tricole wrote

I mainly came here to say this: if you are around reading this and haven't shared your opinion yet, please do so! Even if you are not a constant participant, or mostly flutter around lurking. If not publicaly here, then privately to someone who have been vocal. It's important we have a guage on the whole of the community not just a few loud voices, for the sake of a decision and for the sake of knowing what it is will be respected. But then maybe many of you already have, I'm not the most sociable so I'm not the best to know, I just think it's important that any agreement is made public so we can avoid similar upheavals in the future. Thanks.

Ideally, we could get the consensus of the broader community, but I don't think that's realistic especially considering those who've chosen to be silent. I want to be clear that I don't have any personally negative feelings against any individuals however there are some perspectives that are glaringly absent. At the very least everyone involved in any way in the contest that sparked this conversation should have something to say.

Based on what's been posted there are clearly some of us who want a complete ban on AI but seem to be willing to allow it if there's some disclosure in place. I obviously can't (and don't want to) speak for everyone but I think that if we allow AI moving forward for SWC that anyone who uses it should have to include two things in addition to the disclosure notice.

1. I think that they need to clearly justify why they used AI instead of creating something on their own. I'll die on the hill that we've been doing this for years without AI and moreover that we've been doing it well, so if someone feels that it's necessary for their contest as a host or for a round entry as a participant then they need to explain why.

2. I think that they need to disclose exactly what AI is responsible for e.g. if they're hosting did AI design a map, write character descriptions, write impressions etc. and if they're a contestant what portion of their entry was generated by AI. Again (and this is a drum I will keep beating) we've been doing this all along without AI so if someone uses it they need to be transparent about how much of their work is AI.

All of this information should be included in bold at the top of any post that contains AI content.

I've said the following in private conversation but it bears presenting publicly (with clean up for language and expansion):

First, I will admit that this entire situation annoys me. There was zero need for this to be/become an issue and now that we're actually openly discussing it there's a key voice missing in all of this. I'm also peeved because no one is forcing anyone to create something so complex (or vast or whatever) that they feel like they can't keep up with it without the assistance of AI, heck no one is being forced to host anything at all. I get that we're all working with different levels of creativity and capacity but looking back the complexity of contests and participation has varied widely which in my opinion has been to the benefit for the community.

Second, I feel like disclosure has always been baked into the forum e.g. contests based on existing IP, credits to other contestants and sites for banners, looks etc. so "no" it wasn't explicit that AI attribution should have been included but there's clear precedent for it and the fact that it wasn't added leaves a bad taste in my mouth about why that was the case. I don't (and may never know) the reason why so unless it comes to light all I (or anyone else) can do is speculate.

Third, allegedly there were conversations that occurred privately about AI usage. IF these conversations occurred and IF they led to people dropping the contest prior to Round 1 or right after it started as a result then something should have been said publicly BEFORE the contest was unceremoniously closed. I don't know (and I'm not assuming) the intent of the host but the fact that it wasn't disclosed then makes it feel like a play to keep contestants than to own up to what was going on and whatever ultimately led to sharing the information and closing the contest could have been handled differently in my opinion (but it's a moot point now because what's done is done).

As a final note I understand that we're all busy with work, family and generally just surviving in an environment that for many of us seems to be a mash-up of YA dystopic tropes and the very worst of history combined but for a few weeks at a time this forum is a place away from all of that and it's a shame that this situation seems to have stolen some of that minor magic for at least some of y'all who are citing this as a reason to be pulling away (not that you need any reason at all, we all have our own stuff). I urge you to remember though that this was an isolated incident and hopefully taking that into account you'll be willing to return sooner rather than later.

Last edited by Dare (09/02/2026 at 21:44)

I wanted to try to invite more people to voice their opinions as I understand that this can be an intimidating space to do so under current circumstances. Something I still very much encourage and I will not give up on that possibility quite yet. In my opinion there is still very much a grace period to do so. If necessary in the end, and if we care about this community enough, I think it’s worth considering taking the time to reach out to those who we haven’t heard from to check in where they land in all of this.

I think your stipulations for anyone potentially choosing to use ai by disclosing so in the future, if we don’t settle on a ban, are quite fair. Especially detailing what use was made. For now I think I am willing to wait with details until it’s decided which route we are taking.

