

but it doesn’t really address this question.

And this is from the new Code of Conduct draft, but I may as well ask about it here:

A free and open marketplace of ideas is my ideal, but it’s obvious Kazamatsri doesn’t share it with me. But at the very least, can we try not to scare people away from speaking their minds out of fear of offending others? Context is what matters. At a time where society gets more angry at someone saying the N word while singing along to a rap than they do at the racist motherfucker who says “I strongly dislike black people”, the language we use should not be as important as the context we use it in. Only one of these hypothetical people used language most people take issue with, yet which one is hate speech? As the god among men, George Carlin, said:

And actually, am I gonna get in trouble just for sharing something with the N word in the title?
So, fair warning, if you’re sensitive to certain words regardless of context, you probably shouldn’t watch that.


I don’t think that post would be considered “inflammatory” because libertarianism isn’t really controversial (as nobody but libertarians pays it any mind) but if this doesn’t fly under the new system I’ll absolutely be willing to take it down.


I think this has more to do with who posted it and the context surrounding the Kinniku podcast than anything. You can have a read at the whole context and part of why that post in particular was taken down here.

That’s my view as well, but even with this new code of conduct and list of discouraged behaviours, I’m pretty sure the old “don’t be a toilet seat cover” and use common sense still aplies.

Be wary of who you’re talking to and who might be reading that conversation at the moment and make sure to back off and apologise if you stepped the line and someone seems to be justifiedly offended by anything you said. Sure thing, you could say that’s censorship and you’d be right in some sense, but at the same time if everyone uses common sense in here pretty much anyone can say anything and be fine so long as they are mindful of the context surrounding the conversation.


Social sensitivity issues are tricky to say the least. We’ve got members from all over the world, coming from different cultural backgrounds and with differing mastery of the English language. From time to time, someone will say something that will offend someone else without realizing. There’s no way to prevent that and I doubt any of us could just up and become an expert in that field.

Therefore, when such an issue arises, what matters is not the evaluation of the issue, but how it’s handled. And in your example, it went down pretty peacefully.

  • someone feels uncomfortable and voices their concern - check
  • they calmly explain why it’s a problem - check
  • the other party respectfully listens to them - check
  • the other party acknowledges the concerns and presents their own position - check
  • they try to negotiate - check

Even if negotiations don’t work out and a mod gets called in to help out - I think that’s still fine for the first couple of times. Nobody’s getting punished or told off for this, since the effort on both sides to reach an understanding is clearly visible. As I said, the issues are tricky and we don’t have experts. What matters is that we can handle them calmly and with time, the community will learn how to take care of those without involving moderators every time.

EDIT: Addressing one of machel’s concerns

By all means, that is not the intention. On the contrary, we’d like everyone to feel comfortable about speaking their minds. Therefore, please do speak your mind, but also do be aware of the responsibility that comes with it. As I have explained further up in this post, there’s always the risk of someone offending someone else, and also that what matters is how it’s handled. I’m sure 99% of the cases, it has not been said with the intention to offend. Someone is offended by something you said? Talk it out. Calmly.


I’m having a similar issue. I like the rule in theory. But I feel like I saw a whole lot of political “discussion” that wasn’t much more than circle-jerking and/or piling on in the Discord. There was very much an air of “if you agree with the consensus, it’s okay, if you don’t, then it’s an issue.” Which is why I might be nit-picking a tad at the word “inflammatory” here.

This is one of my concerns as well, and ironically, I’ve already got somewhat of an example of this here:

This organically stuck out to me, as although I wouldn’t actively call myself a Libertarian (or any of the traditional American political party lines, for that matter), but I certainly think they have some good ideas. Similarly, I’m much more inclined to vote for them over the other two major options (even while some would say I’m throwing away my vote), and would like to see them actually win positions of power and see what they can do. Because of that, I could say that your passing comment, which although I realize is likely just tongue in cheek banter, is still being dismissive and discouraging to those who might hold those beliefs dear, and therefore insulting.

To be clear, I’m not actually insulted, I just don’t feel that I’m in a position to feel comfortable exactly discussing the “why” of it, because although I don’t find it inflammatory either, someone else might. Which is why I think maybe you guys could consider discouraging all political discourse in general. Because right now, I’m not exactly clear on what political topic wouldn’t be inflammatory. Therefore, it might be best just to come out and say it, as the rule as it stands already implies that private political discussion between consenting members is obviously fine, but is also vague enough that it sounds like some public form of it would be acceptable. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting/overthinking it. I expect and welcome disagreement on this point. But I can’t help but wonder whether or not it really has a place here.

