Big and little do not imply power relationships. There are submissive bigs, dominant littles, and ageplayers who prefer not to play with power at all.
In what way does "switch" imply a neutral status? This page enforces a false binary.
All statuses are neutral statuses.
Different person than the above. Could we possibly narrow the scope of this website to only statuses that people should take seriously? Like "nazi officer" could be a status but that doesn't belong on a website that purports to show truth. Let's get rid of the immature clutter. 184.108.40.206
Categorizaton of "status roles"
First off, "status role" doesn't make any sense. These are roles. And use a category for that. Create Category:Roles.
Second off, as the above poster wrote, an arbitrary categorization is being imposed by structuring the roles as they are. In fact, "D-type" and "s-type" are fairly meaningless descriptions; but if they are real at all, then a given role can fall into several of these buckets. So a list like this makes no sensem organizationally speaking. -- Wulfrath
"every one of these terms being defined indicates role essentialism"
Currently the page says "every one of these terms being defined indicates role essentialism". So, you do realize that role essentialism is a bad thing, right? So don't just remark that you're doing a bad thing. Actually take steps to fix it!
And I would love to take steps to help fix it, but why would I spend half an hour improving an article on status roles only to have my work reverted? You demonstrate again and again that you don't want people touching your things. How many contributors do you think you will push away? I'm telling you, if you want this project to succeed, treat your collaborators better. 220.127.116.11 06:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)