Before all this, someone reminded me quite recently that many people have not engaged critically with why AI usage is/can be problematic and can therefore perhaps not foresee the reactions usage causes. Therefore I’m glad we are many who voice what about AI makes us not wanting it anywhere near our creative spaces and I hope that if we encounter it in the future we can continue to try to meet it assuming ignorance (until/unless proven otherwise) and try to educate instead of judging off the bat.

And hey, yes let us go back to the times when dystopia was fun fiction(: after all these years I’m not all that worried about this ruining our little corner here on the internet, especially after having talks with some of you over the last few days, I believe we are made of sturdier stuff, I hope I’m not wrong(: edit: perhaps I am wrong, but I'm determined to try my very best to prove my first statement right.

I do not see the need to stress forth and agreement about AI use/ban this week, but if no one has convinced me it is a terrible idea by the start of next week, I can start inquiring about the opinions of those we haven't heard from yet and see if we can start pinpointing more of a decision. How does that sound?

EDIT: obviously I posted this before you edited yours, I will read and readjust

my edit is this: you started this discussion by reminding us that there are persons behind usernames and I'll echo that now. It sounded like you had much more compassion then, and i still think its worth to keep hold of that for a little longer. I think much of what you edited in should be resolved to the persons in questions and I understand lacking answers in the time you want can be frustrating, i just urge a bit more patience. But I understand that is not only your patience that are running out and perhaps you additions are more than fair. I apologise.

edit again: after a bit of reality check on my side, I have adjusted my original message.

Last edited by tricole (09/02/2026 at 23:43)

tricole wrote

my edit is this: you started this discussion by reminding us that there are persons behind usernames and I'll echo that now. It sounded like you had much more compassion then, and i still think its worth to keep hold of that for a little longer. I think much of what you edited in should be resolved to the persons in questions and I understand lacking answers in the time you want can be frustrating, i just urge a bit more patience. But I understand that is not only your patience that are running out and perhaps that is fair.

My decision to be more vocal isn't a lack of compassion. Absolutely nothing I said was objectively rude or in the case of noting previously disclosures stated without proof, anyone can go through the forum and see exactly what I'm talking about. Also let's be completely clear that despite the fact that everyone whose commented thus far knows where this issue stems from I haven't named names (and will not). The same way the person who effectively caused this to even become a topic of discussion is entitled to their silence I'm entitled to my annoyance at how this is playing out and the fact that it's even an issue at all.

Beyond that BEFORE I even created this thread I reached out personally to the party in question. In the interest of transparency (and still not outing anyone) this was the message I sent in full and as of today it's still unread.



I've exhausted my direct outreach capabilities, and there are obviously a myriad of reasons why they may be choosing to not communicate with me privately or with the group publicly.

For now, I've also exhausted all of the energy I'm willing to expend on this topic and this forum for the moment.

I don't want to interrupt the flow of conversation, but wanted to let you know a few things:

1.) I've asked Admin to give us a definitive ruling on the usage of AI.

2.) Discussion is always welcomed as long as it follows the rules. Thank you for remaining civil.

3.) I reached out to the host after they asked me to close the contest thread. They've not logged in since then.

As always, I appreciate your patience and I'm glad you're here.

BambiFoxx wrote

I have thoughts; however, I don't think I have the words to express and post those thoughts yet. So, I just want to acknowledge this post and gather my thoughts before I respond fully. I do think we should have a (this) conversation, I'm just not fully able to do it right now. I'd also like to add that mine (and I'm sure all) don't feel negatively toward anyone participating here. This discussion should be acknowledged that it is about a system, not any person.

So, I haven't responded to this point... not because I don't have thoughts about it, but because, for the most part, everyone who has responded has given valid, detailed thoughts about this topic that I don't think my voice would contradict or sway to the other side. But with that said I'll go ahead and add a few things...

Personally, I don't feel as passionate about this topic that other's have listed here. AI hasn't impacted my life personally in a meaningful way that I have skin in the game... HOWEVER... I can totally and 100% get behind those who have been affected by it. Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to me. I view this as any other social issue. Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it shouldn't matter, and also doesn't mean that it might not affect me in the future.

