@Pandora Not you saying it; it's Carex + Derp.
@Pandora I feel like that's creating even more work for staff than they already have to contend with. Especially if the game is active.
And as someone who is involved in the BDSM community, I can say that what you've created is not bad at all...but it could certainly consider some refinement. The whole red/yellow/green thing has been around for a good while now and it works. But it works because there's a whole lot of communication between two people before anything even starts. What are your consent lines? What are you hard limits? What are you soft limits? Is this what you'd prefer in this situation or if X were to happen, how would you like to proceed? This works because it's two people talking to each other long before any kind physical actions even starts, long before you're in a room alone with another person or even if you're in a sprawling wide dungeon. Never mind that they've probably vetted each other for weeks of social interactions(ala munches or conversations via FetLife or something similar)beforehand. If you're smart about it, anyways.
This doesn't take into account large group scenes, because even with this kind of system, it has the potential to grind a large scene to halt if one party doesn't feel like keeping it to pages and may perhaps wish to make an issue about it publicly. This doesn't account for interactions with staff either. Staff may care, they may not. There's also the potential that a staffer is the person who might be causing the discomfort.
I'm not sure if every scene on a mush should be handled the same way, nor do I believe it should be. I don't want to spend 20 minutes talking to someone before we actually RP just so I know what I should or shouldn't do for that particular person. In the vein, I'd rather modify a +finger system so that everyone can write down exactly what they are/are not comfortable in. Whenever someone asks, point them at their +finger. Would that work, I don't know.
I'm not knocking the whole thing, I think the idea could be beneficial, with some potential tweak to possible player dynamics in regards to interaction.
@mietze said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
I like that it normalizes (without shaming) seeking help from staff when the parties can't resolve a dispute to their satisfaction on their own. While I would never want to go back to timestop objects and 100 percent staff arbitration, sometimes I wish there wasn't quite as much stigma attached to calling in someone. +judge was pretty nice in many ways.
I don't think this can ever be a thing that will be handled by coded commands.
The people this kind of thing is meant to protect one from are the exact people who will try to shame one for using this. This is why I mentioned fostering mutual respect and toleration.
The only way to achieve this is by steadfastly holding everyone to standard and weeding out the problem players, as well as making people feel safe enough to talk to each other, or even to reach out to staff for assistance. Adding another bit of code can't make someone feel safe or avoid flag-shaming (or whatever you want to call it). It's not an easy or simple task, and it will always be ongoing as new creepers or scoundrels emerge.
I've been on games with this atmosphere and without it, both consent and non-consent. It doesn't matter what the rules are, or what commands are available. Buttholes gonna butthole.
I've seen things like this installed on games, and when used, people usually just stop RPing immediately and walk away annoyed, which solves none of the problem of people being afraid/shy to speak up for themselves and what makes them uncomfortable. Then the fear of 'this person won't want to RP with me anymore/might shame me' is in no way solved, which I took to be the genesis of this thread.
@Testament said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
This doesn't account for interactions with staff either. Staff may care, they may not. There's also the potential that a staffer is the person who might be causing the discomfort.
I'm going to bet a shiny nickel that staffers who don't care or who actively/knowingly put players in uncomfortable situations without recourse wouldn't implement this system in the first place.
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
"Let's fade to black" is fairly often met with 'Why?' or 'Oh, I wish I'd known you didn't TS before we let it get this far.' or 'Lol, let me just do one more pose, your character will get a kick out of this.' or a dozen and a half other things.
Point. And I just added clarification to the news policies that a request to fade to black should be accepted without question and ending the scene at that point.
@TNP said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
"Let's fade to black" is fairly often met with 'Why?' or 'Oh, I wish I'd known you didn't TS before we let it get this far.' or 'Lol, let me just do one more pose, your character will get a kick out of this.' or a dozen and a half other things.
Point. And I just added clarification to the news policies that a request to fade to black should be accepted without question and ending the scene at that point.
You're a good egg. That made me smile.
You don’t need a coded command for this. All you need is a policy that says “hey if you’re uncomfortable with something happening and can’t work it out, you can always FTB or involve staff to help mediate.” Adults just need to adult, and that includes staff when called in to help. Code isn’t going to magically stop people from being unreasonable.
@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. 'Adults just need to adult' doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
Stop acting like people who say 'no' are the only people worth side-eye or suspicion. It is so far from being a balanced or reasonable perspective, it's ridiculous.
