I want to share my thoughts again. This is very frustrating, so I will do my best to keep this short and please forgive me if my tone is (for lack of better words) snappy. And I don't want to come of as attacking anyone. I am merely sharing my thoughts.

Let me say first, I apricate that we have the place to talk about this. And that we are trying to compromise here on both sides, even if it doesn't look like or feel like progress is being made. The conversation is getting a little tense, and I am aware. I am deeply sorry for any tension this is causing anyone.

This whole thread feels less of an open conversation at this point, and more so feels like a 'We want AI here, and we likely will use AI.' So the 'compromise' on the anti-AI side is feeling like were being told to just find a way to deal with AI being used in a creative space. I feel as if it shouldn't have *any* place near creative fields. As the art steals from artist, and goes against everything art as a whole stands for.
With how against HiO is from AI used in writing ( rightfully so ). How do you know that the images generated by AI wont make people feel more comfortable using it for posts? "The background is AI so why cant I use it to write if your ok with this you should be ok with that"

I understand the frustration with how against AI we are, as we are firm on this. But it's frustrating on our half as well when it feels like this conversation is just not really going anywhere. And any solution we are offering is being shut down. They're have been things offered to any trouble that may be caused, and that just, it's not being given a second glance.

I fully believe that the plain colored backgrounds with overlay is a good compromise. And that it's more or less being ignored.
So please, what is the argument against it? Is there *anything* other then 'it's boring and we want more illustrations'

I really would be turned away from hio if I signed up back in 2021 and it didn't have a background. If it was like this, I'd lose interest so bad. I also don't like textures. The leather texture on the posts isn't my favorite when it is against something like this black void. Further, textures just hurt my eyes. It feels like looking at an illusion for hours and I hate them.

As lear said, if you wish to contribute art, you could. However, historically speaking on this site and on other sites that I have been on, I have witnessed so many volunteer attempts crash and burn. They start off great! Then the drive dies off.

This would suck tremendously for the artists who initially visualized having art for the site's background. It would suck if you had to lose a background if a player gets banned. It would suck if you had to lose a background because a player chose to leave the site or chose to remove their art all together even if they don't leave the site. It would suck if you don't finish the art.

Aesthetic wise, I hate photographs as the background. It does not fit at all with the posts and all that Zach stylized. It just doesn't look great. On top of just saying 'oh but ai doesn't look great' or whatever you wanna say about it, you're going to have to dump hours into editing a photograph just to use it as a background, making it no different than asking for art from the community.

I personally think the toggle option is fine. If you want the texture/plain background. Have it. I want an actual background, as that is exactly what would've brought me into hio if I signed up today. The way it is right now, it looks bad. Call me selfish, fine. But I'm not the only person that shares this sentiment. I have read a few others say the same. I have seen several people say that if we increased greater regulations onto AI, in my dms, they would leave. I have to admit, with all the fighting we have done on topics like these since we can't seem to be less clashy about it, I can recognize hio takes a toll on me mentally.

I'm sticking with reality based on repeated patterns I've witnessed before, and that is why I'm not in support of volunteer groups. If they had a higher pattern of not stopping their work in the middle of something and abandoning it, then I would agree. But I do not. I have watched them make promises and fail to meet the promises.

Also I'm tired of being the voice against a competition. It would really hurt a lot of feelings if their art wasn't chosen. I was personally hurt when we did forum descriptions, not that I ever said anything to anyone about it, but I was hurt when they chose other people several times for a forum description over someone else's, namely mine. I don't want this to be a thing for art.