I find GenAI incredibly idiotic in general... it has no consciousness and it's creativity is abysmal at best. (at least we think it doesn't have consciousness yet...) This doesn't mean that some people might not find certain aspects of AI usage useful... and I won't judge someone harshly for making use of it... especially when there hasn't been any direct discussion about it up to this point. I have attempted usage of it in the past and changed my view about it after some discussions with others and also after doing some deeper diving into the topic myself. There are aspects of it that are incredibly harsh... (theft & climate to acknowledge the top two). I'd urge most to do some digging themselves to learn more about it if you are on the fence or unclear about why/how others feel about it. From my experience with it, there's redundancy (in the writing) & image errors that are inconsistent and, at times, incoherent (not to mention once again, a LOT of theft within the system's data collection). I could potentially see the benefit of brainstorming, grammar checks, and calculations, as long as the person making those choices is putting in the extra effort to ensure they are getting accurate information... because those systems are sooooo bad at getting things "right," from what I've seen.

I can look at this topic from different angles, at least I think I can, because it's not a high priority to me in my life. I hope that we all can get back into the flow of the forum and writing at some point, but I also understand that some time to heal/resolve feelings over this topic makes sense.

At any point... those are my thoughts. As I've indicated to those that have reached out to me about my opinion...I'm behind whatever is decided as a group.

Edit: Ah... I didn't see a few of the other messages that were added this evening (I started my post earlier in the afternoon and only just now came back to it.) Thank you EA for making the effort to see what (if any) admin feels about this and if they want to chime in on this discussion to give us any definite decisions from them.

Last edited by BambiFoxx (10/02/2026 at 01:45)

Hey,

I want to say sorry for all the mess and trouble I have caused with my latest contest. I apologise for using AI in a community defined by art and creativity.

I'm also saying goodbye to all of you. I have decided to quit writing as my heart hasn't been in for a while now.

It has been a fun times and I will miss it but I know that it is time to close that chapter in my life.

Thank you all for everything.

Hey everybodyy. Just wanted to chime in and drop my two cents.

First of all, I am not very new, but I have for sometime been part of this writing community and I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed all the various flavours of all the hosts' story worlds. It is so much fun for me to escape real life and spend hours of my time making banners, experiment in writing and bringing the characters to life. I love it! And its so much more fun for me because all of you participate with the same energy and you can feel the thought and care that touches the words written in every post.

That being said, I am a little saddened by the drama that happened with the latest story and AI. I understand the serious nature of it and the fears of how including AI can change the feel of creativity. I feel that a disclaimer for any one who uses AI is fair. In fact, I must confess that from time to time I, myself, go to chat gbt/google to expand on my vocabulary and search/ask for different words and phrases to get my idea across better and improve my story. Moving forward, I have no problems including that in a disclaimer - if that is what everyone wants. Or avoiding it completely - if it is banned.

This is a space where those who love writing come and experiment. I know some of us may be using tools that perhaps we are better of without (I am looking at myself), but a little bit of grace and kindness comes a long way.

I hope those of us who have been affected by this dont lose heart and extend it to this community or their writing. Every one of you (here comes something super cheesy) is part of what makes this writing space so special. No, seriously!  I actually get excited when I see new posts on this forum and especially by those whose style of writing and contests I am familiar with.

Schoggeten, I am so sorry that you closed your contest, and truthfully besides the AI stuff, it had all the ingredients to be something fun and exciting. I was invested! I hope you find your spark for writing again and if or when you do, I cant wait to see what magic you will write!

In summary: I love writing with all you, I agree AI sucks, I dont mind using disclaimers or whatever is fitting, and Schoggetechen will be missed.

Thank you Bambi and Kiki for posting! There's a lot of great in there your words. I perhaps had some more thought about them that I might add here when I have time.

I apologise to Dare for my poor choice of expression.

Thanks EmmyAna, if we as a writing community decide on a ban/disclosure I hope that is something the admin finds allowable.

And I am deeply sad that Schoggettchen is saying goodbye.

tricole wrote

...Thanks EmmyAna, if we as a writing community decide on a ban/disclosure I hope that is something the admin finds allowable....

If Admin makes its decision first:
- I will notify the community.
- I will edit the SWC rules.
- The site's rules may be amended.

If the community makes its decision first:
- I will edit the SWC rules.
- I will notify Admin.
- The site's rules may be amended.

Okay, I think at this point the best course of action is to take a vote on what we want to do going forward. I, for one, really want this space to continue. It is important to me, and I really enjoy having a creative space to write and share our stories. I hope that we all feel that way, even if we don't want to participate in everything that happens here. I hope that there are ways/things we still want to be involved in here.

That being said, I think the vote should be  about two options:

1. A full AI ban
2. Full disclosure if any aspect of AI is used, but with limited usage - brainstorming or grammar/wording correction (hope that makes sense)... no generating ideas, no generating impressions, no entering other people's writing into AI systems...

