Consent in Gaming

[Ganymede]

@Trix

Oh, I didn't mean to single you out, actually. You just happened to say what I believe now, and point out that, long ago when some people were probably in high school, there was a very vigorous debate as to whether non-consent games were "better" than consent games.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

long ago when some people were probably in high school, there was a very vigorous debate as to whether non-consent games were "better" than consent games.

you mean last week?

[Trix]

@Auspice
I haven't been in High School in a hot minute and your saying 'last week' had me thinking, "I'm not going back and you can't make me!" Why people are into the idea of a Fountain of Youth, I have no idea. I'm gonna go pour myself a drink.

[Auspice]

@Trix said in Consent in Gaming:

@Auspice
I haven't been in High School in a hot minute and your saying 'last week' had me thinking, "I'm not going back and you can't make me!" Why people are into the idea of a Fountain of Youth, I have no idea. I'm gonna go pour myself a drink.

No shit.
I won't even roleplay a teenager because egads that was a rough time in life.

[Derp]

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

I think @Derp especially is over-reacting, though I don't natively disagree with his point. The text we're reading is meant for tabletop, and for tabletop I largely agree with it.
FOR TABLETOP.

How am I over-reacting when I specifically said:

@Derp said in Consent in Gaming:

Yeah, I don't agree with some of that in the context of a MU.

Emphasis mine. I know that it was written for tabletop. I called it out for being a bad translation to MU.

Like you did.

[insomniac7809]

@Trix

[Auspice]

@insomniac7809

Anxious Thirties - ain't it the truth

[Thenomain]

@Derp said in Consent in Gaming:

I called it out for being a bad translation to MU.

Like you did.

This is true! We both said it wouldn’t translate well.

I do think you went too far, tho. Instead of skimming my post like you did the book, maybe read it entirely, because we don’t come to the same conclusions.

Except the one.

[Apos]

@Trix said in Consent in Gaming:

It was the responsibility of the person initiating the violence of the scene to ask permission if they wanted to do it and if they had, I would have refused to roleplay it out. The end result would likely have still happened, but maybe the refusal would have gotten across that I didn't want to play that way anymore and it would have been a FTB scene. My character already had two disfiguring injuries from the other character and I was annoyed at the possibility of RP'ing a third.

So I wanna emphasize this here. I think we'd generally be better off with a lot clearer boundaries that players can set for themselves as what they are comfortable with, but anything that's non-consent that involves torture and similar themes is so wildly unpopular that it would frankly be a good idea that FTB is the default for those, and it's assumed they will always be FTB unless all parties specifically say otherwise. I think it's a terrible idea to put someone in the position of having to feel like the wet blanket and the unfun person of saying, 'I don't want to play this out'. Over and over again, I see good roleplayers play things out that make them feel intensely uncomfortable because they don't want to feel they are ruining someone's fun, even when that fun is really creepy to a lot of people and guts their enjoyment of the game.

FTB should be the default, and if everyone would enjoy it, let them chime in to play it out.

[Ganymede]

@Apos said in Consent in Gaming:

I think it's a terrible idea to put someone in the position of having to feel like the wet blanket and the unfun person of saying, 'I don't want to play this out'.

How should another player know when to initiate the default FTB?

Alternately, if I suggest an FTB, what if the other player doesn’t want to stop the action, but feels compelled to do so because I suggested doing it?

This is the paradox of courtesy.

I think it is healthier to expect players to set their own limits and be comfortable in doing so. To do that, pointing out that someone is not a wet
blanket for setting limits and encouraging players to do so is a better policy than expecting players to somehow know where a limit is.

[Ominous]

Maybe all MU*s should have a version of a +kinks system only covering things that they are OK with RPing out, instead of just sexual preferences.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

I think it is healthier to expect players to set their own limits and be comfortable in doing so. To do that, pointing out that someone is not a wet
blanket for setting limits and encouraging players to do so is a better policy than expecting players to somehow know where a limit is.

This is where I'm at. The "wet blanket" worry is a thing in ANY social endeavor. Sometimes, yes, you suck it up even though you're a little uncomfortable for the sake of other peoples' fun. Sometimes it's a big enough deal that you need to say something and 'nope' out. That's a judgment call only YOU can make, and doing so is just part of adulting.

I used to think "FTB if you're not comfortable" was a pretty well-understood unwritten rule, but lately I've taken to spelling it out in game policies outright. Beyond that, it's up to the players to set those boundaries. It's not fair to expect others to guess what they are.

[Tinuviel]

The best way, to my mind, to help with the so-called "wet blanket" issue is to 1) Make "fade to black if you want/need to" an official policy rather than an unwritten assumption and 2) punish those that seek to cajole or coerce people into playing what they don't want to. I doubt many folks will actually need to be punished, but make it rather obvious how little you care for such behaviour and it'll fade if it exists at all, and those concerned with appearing a wet blanket will be more confident in asserting their right to fade.

[Apos]

@Ganymede I don't think it's as hard to draw the line as it sounds. In a non-consent scene, if a pose or emit would detail graphic harm done to another character, or describe sexual or non-sexual torture or assault, could just state that it's going FTB before that pose or emit is said. And then players can state if they'd all prefer to proceed, and go on as normal.