I don’t have any other major concerns. To be honest, I’ve soften my stance after kiraboshi and technololigy explained their positions on why they spoke up when certain words were said. I’m very emphatic to those kinds of issues, and would never purposefully try to make someone feel foolish over a disagreement. However, for me personally, context typically trumps the word used, and I do fear for those who essentially paint a target on their backs by giving words more power over them than I believe they ought to. But I’m also self-aware enough to realize that everyone processes information and emotions differently than I do, so I will of course be respectful of that.

Glad to see this is finally being address, and I appreciate the work you guys have put in. I’d love more clarification on this points I’ve presented, or the challenging on them to see how well they hold up under pressure. Hopefully things will pan out, and I’ll feel comfortable posting on a more regular basis again.


Just wanted to clarify, I am a libertarian myself.

(This is exactly why we just shouldn’t talk about politics at all)

1 Like

Thanks for the responses everyone! These are exactly the kind of discussions thst need to be had before we make all this final, and I am glad we have the chance to talk abou it now (and that we talked to a lot of people before making it pubkic so we wouldn’t look like idiots, heh)

First off I’d like to defend my position, as I may have been slightly misrepresented here.

I have two big reasons why I spoke against the former, these reasons I’ve already discussed privately with the poster and (I hope?) we’ve come to an understanding about.

The first reason is the lack of context. In hardscope’s post, it is pretty clear that what Riki is saying can somehow be attributed to libertarianism (albeit in a tongue-in-cheek manner). As such, nobody has to wonder why he even thought of that. But for the former, I just simply could not wrap my head around the context of it all, and it irked me quite a lot that a connection was made.

The second reason (and this is more important) is the way the characters were portrayed in the situation. Seeing Rin redrawn as a political figure sent alarm bells in my head. “How would other people feel about this? Would they still want to interact with Kaza after seeing their favorite character portrayed like this?” It felt very disrespectful to Rin, as a character, to see her portrayed like this, her face warped beyond recognition. It would absolutely break my heart if I learned that someome silently left Kaza because of this picture and I felt I had to speak up against it.

Comparing it to hardscope’s post, if he redrew Riki as a libertarian figure I would feel the same way, and I would still confront him about it. But just a low effort photoshop of a political hat doesn’t convey as much impact or disrespect towards the characters, in my opinion.

While I can’t deny that the controversiality of the political figure, and the background (with the poster and supporters of the post being members of kinniku) played a part in how I reacted, they were not my major reasons for speaking up against it. If the original post was a) given context and b) showed more respect towards the character, I would have just chucked it into the Little Busters meme topic, gave a :fools: reaction, and called it a day.

These two things are very important to me because they are embodiments of both empathy and quality. Empathy because giving context means you understand other people may not be able to get it so you take the effort to offer shared understanding. Quality, not just because effort was made in making the post but because effort is being made to ensure your work remains respectful.

I am thankful that Bread remained civil and very understanding through all this and apologize if my callout was too forceful. But he’s a great guy and I am glad he was willing to work together afterwards to reach a mutual understanding.

Next I’d like to give my own spin on the topic Mogaoscar raised

This is something I brought up when we were talking about offensive words and whatnot some months ago, both privately and in the forum. I think the best conclusion I’ve seen was something along the lines off: If a word is marked by society as offensive, it is the burden of the ones saying that word to be more aware of what they say. However, if a word is offensive on a personal level to someone but also used in normal day-to-day speech, it should be the burden of the one being offended to explain their case and make their feelings clear.

In your hypothetical example about hammers, I think the way we, as mods, would approach it would be to first quiet everyone down on the chat (possibly using time-out bans) then approach the one being offended. We’d learn their story, assess if it was genuine, and ask them to understand that hammers are used in normal speech and it is sometimes unavoidable to see them being mentioned. And when that happens they have to speak up, but not be forceful about it, lest other members feel offended.