If anyone thinks we should have another voting option or feels that the limits should be narrowed/expanded, please speak up sooner rather than later.

I feel that 48 hours is an adequate turnaround for a vote... if you have direct access to someone you feel wants to chime in on this vote, please pass the message. I feel that whatever decision we make should be final until/unless we return for a different decision based on new information or regulations regarding AI usage comes to pass.

I think we can all do this together.

(edit... oh, sorry, i forgot to add my vote. Based on the feedback that's been received here in the forum to this point, I'd say a full ban. I'm open to hearing other people's views/ideas on the 2nd option, but feel that more ppl have strong opinions against it than for it at this time)

Last edited by BambiFoxx (15/02/2026 at 17:08)

I vote full AI ban.

I feel people might leave due to this, but in reality, I really do not want to be feeding anything of mine to AI.

Given how I'm late to post my rant (rightfully called out as such), I'll do a spoiler - read at your own discretion.

Spoiler Click to display

This might prove to be a huge lapse in judgment, but I am going to be rather honest, so buckle up cuz this will be long (maybe, this might be a mild take compared to unwritten ones, I guess).

Firstly, the topic of the use of AI-generated content on this site, I feel, should be rather simple. IMO, AI has nothing to do within these creative spaces, especially writing. Why would we plan a writing contest if everyone just ends up using their preferred version of AI to generate stories? Story-writing is not homework, an obligatory essay, nor a job we are bound to do. Imagine if we all just went to generative AI models, prompted them to write a contest outline or an entry, and nothing else. Despite knowing better now, I will avoid going into a conversation about other implications of AI usage, but will focus on a rather simple one: after a while, every entry will look the same, the hosts won't read but rather just feed stories into AI for impressions, and this whole place is going to be redundant.

Secondly, I would like to touch on the topic of The Arcane Guild, which I feel is turning into our version of Voldemort (the thing which will not be mentioned), but before I go there... TL;DR: my work is related to detecting AI-generated content, and I have amazing tools to do it. One of which is natural human pattern recognition, and I hate to say it, but once you figure out what AI patterns look like, it's really hard to unsee them and ignore them. And then, crying wolf eventually gets old, and I admit I did not speak up the moment I realised Arcane Guild was AI because I was worried it would come off as petty and/or jealous of the biggest turnout in the last year or so.

Now, in this case, it also did help that Schogo was a part of this community for a long time, and she has a distinguishable style, absolutely not shown in the contest setup. I bet that if I sent you a bit of text written by anyone here, you could be able to figure out the author very quickly (again, see the point of not using AI for creative writing?). So, it was clear that the contest was AI-generated, which some figured out soon, some figured out later, and reactions varied.

I won't go into your personal reasons for why any of the participants chose to drop out or continue, but I guess people really started to mind AI use when the impressions were posted, and they did not match the stories posted in Casting. Then, it felt as if Schogo was judged too harshly, or the topic was approached too harshly; some wanted to wait with the discussion, and again, to each their own. IMO, no one involved was judged, especially Schogo.

Part of what is so fun in this community is that we do not judge. Our taste in plotlines and tropes is questionable on most days, not to mention our choice in romantic interests, the morality of people and universes we create, and judgment is not something we are doing here.

While I am sad to see anyone go, one of the things I found very hard to swallow is the apology/quitting combination, which, in reality, sounds like a dramatic way out. Apologising for disappointing us sounds like the conversation we opened did not reach the person who was, albeit unintentionally, the catalyst. It feels like it shifts the blame onto contestants (or some of them) for being disappointed. Schogo also mentioned her heart was not in it for a long time, yet part of us who have been talking about this contest have heard about it for weeks prior, without any sign that it would be exhausting for her to do, and she was trying to back out. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Again, I am back to one of the points I made earlier: no one is under a contract to host or join, so I do not understand the pressure that would cause generating a contest and placing all the workload onto AI. All of us hosts have backed out of ideas at least one time. Sometimes, because of a lack of time, energy or imagination to carry something through. I can speak for myself, but no one has pressured me to go ahead with it solely based on the initial plan.

I'll repeat, as a conclusion: I dislike seeing anyone go, especially Schogo after all this time, as it's not the point to drive people out, and at the same time, we are all grownups here, and with a civil approach, there should be some accountability regarding decisions we individually make that can influence the community as a whole.

