Remove kink requirements for underlevel characters to match each other

[foss-chan]

Issue: Two underage characters of equal age will always match "No".

Expanded: There is currently a requirement for underage characters to have Ageplay or Underage Characters kink to match positively against other underage characters (depending on their specific ages). To be blunt, this doesn't reflect how people actually use the Ageplay kink. Underage characters only use Ageplay when looking for Literal Hellspawn-- I mean, adults interested in ganking noobs. Because of this, two underage characters of identical or similar age will match a Hard No with each other, even if they're otherwise a perfect match. A player of an underage character searching for another will have to sift through every No in search just to see if the only No reason is age. This scenario makes the Yes/No badging in search completely pointless. Additionally, when quickly glancing at the summary of a character when you mouse over them, the age comparison provides nothing of value.

Aside: Rising users are a minority of F-chat users, so it isn't possible to demand everyone change their kinks just to provide matches for Rising users. It's always going to have to be at the mercy of common understanding and usage.

Here is the site definition of Ageplay:
Refers to scenes that involve one or more significantly underage characters, and putting a significant focus on that age aspect and it's involvement in the roleplay (such as highlighting youthfulness, immaturity, or the taboo nature of one's age). May include sexual interactions, but not necessarily.

The kink is specifically described as a focus of rp - a scenario, not strictly an identity kink. Even if a player is willing to RP an underage character, they won't necessarily have Ageplay in their favorites or yeses, as even the underage character may be played in a normal role with no "significant focus on that age aspect" or "it's involvement in the roleplay". In fact, an underage character may put Ageplay in their no's specifically to avoid That Kind of Person - although I haven't seen it yet.

Aside: In previous issue #70, a discussion was had on matters of age, but the inability to determine a fully-encompassing fix suggests the only fool-proof age matching is to provide an input box to every user for their desired character age range, similar to smart filters. I agree: that solves everything - but I can imagine it's bulky to implement and is therefore outside the scope of this request.

Aside: There is another discussion to be had about how the Ageplay kink on f-list is just Young Person Predation and in the real world is a completely different kink. But that's outside the scope of this request, as well.

Simple solution:

For an adult matching against an underage character:
	Do not change how matching works - continue defaulting to No.

For any two underage characters:
	Ignore age as a factor for matching if that's a thing, or return a perfect age match if its not.

Aside: Is there a problem of 16/17 year olds not matching against adults in similar social situations (IE 18/19yo classmates with Underage Characters in yes/fave)? I'm not sure, but it's probably outside the scope of this request.

A more complicated solution could be considered, like...

For two underage characters matching each other:
Match Fave +/- 2- years age difference,
Match Yes +/- 3-4 years age difference,
Match Maybe +/- 5+ years age difference.

However this shares problems with other complicated kink-matching for age discussed back in #70. For example, someone wanting to play the older sibling to a much younger sibling would need some way to not match Maybe against them.

Aside: "Age Differences" kink specifically says it's for adult characters:
Adult characters with significant gaps in the ages between them (does not imply underage).
...which puts it in the same weird area as Ageplay where there's a lot of misuse and it cannot be relied on for age matching underage characters.

I feel the Simple Solution from above to be the most ideal for the following reasons:

• Easiest to implement
• Provides an immediate improvement in scenarios described, with little downside
• Easy for users to understand
• Many fewer false negatives; returns actual meaning to Rising's "No" age-match suggestion
• Focused change unlikely to conflict on other age-match changes in the future

Please consider implementing this at the next update, or tell me to make a PR and I will (though it might look like spaghetti). If there's additional considerations that need to be made, please mention them.