Expanding on Emma's point,
People who are vegans would try their best to not go to a restaurant that serves non-vegetarians. I have seen vegans going as far as to support only a certain number of brands that have vowed to be 100% vegan. I am not even a vegan, but I have seen so many delicious recipes on the internet that are an amazing alternative to meat.
Vegans can, of course, not dictate other people's choices, but they can advocate for the betterment of the industry.
The use of AI images, even if we toggle it off, would just be disheartening; like Emma said, it's asking us to turn a blind eye to whatever is happening on site.
As I have stated in my previous message, AI does not need to and should not enter art spaces.
I know as site moderators you cannot ensure every single one of us does not use gen AI, but as site moderators, you can at least ensure the site does not use AI.
We have already had rules about writing using AI. Martch did not allow the use of AI either.
As Emma has said, please at least try to make the site AI-free.
Also replying to what Ruckus has said, AI as a tool is not what steals other artists' creativity. It is the AI that is used to generate images that steals.
Also, one way to ensure that people did not create the art with AI is to have them send a few snippets of them doing the art.

I fully respect your aesthetic opinions, but they are also opinions, as we all have, and not everyone is going to agree on what ends up happening. Hypothetically, if real photos were used, you may not be happy about it, but some people would be. It’s all a matter of personal opinion, but we should all know that not everyone is going to be completely catered to what they want.
But I would just like to put it out there, at least on what our side seems to collectively be agreeing on, is that we know that the art making process would not be instantananeous. That would be impossible. But the use of placeholder backgrounds that aren’t black would be there for the time being, so hopefully that wouldn’t hurt your eyes.
Secondly, I think talk of a competition died out a long time ago, and people have already said that there wouldn’t be a big emotional ruckus around the art making. It’s like people who do commissions, or people who work on graphic design in real life. Unless the person who bought it from them tells them their art is trash, which would understandably upset them, they’d be happy to make slight adjustments to fit the vision.
Also, about the people leaving if there was no ai used. There is a big difference between this and banning ai altogether on this site, which is not what we are discussing. It has been mentioned, but it is not the topic that we are clashing against.

--
Look, all I'm asking is that people be aware that what you've been describing as alternatives may not work at all because they have huge flaws that I cannot ignore. It is better to call out the flaws now than it is to go halfway through something and abandon the project completely. Lear mentioned the Beastiary. This was a big project behind staff doors, started a long time ago, but it was never finished. It isn't even close to finish.

So please, do understand the reasons why I'm against the options that have been suggested, instead of repeatedly suggesting the same thing on a loop.

I'm sorry, but haven't the flaws been addressed for the most part? We are not blind to the fact that no solution is perfect. But solutions have been offered, and it feels as if they're shot down because it's not perfect right of the bat rather then trying them to see if they're really 'that bad' (in my opinion, they really aren't that bad. But they're not given any chance because of the speculated flaws.)

I so agree with Oliver here.
Ideas discussed by the anti-AI segment, be it staff or community members are not being given the space.
So many people here are talking about AI blatantly copying art and not giving credits. But there is always "this may not work" in a reply, without testing it. If people choose to steal from other people, we can hold them accountable. What about AI? The only person we can hold accountable for that is the person who knowingly generates those images.
Furthermore, I would like to say that we should have the previously agreed upon poll whether or not AI images should be used as background in place now.

Help me out here, because I'm a little confused: What about the responses we've been getting are making you feel unheard?

Because theres two ways to make someone feel heard: Respond or Act.

Zach posted this forum to hear everyone's opinions, upon hearing some, he layed out his plan to go a few days with no background to see if people liked that and then demonstrate what it would look like with the images and new navigation. He also agreed to do an anonymous poll afterwards, just like many people asked. That is him acting in response to what was asked, showing that he hears you.

Now that a plan is layed out, they need to stick to the plan because if they change it, they could be accused of going back on their word. Which is not an accusation you want at your feet when you are running such a large community.

Meaning their only option to make you feel heard right now, is to respond, and as somebody whose read every post, I think that Zach & Lear were doing a good job responding before they had to step away from mental health reasons [which is completely reasonable, this is a very controversial topic and its important to take a step back as needed].

Their responses aren't 'just shooting ideas down' they're elaborating on why they believe the cons of the presented ideas are too great in comparison to the cons of AI backgrounds. Which Zach admitted to himself in not only the forum's opening post, but in another post about the environmental concerns later in the thread.