And in the spirit of accountability, I will now happily repeat my apology for generating and using AI images for banners in Stormhaven House (main banner), Moonlit Revelry (main banner), and OWWG (contestant banners). Creating it had a bad impact on various things (environment, creative rights, credibility). I acknowledge my responsibility for creating these images, and regardless of the lack of bad intentions behind the decision, I was a part of the problem, for which I'm sorry.

Now, this is the part where I will sound like a total ass and/or hypocrite, but I am debating if I should stick around. At the same time, part of me refuses to let this type of BS be the reason why things die down (most likely for good). I feel that how we act on this will be the final deciding factor on all of it.

Also, if you reached this point, congratulations, and thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Hey Bambi, thank you for bringing it up now when there has been some quiet time and I agree with a lot of what you say.

I vote for a full ai ban. After reading what every one wrote again and having time to take it all in I am switching my opinion from disclosure to a ban. I get a feeling none of us really want it in our space and with a ban a host wouldn't need to bring it up and address it with every contest, every instant (unless they want to for the sake of reminder). EmmyAna had kindly offered to add it to the SWC rules if we decide upon it, and if there are new writers joining we can easily direct them there to make sure they know.

I do however think 48h is on the shorter side of this, as presently I don't think I have been online in the last 48 hours and had thought to give myself a break until tomorrow if I wasn't nudged that this was happening. But it might be a good start and then we can see where we stand.

I also will try to continue with my own want to reach out to some people that haven't spoken up on here to check in and see if they want to have a say, or at least see if some of you who know them better than I have gotten to know where they stand.

xx

Hello everyone !

I stayed away from the topic since I was pretty afk'd by real life events (I'm so bummed out I missed your Queen's Chosen casting, Bambi), and also because my contributions are quite rare.

That is to say, I've read everything that happened and everything that followed, and despite my own flakyness, since you asked... I'm very, very, very in favour of a total AI ban.

If you want my feelings about it

It can be a powerful tool (one that I'm reluctant to use even in my workplace), but to me it has nothing to do in creative spaces and I'd rather exchange with humans, otherwise I'll simply write on my own. The way LLM write, as of now, irks me to no end. Feels like licking plastic. A very sycophantic plastic. It's just... I don't know, I'm polite to chatbot because it's just what I do, but when it gives me back smiles and praises, it's like something that doesn't even think is "trying" to manipulate me, and it's just wrong, you know ?

Keep AI in repetitive boring tasks like bringing this Excel formula in those Excel sheets, comparing 20k images of a lung to 20k images of diseased lungs and such, I'll handle everything that needs brain and feels, thank you. I don't have anything against people that use it, I just don't want it to approach me. I don't want to feed that thing. Ever.

Hoping to write again with y'all !
Take care ♥

I’ve said everything I needed to say on this topic, and anything more will veer into a side of me I don’t really like showing unless it’s absolutely deserved.

My stance hasn’t changed: I’d ask for a full AI ban, unless there are compelling reasons as to why. Even grammar checking/spell checking predate AI, so I’m happy to keep it AI free.

Hi hi, sorry been so busy. I've already shared my thoughts regarding AI, and yeah, I vote for the full AI Ban.

Other than that, I'm sorry to see Schog go. I don't feel any sort negative feelings towards her, but I do think the whole situation could have been handled a little gracefully if we had a little more time to stew in it. Anyway, that's all. I hope the SWC can remain an AI-free zone for a nice long time.

I vote for a full ban AI ban

I've glanced at the conversation but haven't had a chance to weigh in due to a busy schedule. I'll be in a better headspace once exams are over and I've had time to think, reflect. And not in thesis or exam mode.

Thanks to everyone that's already weighed in, I've been asked to give a little extra time for the vote just in case a few others might want to weigh in... so, with that in mind I'll wait an additional 48 hours if anyone wants a dissenting vote, but so far it does seem like a full AI ban is the choice of the mass.

A bit more time will be great, and I'd like to invite everyone who's participated in the contests before, to come and write their opinion - you're part of this community and should be included in decisions made within it.

Hey, I have reached out to people who have been active participants in the last year but not atm spoken up here about their view on AI. I hope I got around to everyone but if I missed someone, I apologise and that was not my intent.

Two people have gotten back to me with that they support a ban on AI within this writing community. Two have not gotten back yet/have said they will let us know. If they do it to me, I'll edit this message and if they do it publicly you'll see that.

