Cyberrun

[silverfox]

@Tinuviel

I am sorry, but I'm really reading some of the comments as a defense of the game's existence. I will respect that it might not be what people are actually trying to say, but it is how the words are jumping off the screen to me, even after going back and rereading.

It is probably an issue of my own bias because I do work so closely with children that issues which could effect them, such as the mere existence of a game like this, instantly put my defenses up. I have a difficult time finding any gray areas. Everyone will read things with their own bias in mind.

[Tinuviel]

@silverfox Okay, I'll do my very best to summarise my own opinions on the matter.

1. Pretending to do something on the internet doesn't mean you want to do it in real life.
2. Engaging in an activity with another consenting adult(s), which is what a reasonable person would assume logging into a game that states it is for adults, is not the same as engaging in that activity with an actual child.
3. Neither of these things make the actual game itself okay. They do mean that shouting 'paedophile' or 'paedophile apologist' makes you look like an idiot.
4. A paedophile is unlikely to target a place designed for adults over one that is designed for children. They presumably want to engage with actual children, not adults pretending to be children.
5. I do not want to advocate or advertise this game, or any like it, as that can be seen as approval.
6. Having a fantasy, or playing a role, is not the same as wanting to do those things in real life.
7. It is an exceptionally complicated and nuanced issue that won't be solved by people slamming their fingers in their ears shouting "la la la paedophile." When people bring up differing points.

[Ghost]

Let me dial it back a bit and approach this from another angle...

Let's say that you are on one of the games (I know of PenDes and Cyberrun) that allow for sexual fantasy roleplay with characters who are minors.

Are people comfortable with the following concepts?

1. Pedophilia (paedophilia if you will) is described by the IDC-11 as "sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal—as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours—involving pre-pubertal children."
2. Is there a problem with referring to players who partake in this kind of fantasy TS roleplay as pedophiles by definition?
3. That convicted sex offenders could be violating their parole by partaking in these games?
4. That in some countries written depictions of pedophilia fantasy content is illegal?
5. That rather than assuming you may cross paths with a pedophile and never know it, that you're partaking in an environment where their fantasies are normalized, and that you're sharing a clubhouse with pedophiles partaking in pedophilia?

The thing that I cannot get my head around is the fact that just because it's online and another adult is playing the child doesn't make it not pedophilia. I know some people play on these games and may not partake in it themselves, but there's this part of me as a father who isnt comfortable with the concept of just putting it out of mind and assuming that it's safe pedophilia simply because the game tells minors that they aren't welcome. On some of these games there isn't even character approval.

So, sure, we could assume because the policies say so that the pedophiles will always get their roleplay with another consenting adult playing the role of the child, but from a perspective of decency is that enough? If not pedophilia, then where is the line drawn? The MU community isn't the deep web, and while many illegal behaviors are roleplayed out in a safe environment (vampires snorting cocaine) there are definitely others more tied to potential real life disorder that are more dangerous to fantasize about.

And I can tell you the key difference between these Sex MU games and normal MUs is that sexual kinks are absolutely more personal and tied to the desire of the player. It's normal and healthy to want to be a Jedi. To good people, it should be abhorrent to self and others to want to fantasize sex with a child.

So, if anything, I'm supporting the idea of normalizing the use of the word pedophile for these people. I dont like that the community shares the hobby with pedophiles, and I think more needs to be done to protect these places from minors joining, because the current state of these things is a disclaimer and then the assumption that it wouldn't be the pedophiles or the community's fault that a pedophile groomed a minor on a MU because they didnt follow the policy.

Edit:

I mean, come on.

Its not like these are characters where someone sat down and said: "I want to artistically explore the mind of an 22nd century pedophile struggling with their disorder over neural networks" or "I want to play the role of a villainous pedophile being hunted by the police". The argument of "just because the character is a pedophile doesnt mean the player is" MIGHT apply in the sense of an author writing a pedophile villain in a book or Kevin Bacon being hired to play the role of one in a movie.

This is different. These are MUs that either openly state or imply that the focus is graphic, sexual roleplay and ultimately the decisions made on character choices at these places are more kink-focused than true storytelling focused. The point to creating a pedophile character in a story is NOT to celebrate it with hours of graphic molestation roleplay, but to use it as a vehicle for drama or villainous intent.

So, I really dont buy into the argument that the character being a pedophile doesn't mean the player is, because EVERYONE in the hobby knows that ultimately the player decides what kinds of scenes they want to roleplay out.

If you purposefully decide to roleplay out graphic sexual descriptions of sex with a minor...then it isn't the character who is a pedophile and thats not some shield you can hide behind. No. You are the pedophile.

[Tinuviel]

@Ghost Before we get into this, let me reiterate something to make sure my most important point is made abundantly clear. I detest the idea of simulated child sexual interactions. I detest the idea of adults playing children engaged in sexual activity with other adults - regardless as to whether those adults are playing adults or children.

So we can absolutely agree, wholeheartedly, that it's creepy as fuck.

