should face claims be allowed - Monster Woo, Woojin

595 views

Created Oct 19, 2020 16:07:52

Tags helpme

PLEASE READ BEFORE REPLYING SIMPLY YES OR NO. I'D LIKE TO SEE REASONS AND A NUANCED DISCUSSION. LIFE IS NOT SIMPLE AND BLACK AND WHITE. THANK YOU.

So, I admin a place and need some input whether I should allow certain face claims.

Monster Woo - my coadmin has heard from other friends that he wishes to not be roleplayed, is that true? I could not find evidence, can someone give me a definitive answer? I'd like to be respectful of him and his wish if he really said so, but if he didn't, I don't want to ban a face claim for no reason and drive away roleplayers.

In case he did not speak up against being roleplayed. Another concern is that he used to be in jail, but he seems to have learnt his lesson from it. Would people be okay with seeing him in a nonau?

Woojin - considering his controversy and how it kinda sizzled out without definitive answers yet, although most things point towards his innocence. Would you allow him in a nonau? With the condition that his controversy should not be talked about ic-ly as if we knew definitive answers.

Generally, do we assume someone under accusations as innocent or guilty?? As much as I don't want to side with potential perpetrators, bc victims should not be silenced or shamed, I also don't want to fall into cancel culture and write someone down without any evidence. Where is the line?

Comments

You must be logged in to comment.

sparklygayassglitter 3 years ago

Really depends on the admin/creator of the rp at the end of the day. As an admin myself, I make sure to ban anyone with criminal accusations in my roleplays. I also know admins who have banned faceclaims like the entire AOA group because of the bullying scandal and even though Jimin was officially the main one involved, the admin didn’t want to support possible bystanders of a decade long bullying case since the other members were mentioned to be partially involved in Mina’s self harm and constant bullying over the years.

diphylleiagay 3 years ago

It'd probably be better to ban Woojin until we know 100% for sure. Like many said below, better safe than sorry. It'd also save you the trouble of having to ask whoever applied to be them to change if he's found guilty.

As for Monsterwoo I think I'd say it depends on WHY he was in jail. From an interview I see, it looks more like he was in trouble for doing bad things when he was younger due to financial troubles because he didn't work/needed money namely because he lost his front teeth from boxing and his family couldn't afford to fix it (obviously still not good what he did, but I don't think it's something too worrisome). It may be more of a personal opinion thing with him.
https://thesunnytown.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/january-2013-cuvism-monster-woo-interview/
You can check under 'Is this when you started boxing?' for more info.

1eeea95869c0e70f8f41 3 years ago

I have no comment on monster woo as i dont know the idol.

As for Woojin, regardless if it was learned from or not, it is strongly suggested you do not allow fcs to be in an rp if they had a controversy, because theres always going to be someone whose extremely uncomfortable with their presence. It is my belief youd drive away more rpers by allowing controversial fcs verses not allowing them. Much like BIGBANG'S Seungri, he isnt allowed anywhere and shouldnt be. i can also vouch that if i saw controversial/deceased idols being played in a rp, i would not join there, AU or NON.

bcf9628f3d55c10d23de 3 years ago

As someone who has been following monster woo for a long time I haven’t seen him mention it at all but like everyone else says if you think that is the case its okay to not rp him

Woojin is actually automatically banned in most rps because of the controversy, and knowing how a lot of the stuff was not even adding up during the controversy I’d say DEFINITELY DONT

b01c2c525dc935984cb3 3 years ago

i would say no to both.

if he doesn't want to be rped, then monster woo shouldn't be rped. even if it's just a rumour and there's no evidence, then like the others said, it's better to be safe than sorry in case it /is/ true.

as for woojin, it's not as though he's been confirmed, but the fact that his name is tied with these accusations is already a little uncomfortable. if he was proven innocent for sure, then it wouldn't matter, but we don't know for certain and it's not fair to allow somebody to rp as woojin and then the news breaks that he's guilty so they'll have to cc.

-fairybread 3 years ago

3racha 25 minutes ago Reply
dubulge 10 minutes ago Reply
cocksloth 7 minutes ago Reply
i personally think it's better to be safe than sorry

MiFidoDiTe 3 years ago

I believe people are innocent until proved guilty at court, not guilty until proved innocent
That's just my philosophical thought

levanter 3 years ago

dubulge 10 minutes ago Reply
cocksloth 7 minutes ago Reply
i personally think it's better to be safe than sorry

dubulge 3 years ago

cocksloth 7 minutes ago Reply
i personally think it's better to be safe than sorry

035f188d1da6d2996fd8 3 years ago

I think Woojin should be put on hold until he’s proven innocent. I think it’s better to wait for a final statement than having a possible perpetrator face claim in a rp.

As a personal experience, I’ve felt uncomfortable having to be around with people playing idols who are involved in controversy.

Plus is we speak of Woojin being in a Non Au rp; a big part of the fandom has decided to ignore his existence. So even if he was allowed and if we tried to put the controversy out of it, it could still cause conflict with the people playing SKZ.

dickie 3 years ago

i personally think it's better to be safe than sorry. seeing face claims who are having controversies that have not been "put to rest" or that have a definite answer like in woojin's case i would feel weird seeing them in an ic setting when nobody knows whether the claims are true or not. as for monster woo's case i haven't heard of him saying that he wishes not to be roleplayed and a quick google search didn't say anything BUT again i would be careful with that.