That's it from me

Hello, everyone!

I am very sorry to see Schogg go, for one. As someone who's taken a years-long break from writing, I understand feeling like your heart's not in it anymore, and I hope it's just a temporary break.

As I've mentioned to some of you, I wasn't exactly planning on joining the conversation. I haven't been active here at all, and I thought it best to let those of you who've curated this space discuss its boundaries. That said, I've been quietly following the discussion, and I agree with the general feeling: there's absolutely no place for AI in a space like this. So much so, that I actually do not think a rule about it should be implemented. It's a given, I think, that GenAI should not be used here. Aside from the very real ethical and ecological concerns, it simply defies the purpose of having writing as a hobby. And it seems to me that we all agree.

So, I am in favor of a ban, as a concept, but I'm hesitant to support a rule that can't be meaningfully nor fairly enforced. With the exception of all the cases where the use of AI is obvious, and all the cases where people simply copy-paste the text provided, I think it becomes harder and harder to distinguish AI assisted writing, whether someone uses it to hybridize or simply as a sounding board. And from there on, any accusation would be speculative at best. Maybe it's enough to agree it's ridiculous, unethical and unnecessary (and that even a tired human brain, or an overwhelemed human brain, can write more interestingly than AI does). And if what happened with the last contest ever happens again, maybe we can reach out to the person, instead, and invite them to only write/host when they genuinely feel like it. (I've been feeling like this is what we should have done right away, to be fair. And I apologize to both Schogg and the other participants for not doing it or saying it: I was actually just excited to get back to writing, and I somewhat ignored the issues.)

I apologize for the lengthy reply!

Last edited by siddh (20/02/2026 at 10:06)

I debated whether or not to chime in again as it was pointed out to me that if I don't plan on participating further there's no point in me having a vote. While I initially conceded I ultimately realized that my silence didn't serve anyone and that what I had to say may actually hold some value so here goes...

First, I vote for a full AI ban. As others have pointed out beyond the moral, ecological and legal reasons, this is first and foremost a creative space that we've all chosen to occupy and participation is 100% voluntary.

Second, for those of you who don't know (which is most of you) I ghostwrite for a living. Despite this (or maybe because of it on some level) I don't always rush to share my own words/voice and have a hard time with it even with those closest to me. The exception to this struggle has been my participation in this forum. The mere idea that someone may have taken something (no matter how small or trivial or silly) that I wrote and fed it into ChatGPT or something similar so that they could summarize it or generate impressions or whatever (because let's be real only Schog knows exactly how she utilized the AI for her contest and anyone who read the first set of impressions posted could tell that they didn't take the characters created by the contestants into consideration) feels like a violation of sorts because since it was all so clandestine there was no consent asked for or received. Hopefully, this position is considered if anyone is tempted to use AI in the future for any reason because as it's been pointed out regardless of the outcome of the vote everyone is essentially on the honor system.

Finally, I hope that this situation ultimately makes the community stronger.

Last edited by Dare (20/02/2026 at 04:42)

Hi all, I am unsure if there are more people out there who have additional feelings or opposing views to what has been said, but it's been about 5 days to have this vote, and from what has been expressed, it does seem like all of the voices vote for the ban. I do understand and see how some may still be wary because, overall, this will have to be based on an honor system. I have full hope that the decision will be respected and that we will eventually return to writing here, with the clear understanding that many of us have very strong feelings about the use of GenAI in this creative space.

With the ban, I think we expect that no aspect of contests should be assisted by AI by hosts and writers alike... I don't know if any other "rules" need to be established since the decision is for a full ban, but if I am incorrect or anyone feels further details need to be stated, please chime in. If not, I feel as if EA should be able to incorporate this decions into our SWC rules that already exist.

I'll give it another couple of days to allow anyone who feels anything else needs to be added before reaching out to EA about our final decision.

Last edited by BambiFoxx (20/02/2026 at 17:54)

BambiFoxx wrote

With the ban, I think we expect that no aspect of contests should be assisted by AI by hosts and writers alike... I don't know if any other "rules" need to be established since the decision is for a full ban, but if I am incorrect or anyone feels further details need to be stated, please chime in. If not, I feel as if EA should be able to incorporate this decions into our SWC rules that already exist.