That out of the way, paedophilia is as you have stated defined as involving pre-pubertal children. Not other adults. So, assuming that all players involved are adults or that there is a reasonable expectation that all players involved are adults, it's not paedophilia. It's a weird fuckin' thing, but it's not paedophilia. Just as rape fantasies, that also happen all the time on sex games as well as in real life, don't mean the fantasiser is a rapist or potential rapist.

Secondly, my main problem with this entire conversation - especially your parts of it - is that it is bluster. If you want to do something about it, like reporting it to law enforcement, or internet watchdogs, or whomever... do so. We're not the MUing police. Not by a long fuckin' shot. We don't have authority, or impact, or influence enough to just decide "Okay, MUing is banning this thing now."

Thirdly, this entire conversation needs to stop. You need to go take a break, write emails or call who you need to call, because us chatting about it isn't going to change anything. Literally ever.

[surreality]

@Tinuviel said in Cyberrun:

Secondly, my main problem with this entire conversation - especially your parts of it - is that it is bluster. If you want to do something about it, like reporting it to law enforcement, or internet watchdogs, or whomever... do so. We're not the MUing police. Not by a long fuckin' shot. We don't have authority, or impact, or influence enough to just decide "Okay, MUing is banning this thing now."
Thirdly, this entire conversation needs to stop. You need to go take a break, write emails or call who you need to call, because us chatting about it isn't going to change anything. Literally ever.

Seconding this in full. Thank you for sparing me the effort.

[Ghost]

@Tinuviel said in Cyberrun:

Secondly, my main problem with this entire conversation - especially your parts of it - is that it is bluster. If you want to do something about it, like reporting it to law enforcement, or internet watchdogs, or whomever... do so. We're not the MUing police. Not by a long fuckin' shot. We don't have authority, or impact, or influence enough to just decide "Okay, MUing is banning this thing now."
Thirdly, this entire conversation needs to stop. You need to go take a break, write emails or call who you need to call, because us chatting about it isn't going to change anything. Literally ever.

I get ya, and this will probably be the last thing I type on this because this has been exhausting.

But why? Why should this community of people on this forum believe that they dont have the ability to protect, impact, or influence these things? How to watch for and keep child predators out is exactly the kind of thing that people could talk about and bind together as a community to watch for. If people will whisper network or Hog Pit report every damned sighting of VASpider, then why not this?

Gather reporting resources. Make it clear to these people that they arent welcome. Report places that allow it. Report log snippets if you see it. Be on the lookout for minors. Stop treating it like it's a feature on a game you can opt in or out of. Build the community with the standard that TS with minors and minor characters is unacceptable. Report places that do it to their MU providers. Get MU space providers to confirm and pledge to shut down any game that allows it.

The thing I think is a huge shame about this community is that there are some things I think the community should be proactive about like this, but instead people watchdog stuff like SPIDER or slut shaming or bad descriptions. It often feels like "dont rock the boat" or "dont risk my playspaces with this drama because I need it" are elements of the push-back.

In the end, you're right(1). If people want to deal with it themselves, they should. If they feel like not dealing with it is indifference? Thats their call. Yelling about it loudly is clearly not going make a difference and clearly some people don't see this as big of a deal as others do. For whatever reason that is...it is what it is.

(1) not a flippant "durrrrokayyyyy ur right"

[Tinuviel]

@Ghost Main reason? Because I don't want to spend my free hobby time hunting predators. We comment on the things that amuse or interest us. Be it like rubbernecking a car accident or discussing recent developments on whether the + sign needs to be in front of softcode commands. It interests us. Hunting for potential sexual predators, outside of those that have actually predated on people, isn't something I would say many of us would like to spend our time doing.

We also have fundamentally different opinions as to what makes a child predator in this exceptionally specific context. I'll be clear, we're not the only ones. The scientific Journal of Sexual Aggression is still working at this, and that's their entire job. We're amateurs.

If you want to invest resources, gather folks, start a group up? Go for it. You'll likely get eager participation. But it's very important to remember, we aren't "the community," least of all when it comes to sex-as-theme games like Shang or PenDes or this shitshow. We don't have the influence, or the ability to impact things, because we're not there. It's really hard for me to stop a mugging in Detroit when I'm in Sydney.

[surreality]

Can we stop accusing everyone who isn't singing the same song at throat-ripping volume of playing on these games and secretly wanting to get their pedophilia on now? Is that something we can do?

Because it seems like that's something we should also fucking do.

[silverfox]

Just to be clear,

I have deliberately not named particular names on who's replies have come off defensive of the GAME itself. I do not believe that dragging someone else though the mud over how I am reading their posts is particularly helpful and instead would instantly put them on the defensive rather than reflect if perhaps their posts could be what I am referring to.

I tagged @Tinuviel in my original post to help others who are reading the thread know who I was responding to. This was a mistake. Thus:

@Tinuviel - I am in no way stating that you in particular are defending the game.

[Arkandel]

This thread turned very quickly from 'mildly constructive' to a bandwagon of accusations and personal attacks. I know we can do better than that.

But it won't be here, because it's locked.