CWCki talk:The Suitress

Suitress Rule

PROTIP: It has been agreed upon that the "Suitress Policy" will be kept up indefinitely.

I feel that we should stop using the Evertree Suitress alias and use her first name. Other Chris-Chan communities already know her first name and the Kiwi Farms are using that to accuse this site and our Discord for working with Bella and friends. We can always add a protip to warn readers not to contact her as with Megan. -Larry the Larryhog (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I first heard about her knowing her by her actual first name, as I assume most people were. Given that all other websites - including the very sources this article links to - use her real name, it's a little bit pointless at this point. --4CentUser (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I talked to Larry about this. We agreed that we're keeping the rule, so long as she doesn't return and start shit again. On her side, she's been lumberjacked by her parents, has lost relevance in all of this, even if her first name appears on other websites, and I feel it'd be for the better she not be dragged back into this. PsychoNerd (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this policy also apply to her fake persona name to Chris? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware she had such a name. It's probably advisable not to use that one either, as it would technically qualify as a screen name.PsychoNerd (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

References

How should the policy apply to references? For instance, a Kiwi Farms post in which her name and image is mentioned. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Try to use as little of those as possible, is what I'd suggest, because in some scenarios we have no choice. If you can, make a screenshot of the evidence needed, censor the personal information, and then post it on imgur to reference. PsychoNerd (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Like first, remove all of the references that use her name that aren't needed.PsychoNerd (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ban

As her name is used elsewhere, it can be an easy mistake to accidentally include it while editing, especially in other articles where the policy isn't displayed. A permanent ban would be excessive in that case. It might be enough to have the policy say her name will be edited out if mentioned. Mods can use discretion to warn or ban a user for breaking the policy. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose we can put a grace period on that, the idea is more to reduce attempts to contact her, after all. Everyone is more used to using her first name, so we should probably do warnings first before we do anything more serious, especially since Jerkops can now easily hide edits. I'd say any information that requires any deeper digging to find (Things like her full name, her birthday, her age, where she lives etc.) should result in a permaban, though. My verdict is basically be more forgiving if people accidentally use her first name or her photo, and let them off with a warning. PsychoNerd (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to put the "permanent ban" back. Pretty much everyone who knows of this event is on board with calling her "Suitress", and many other sites are trying to censor her identity too. PsychoNerd (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It'd still be possible to accidentally put in her name since it's still used in places like Kiwi Farms. I think the way the protip is worded currently is fine, if the goal is to discourage usage of her name. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Videos

There are a few videos between Chris and Suitress. A cursory search on YouTube turns up three... Chris pretending to eat an apple, she and Chris blowing kisses, and Chris recording audio for her saying he won't throw a tantrum at Everfree over the new MLP. Those videos should be covered somewhere on the CWCki. Her face is visible in the top corner of two of those videos and Chris mentions her by name in the third. How should the policy work with such videos? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would go with the way the Wallflower policy is. If Chris name-drops her in the videos, nothing we can really do unless someone wants to re-edit the videos to censor her name. I think we should just censor her name in the transcripts, maybe crop the videos, but ultimately I think documenting the facts has to come first. With time, we can replace the videos with censored ones if need be. --4CentUser (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, at some point those videos need to be up on here regardless, just don't transcript them entirely faithfully, facts come first. Idealy, the videos would need to be cropped or censored too. PsychoNerd (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've created a template for this, so we can mark any pages that should be censored in the future. Should we mention this on the policy page? eg. 'If you notice anything that needs censoring, mark it with Template:Censor.' --4CentUser (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that'd work. I say we treat it the same way as we treat references, it's not expressively forbidden to use videos that use her identity, but it's encouraged to use censored versions. PsychoNerd (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Reevaluating the policy

I think we ought to reevaluate the Suitress policy.

There is alternative censorship which can address the concern originally behind the policy. There are also issues with the current strictness of the policy.

While the Wallflower policy permits limited usage of her screen name and leaves uncensored the videos in which Chris mentions her name, the Suitress policy goes further with forbidding usage of her screen names - even throwaway ones which she has since abandoned. And encourages to censor the videos she appears in to cover her face. The policy in its current form leaves out context (why is Chris continuing to blow kisses in Suitress videos#Simulated kisses? Is the Suitress showing a neutral look, an approving look, a disapproving look?).

The concern that led to the policy was Bella’s attempt to frame the Suitress for being the voice in the incest call. But her attempt has since been thoroughly debunked. Further, Suitress’s involvement with Chris extends beyond drama surrounding the call. To address the issue, the CWCki could continue to censor quotes, transcripts, and screenshots where Bella is quoted verbatim in attempting to frame the Suitress. Similar to what is already done regarding two others Bella attempted to frame. The censorship could be lifted in other contexts such as the Everfree Northwest convention, Sweethearts, etc.