Maybe they try out other ideas after the current plan is executed, maybe they don't, but for now the best tool they have for making you feel heard is responding to your opinions with their own. And to me personally, it seems like they've been doing exactly that.

Marietta Griffis wrote: Today, 15:47 Help me out here, because I'm a little confused: What about the responses we've been getting are making you feel unheard?

Because theres two ways to make someone feel heard: Respond or Act.

Zach posted this forum to hear everyone's opinions, upon hearing some, he layed out his plan to go a few days with no background to see if people liked that and then demonstrate what it would look like with the images and new navigation. He also agreed to do an anonymous poll afterwards, just like many people asked. That is him acting in response to what was asked, showing that he hears you.

Now that a plan is layed out, they need to stick to the plan because if they change it, they could be accused of going back on their word. Which is not an accusation you want at your feet when you are running such a large community.

Meaning their only option to make you feel heard right now, is to respond, and as somebody whose read every post, I think that Zach & Lear were doing a good job responding before they had to step away from mental health reasons [which is completely reasonable, this is a very controversial topic and its important to take a step back as needed].

Their responses aren't 'just shooting ideas down' they're elaborating on why they believe the cons of the presented ideas are too great in comparison to the cons of AI backgrounds. Which Zach admitted to himself in not only the forum's opening post, but in another post about the environmental concerns later in the thread.

Maybe they try out other ideas after the current plan is executed, maybe they don't, but for now the best tool they have for making you feel heard is responding to your opinions with their own. And to me personally, it seems like they've been doing exactly that.

What is making everyone so upset, Marietta, is that if the plan is to just go through with the ai, even if its just for one forum, and then polling after, it is not a fair compromise to what we're asking. We also belive it would be fairer to take a short break on the new forum code and poll before the fact, which I thought was what was agreed on, but apparently not. And then their other 'compromise' is to just use the ai then have a toggle to turn it off, which just completely negates everything we've been trying to debate on our side. The part that we find unfair is that it feels like they're not even trying to see through with our ideas with the same excuse, that it MIGHT not work. All we're asking is that our idea would be tried first in the compromise, because if one ai background is created already, who's to say that after its up, then they'll just keep going, and this debate will get dismissed. I think it's fair to ask that our compromise should be played out first, since it is a bigger ask. And then, if Solomon is right, and it is too big of a task for us a community to band together and do? Then we resort to the ai. It should not be the first choice, however.

Emma van Elst wrote: Today, 15:54 What is making everyone so upset, Marietta, is that if the plan is to just go through with the ai, even if its just for one forum, and then polling after, it is not a fair compromise to what we're asking. We also belive it would be fairer to take a short break on the new forum code and poll before the fact, which I thought was what was agreed on, but apparently not. And then their other 'compromise' is to just use the ai then have a toggle to turn it off, which just completely negates everything we've been trying to debate on our side. The part that we find unfair is that it feels like they're not even trying to see through with our ideas with the same excuse, that it MIGHT not work. All we're asking is that our idea would be tried first in the compromise, because if one ai background is created already, who's to say that after its up, then they'll just keep going, and this debate will get dismissed. I think it's fair to ask that our compromise should be played out first, since it is a bigger ask. And then, if Solomon is right, and it is too big of a task for us a community to band together and do? Then we resort to the ai. It should not be the first choice, however.

I am willing to let every point of view be heard, but I categorically refuse to have my words distorted or false intentions attributed to me.

I have already explained several times what I intend to do. You are currently seeing one of the two alternatives in practice: no background. I will then show you the other alternative: the features I am preparing, what they look like, and what they add, with the possibility to disable it. I also proposed a survey so that players could express their opinions.

If I did not care about your opinion, the update would already have been released and I would not have asked anyone for feedback. I initiated this discussion myself, and I believe I have tried to express my concerns thoughtfully, to understand yours, and to continue reading what you have to say.

I believe that few websites or administrators would have gone to such lengths, and, to be honest, I’m beginning to understand why.