We would then approach the parties who mentioned hammers. Now that they know that somebody is offended by the word, they have to exercise caution. If using the word is unavoidable, then a word of warning to the one being offended would be appreciated, so that they can leave the conversation temporarily. But pushing their “right” to say it without any effort or apology would be disrespectful to the one being offended especially since it was made aware to them.

I think the best way to think about this is to imagine, what if you had a family member who had said trauma towards a normal every day object. Would you go around the house spinning hammers, knowing they are there? Of course not. But would you stop any sort of hammer work whatsoever? Also not. You’d let them know that you need to use a hammer, help them get into a safe space, and continue your work as needed.

The same I hope to see on Kazamatsuri. If this does happen, the best I can ask for is that, after the moderation team has dealt with it, those involved would remember to respect each other. If the offended forces their way in, and pushes all kaza members to never mention hammers ever, that would be a no-no. And if the other members would throw around mentions of hammers all willy-nilly, despite being completely aware that somebody is offended by the word and is present, that is also a no-no. With gray areas like this, it is something that everybody has to put in some effort towards, because that’s what being a family is all about.

So, in your hypothetical situation, how can we make it such that moderator intervention is unnecessary? Let’s see if we can rewrite of the life the conversation:

Well, I can’t expect everyone to be like that, but it’s how I see an ideal kazamatsuri in this sort of situation. I hope I made my thoughts on this topic clear enough.

Now for the rest of the issues brought up…

It’s a good thing you bring this up because it’s probably the first time that Key themselves have released something that goes against our discouraged behaviors, heh. This was a pretty big deal when we had to write about it and much discussion was had on the blog-writers channel on how we should deal with it. I think they way we dealt with it is also how we can expect other members to deal with it. They can mention it on the forum or on discord, but appropriate warning must be given beforehand that it contains suicide references, so that those that wish to avoid it can voluntarily avoid it. And I made that offhanded reply not to open discussion but so that we don’t forget how we dealt with it before.

While I do agree with you, I would just like to say that I personally would call out someone saying “I strongly dislike black people” just as hardly as someone who mentions racial slurs. Maybe that’s just me, I don’t know. But bringing things back to “context” and how it deals with issues, then I think the context (AKA the background and history) of the slur should not be forgotten either.

Even if racial slurs are not used in an offensive manner, the word has very negative and violent context behind it, which will make other members comfortable. At the same time, if you say you dislike people of a certain race, that, too, has context behind it, which would also make other people uncomfortable. Again, the most important thing is that respect is given, and that all parties show some effort in remaining respectful. I’d honestly say that what you said right now:

is a basic form of respect that nobody should forget, and I think we can all avoid issues in the future if we all remember to act this way when we say something we know could be offensive.

I think, moving forward, we should have a different mindset about this. Instead of thinking “I should be careful to never say anything that could offend others”, we should think “If I ever offend someone by what I say, I should be mature enough to own up and apologize for it”.

I think many of the issues brought up so far can be summed up with one word: effort. I believe everyone in Kazamatsuri has to put in some effort. Effort to make themselves understood. Effort to ensure nobody is disrespected. Effort to avoid causing problems with other members.

The problem I have with the Internet these days is that when people are so convinced they are “right”, any notion of effort is thrown out of the window. They say what they want to say because they are “right” or it is their “right”, and they reject any notion of showing respect or apology because of this conviction. Being mature is being able to humble yourself, and admit that not everything you do is justifiable 100% even if you believe yourself to be “right”.

Remember folks, just because you apologize doesn’t mean you admit you are wrong. It just means that you didn’t intend to do what one thought you intended to do, and that you are willing to talk it out and reach a mutual understanding.


Even though this appears as evident to me, I think having this officially stated somewhere in the CoC can help with avoiding many of these situations.

See, my maon concern in thay post wasn’t people getting away with doing thinga wrongly, the current CoC already regulates that very well. I was just concerned that the new code of conduct could lead to more of these situations with potentially more unreasonable people being part of them. It’s not a matter of who is right or wrong or whether it’s allowed or not. My concern is that you mods might have a bigger burden and may want to consider rewording those two discouraged behaviours, but it’s not as big of a deal as it seems.

1 Like

The current list looks pretty solid overall, but there is one point that hasn’t been brought up much that I feel needs some clarification.

Different nations have different laws so which set of laws is this referring to? In other words, what countries’ laws am I expected to follow here other than those of my own country?