Talk:Flutter

Proposing a Flutter policy

It’s no secret that Christorians have bad actors amongst their ranks. It’s only a matter of time someone figures out her identity. Given that Chris met her in Lynchburg it’s highly likely she’s mentally handicapped in some capacity due to Chris living in a group home during the time he was located there. So since she’s likely to be an innocent bystander I think we should adopt a wallflower style policy for if/when her identity is revealed by either a ween or Chris himself.

Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. Homsar (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (EDT)

Chris mentions in his latest video that Flutter reached out to him while he was in jail. That doesn't make it sound like he just happened upon her in Lynchburg, hardly making her an "innocent bystander" to me. In addition, there is currently zero indication that Flutter is mentally disabled in any way besides conjecture. Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded. I don't think these reasons are a good enough argument for yet another censorship policy. Panasonichu (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (EDT)

Putting my hat in the ring here: I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to censoring any more parties that don't ask for it personally, especially on a basis of supposed morality for them being mentally disabled. Not because I want to be cruel, but because we just went through this exact thing with Fiona, which led to a thrall of misinformation and false views that she was entirely a victim of circumstance, rather than someone who actively walked into Chris's orbit despite the warnings she received. I'm all for referring to Flutter primarily by her pseudonym if that makes people more comfortable, but actively censoring other information is something I don't think we should be engaging in unless there is a very, very good reason for it. And personal moralizing about whether or not she should be "protected" isn't one, in my opinion.

I also agree with Panasonichu that claims about Flutter having met Chris in a group home or being mentally disabled are entirely conjecture, meaning it should have no ground in any sort of pro-censorship argument for her. Anaxis (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (EDT)

I agree with the two people above me. She took the time out to contact Chris, presumably knowing about his online infamy. If you do that, you are putting yourself at risk of being doxxed, and that fact is made abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to do so. Cereally (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (EDT)