While it may seem like a silly stipulation I think that if the rule is to completely ban AI that we need to make it clear that it's (still) okay to do things like use search engines to get information we may need. This may seem like a ridiculous caveat but consider the following:

MissKiki wrote

That being said, I am a little saddened by the drama that happened with the latest story and AI. I understand the serious nature of it and the fears of how including AI can change the feel of creativity. I feel that a disclaimer for any one who uses AI is fair. In fact, I must confess that from time to time I, myself, go to chat gbt/google to expand on my vocabulary and search/ask for different words and phrases to get my idea across better and improve my story. Moving forward, I have no problems including that in a disclaimer - if that is what everyone wants. Or avoiding it completely - if it is banned.

Reading this made me realize that even for those of us who don't directly seek to utilize it that AI has been baked into everything because whenever I Google something an AI summary comes up first so people shouldn't have to disclose that they used AI to find a synonym for a word or to fact check something if what they actually did was perform a google search for it (versus using ChatGPT or another specific AI assistant). Again, I get this may seem silly or nitpicky but I think it's an important distinction since I know that before AI became a thing I used Google e.g. as a contestant in the Triwizard tournament contest I definitely searched for spells appropriate for "Harry Potter" and as a host for The Orion Mission I looked up facts about Egyptian mythology. Based on this I think that it's important to clarify that banning AI isn't a ban on digital research.

Dare wrote

BambiFoxx wrote

Reading this made me realize that even for those of us who don't directly seek to utilize it that AI has been baked into everything because whenever I Google something an AI summary comes up first so people shouldn't have to disclose that they used AI to find a synonym for a word or to fact check something if what they actually did was perform a google search for it (versus using ChatGPT or another specific AI assistant). Again, I get this may seem silly or nitpicky but I think it's an important distinction since I know that before AI became a thing I used Google e.g. as a contestant in the Triwizard tournament contest I definitely searched for spells appropriate for "Harry Potter" and as a host for The Orion Mission I looked up facts about Egyptian mythology. Based on this I think that it's important to clarify that banning AI isn't a ban on digital research.

Okay, this seems valid, I did think I wrote GenAI which I thought was distinctive... no inserting or utilizing a creation program for writing here. I didn't think about how almost every single online system seems to be baking AI into its software somehow. I thought that research and online usage was a given & accessible for use since at this point in time and reflection on Dare's comments, I feel like there is hardly any space online where you can totally avoid some sort of AI in any place you use a computer or phone. That being said, do we need to have a futher discussion about this point? Because if there are those involved that consider this type of usage as part of the "full ban" then we might have to list every known item of AI software? Also, if we use a resource online how can we be 100% sure it was not created with AI? This poses another concern, overall, I guess... and suggests we might need further clarifications.

BambiFoxx wrote

Okay, this seems valid, I did think I wrote GenAI which I thought was distinctive... no inserting or utilizing a creation program for writing here. I didn't think about how almost every single online system seems to be baking AI into its software somehow. I thought that research and online usage was a given & accessible for use since at this point in time and reflection on Dare's comments, I feel like there is hardly any space online where you can totally avoid some sort of AI in any place you use a computer or phone. That being said, do we need to have a futher discussion about this point? Because if there are those involved that consider this type of usage as part of the "full ban" then we might have to list every known item of AI software? Also, if we use a resource online how can we be 100% sure it was not created with AI? This poses another concern, overall, I guess... and suggests we might need further clarifications.

My suggestion is that the full ban on AI clarifies that it's a full ban on inputting any information into a direct AI agent/program (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude etc.) in order to assist in any aspect of contest creation including but not limited to fleshing out ideas (even if these ideas are not directly used in the contest), writing content (as either a host or contestant) or generating images (Maps, locations, banners, etc.) and that the work of other players cannot be put into these programs either for any reason including but not limited to summarizing, translating or generating impressions. This way it's NOT a violation of the ban if there's a contest set in a historical time period and someone does something like search for common names and uses one suggested by the AI summary because in that case the person isn't explicitly using the technology. Similarly, considering that AI has infiltrated academic journals I don't think anyone can/should be faulted if they use a source and it turns out it's AI (also I doubt this is going to be an issue since even contests set in the past often take a flexible view of history).

I think the above still allows for us to do the kind of research/searching/editing that we did before the rollout of AI became commonplace e.g. looking up the meaning of words, familiarizing ourselves with time periods or unfamiliar IP etc.

Can we all agree to this?

Last edited by Dare (21/02/2026 at 22:39)