Her last name could also continue to be censored as it isn’t relevant to the scope of the CWCki. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial policy was definitely a lot stricter than the one for the Wallflower, especially considering what situation the Suitress was in, though I do feel some parts of it can probably be toned down a bit seeing how everything has passed. I say we still keep it seeing how big an event she was involved in, the fact she was involved with Bella, a very polarizing figure, and the part she played in it, which would certainly attract uneeded attention from weens. Of course, as stated earlier, the newer policy would address the concerns of the inital policy, while being toned down. I'd say we should keep it on the same level as the original Wallflower Policy, though like you suggested, we censor the parts where Bella frames her. Like with the Wallflower Policy, exact transcripts can be left in-tact with videos. I feel her first name could be something we just throw on the side for the CWCki, having it appear whenever it comes up in such videos, like what we do with the Wallflower. I also feel that we can start using some of her screen names, as a lot her accounts were throwaways. Psycho (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How about info such as photos and age?

I'm thinking her age at the time of CWC interactions should be uncensored (Chris mentions it in a text or two). Because it's a key part of the story, that he could have pursued someone her age but kept choosing his mother instead.

Her state of residence I'm not sure about. It does give some context as to why Chris concluded things wouldn't work out - it would've been a long-distance thing. If we keep that censored we could just refer to it as "other side of the country" or something vague like that.

Photos, also unsure. Since Chris had her photo and shared it I feel it should be included on the DMs page at least. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the age, the age she gave in the text wasn't genuine. She was actually younger than the age she gave Chris, so I suppose we can uncensor that, but we should also put in a note that it's not her real age. For her image, I'd say again we do the same thing as the Wallflower, where her face can show up here and there, especially when it's unavoidable. We probably should keep the bride as the infobox image, though. As for the state thing, I say don't give her exact state of residence. Probably just say she lived in Western America, as that would provide just enough context. Psycho (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable on all points. So to sum up agreed changes so far - fully lift censorship of videos, screen names, fake age she gave to Chris; partially lift censorship of photos (allowing usage in Chris DMs); continue censorship of last name, state, and instances of Bella's frame attempts. Is that right? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically lift the censorship where it would affect the context of what's happening, as you're suggesting. Yes, we can definitely put the screen names back, and probably remove the censorship of her videos, since the censorship affects the context of them. And like with the Wallflower, her first name can be used in transcripts of videos. Psycho (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

State

In some DMs Chris directly named the state she lived in. Thinking her state could be removed from the censor list. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

The Case Against the Suitress Policy

I've written a small essay in which I argue against upholding the Suitress policy. Since it's a bit on the longer side for a talk page, I've posted it here. Please take a few minutes to read it, and write your thoughts about the proposal below. Thank you. Anaxis (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2023 (EDT)

Honestly? I agree with you. But the fact is that the policy has existed for 2 years, and it will never be changed. Cereally (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2023 (EDT)

I don't agree with that outlook. We're editors on the website, if something that's been in place has proven itself to be a detriment and can be changed, it's within our ability to change it, no matter how long the status quo has previously been active. Anaxis (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2023 (EDT)

Agree with the points in the essay. There have been issues with accuracy writing about her because of limitations set out by the policy. The policy has been adjusted over time, so we could just drop it at this point. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2023 (EDT)

I think that we're past the point of needing to "protect" "The Suitress" at this point, although that alias should still be mentioned in the article itself due to its use as a discussion point. Part of me thinks that this should apply to "The Wallflower" as well. KingClark (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2023 (EDT)

No. Wallflower specifically asked to be removed from the wiki, and didn't know what she was getting into with Chris. Plus, it's not like it's too hard to tell the story of her saga without personal info, unlike The Suitress. Cereally (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2023 (EDT)

I'll start renaming "Suitress"-related pages to use Fiona instead, Fiona, Fiona Facetime Videos, etc. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

Oh shit, this is actually happening. I really didn't expect this. Well, I'm not complaining, but it's strange how quick it went from 'The Suitress Policy will be kept up forever' to changing it. Cereally (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

Shows the power of using your voice to enact change. Glad that we're moving forward with this. Anaxis (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

So wait, does this only apply to her name, or are we also going to change the dress image with an actual image of her? Cereally (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

I think the dress image can be changed too. Probably to this since Chris had that picture. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

I'm wondering, what if we get rid of the Suitress Policy, and add the name Fiona to her article, stop censoring her face etc, but still use The Suitress as a pseudonym? Like how Chris Ducksworth is referred to by 'Liquid Chris' or Sean Walker is referred to by 'The WCT'. It's something to consider, since it'd reduce the amount of pages that'd need to be overhauled. Cereally (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2023 (EDT)

I am in favor of this. "The Suitress" was frequently used as an alias, and even though she's not anonymous, I think that she would want to distance herself from Chris. KingClark (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

There's about 4 pages of search results for "Suitress" (a bunch of results are for redirects). I guess we could go on a case-by-case basis for now, on which articles to overhaul. I think the main thing now should be on clarity, like to avoid an impression that "The Suitress" and "Fiona" are separate people. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

I think that if we're going to primarily refer to Fiona by a username/nickname (a position I'm fairly neutral on), it should be one of the ones that she herself chose (Snoo, ScootalooSister) or was referred to by Chris (Fifi Vixenhart), not the one that the CWCki picked out for her (the Suitress). This would be consistent with other Christorical figures that are referenced via alias. Anaxis (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2023 (EDT)