Say you were gaming with an underage gamer, and there's a point where the scene would get uncomfortable graphic. I think most players would say, 'well okay it's going this way, so we'll handwave it and this is generally what happens' in an ooc explanation.

Mind you, I just ban all sexual assault storylines. It's just not permitted, and that's understood, because I don't want to have to spend time sorting those. If staff wants to permit it, that's fine, staff can and should do whatever they are comfortable with. I'm just saying that almost every game I saw that said, 'well okay we'll allow it and just leave it to players to set boundaries', I've seen threads pop up over some huge blow up specifically over this. And I think that a, 'default FTB' is probably a wiser course that would avoid that if you don't want to ban it all together like I do.

I also worry that we can easily forget how petty people can be, and how much they really want to see their 'enemies' on games get what is coming to them. An awful lot of people want their opponents to RP out scenes uncomfortable for them. Embarrassing and humiliating ones. I have, on at least 4 different occasions, seen people complain that someone not playing out some kind of torture or punishment scene as trying to avoid the consequences in ICA=ICC. Even if they would be fine with taking it in a FTB. No, they want that player to be upset. Wanting to see a character in an antagonistic relationship be publicly humiliated and punished IC is pervasive, and that can go way too far way too fast.

[Auspice]

@Apos said in Consent in Gaming:

I also worry that we can easily forget how petty people can be, and how much they really want to see their 'enemies' on games get what is coming to them. An awful lot of people want their opponents to RP out scenes uncomfortable for them.

I worry your numbers here are skewed due to how large your playerbase has been at times.

There are people I don't like, that I wouldn't want to RP with, but I wouldn't ever put any of them through this and I feel pretty confident in saying none of them would do it in return.

The list of people I know that behave this way would, a) ignore any rules put into place and try to bully the other people into it, and b) are banned on most games (Juerg, Custodius, etc.) because of these behaviors.

I really, really do not think it's 'an awful lot' of people. I think it is a very very small subset that loves to ban evade and gets smacked down every time they do.

[Apos]

@Auspice tbh I was thinking of active posters on this board, and Firan, the Reach, and Fallcoast more than my current game because I've leaned so heavily away from conflict mechanics

[faraday]

@Apos said in Consent in Gaming:

@Auspice tbh I was thinking of active posters on this board, and Firan, the Reach, and Fallcoast more than my current game because I've leaned so heavily away from conflict mechanics

I only know those games by reputation, which is really.... not good. So I'd venture to say that the issue is more the atmosphere/environment of specific games geared around antagonism than a widespread issue within MUSHing itself.

If you're going to allow non-consent IC rape/torture/abuse on a game, I don't think default-FTB is a viable option anyway. Those things have serious long-term consequences for the character it happens to. It's not like you can FTB one scene and then go about your normal business.

@Apos said in Consent in Gaming:

An awful lot of people want their opponents to RP out scenes uncomfortable for them. Embarrassing and humiliating ones.

We're here to tell stories and roleplay. Generally speaking that means actually playing the scenes. It's one thing to avoid a torture scene because torture makes people squicky. But somebody 'nope-ing' out of a "get yelled at by the commander" scene just because it was ICly embarrassing is cheapening the reason why the FTB option exists. I'd still honor the request, but I think it would lower my opinion of that player considerably.

[Arkandel]

I'm torn on the issue.

On one hand yes, aside from assholes in the hobby (and in nearly every hobby) it is good to recognize or even - perhaps - to systematize making sure not that everyone is having a good time but that no one is having a shitty experience.

On the other hand I am wary doing so past a very specific point falls into the category of forcing the majority of perfectly fine players to jump through hoops or explain themselves hoping to stop the minority of assholes who will work around the issue and do what they do anyway.

Change my mind (well, if you want to ).

[Sunny]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

We're here to tell stories and roleplay. Generally speaking that means actually playing the scenes. It's one thing to avoid a torture scene because torture makes people squicky. But somebody 'nope-ing' out of a "get yelled at by the commander" scene just because it was ICly embarrassing is cheapening the reason why the FTB option exists. I'd still honor the request, but I think it would lower my opinion of that player considerably.

I do not understand. Why would it lower your opinion of them?

ETA: I know this could sound confrontational but I REALLY don't mean it that way, I seriously am reading this and not comprehending why and hoping it can be explained so I do understand.

[Auspice]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

We're here to tell stories and roleplay. Generally speaking that means actually playing the scenes. It's one thing to avoid a torture scene because torture makes people squicky. But somebody 'nope-ing' out of a "get yelled at by the commander" scene just because it was ICly embarrassing is cheapening the reason why the FTB option exists. I'd still honor the request, but I think it would lower my opinion of that player considerably.

I do not understand. Why would it lower your opinion of them?

ETA: I know this could sound confrontational but I REALLY don't mean it that way, I seriously am reading this and not comprehending why and hoping it can be explained so I do understand.

I'm in agreement with Faraday.

She plays a lot of military themed games, same as I do. And there are absolutely people who want to play the rule breaker, the problematic soldier, etc..... which is a headache for their ic superiors and often other players in general.

If you purposefully choose to play that type and then want to nope out of the consequences? It's pretty shitty. And unfortunately pretty common.