First of all, that's not what the hell I said. I said, specifically,
that the bad things that this system is designed to combat already exist in most games, either through coded systems or explicit policy files, and
that the overbroad nature of this system leaves it open to abuses.
I didn't say that other people can't be dumbassess, and I explicitly said that if someone thinks that someone is being over the top, a judge can be called for.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm all for protecting players, and I think that both ends can be unreasonable, but I just don't think this implementation is the way to go about it, and we're talking about it like it doesn't exist at all already -- when it does.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. Adults just need to adult doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.
I don't think it does help, in this instance. It doesn't harm, but it's basically just another FTB system. If there's already FTB no questions asked in place, then this becomes redundant.
The initial issue stated wasn't even about people being unreasonable, it was about people being afraid to speak up. An extra command can't make people feel safe enough to speak up. Typing '+codered' is going to be just as terrifying as 'ooc I'd like to FTB.' or 'p staffer=I'm having trouble with an uncomfortable situation Player B is putting me in.'
@Pandora IMHO the red card command will be met with the exact same reaction as a FTB request, because in practice it’s exactly the same as saying ‘hey wait’ just with a different command instead of ooc. The code isn’t actually providing a resolution in the same way that a combat roll is. Humans still need to be involved to sort out the resulting mess.
@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. Adults just need to adult doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.
I don't think it does help, in this instance. It doesn't harm, but it's basically just another FTB system. If there's already FTB no questions asked in place, then this becomes redundant.
The initial issue stated wasn't even about people being unreasonable, it was about people being afraid to speak up. An extra command can't make people feel safe enough to speak up. Typing '+codered' is going to be just as terrifying as 'ooc I'd like to FTB.' or 'p staffer=I'm having trouble with an uncomfortable situation Player B is putting me in.'
Sure, if there's already a policy in place that says FTB = No Questions Asked, but in how many places is this specified in the policy?
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@Pandora agreed. The phrase "adult more" can be really super ugly thrown out in certain contexts.
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@faraday I'd like to agree, but sometimes the idea of initiating the FTB can be fraught, especially if you've had too many bad experiences of a request for FTB being met with the Spanish Inquisition or wild assumptions being made or guilt trips being initiated. Adults just need to adult doesn't take into account the very real fact that not all adults have the same level of confidence, maturity, or level-headedness. Code won't stop people from being unreasonable, but the same way dots in strength keep everyone from being able to lift + throw 18-wheelers, code here can help.
I don't think it does help, in this instance. It doesn't harm, but it's basically just another FTB system. If there's already FTB no questions asked in place, then this becomes redundant.
The initial issue stated wasn't even about people being unreasonable, it was about people being afraid to speak up. An extra command can't make people feel safe enough to speak up. Typing '+codered' is going to be just as terrifying as 'ooc I'd like to FTB.' or 'p staffer=I'm having trouble with an uncomfortable situation Player B is putting me in.'
Sure, if there's already a policy in place that says FTB = No Questions Asked, but in how many places is this specified in the policy?
All the ones that want it there, I assume.
But again, the central issue brought up, to my understanding, was making people feel safe enough to speak up, no? I don't feel this command addresses that at all.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the initial reasoning for this command?
@Derp The only people whose motives you've been questioning are the people who wish to say 'no'. I love ya, man, but this is consistent. This is the first time in memory I have seen any acknowledgement that 'yes, the thing the instigator is trying to press for may require examination'.
I am a huge, huge fan of 'call a judge', and if staff, for being willing to be called.
My personal inclination here is to have any 'red' do something by default: 'ping the staff channel that X has called red in a space with <list of names>'.
That gets more useful; staff can check in if needs be, they're alerted to a potential issue or someone contacting them, and if there's a pattern of the caller or someone in the room when something's called, it starts to become more apparent. This is useful info to have to keep the peace on a game regarding trends in inappropriate behaviors, or bad actors.
I am open to all opinions here, whether in favor or wildly against. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I'm asking what can we do & offering my 2 cents toward a potential solution to a problem that is not going to go away by doing absolutely nothing different and continuing to say 'People, just be better.'
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@mietze said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@Pandora agreed. The phrase "adult more" can be really super ugly thrown out in certain contexts.
I suppose so. In this context I meant in as I said: “work it out amongst yourselves or call staff to help if you can’t/are uncomfortable/etc.”. That is how I believe a responsible adult should act in these types of games, across the board, and I’m comfortable sticking with that position.
@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
I am open to all opinions here, whether in favor or wildly against. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I'm asking what can we do & offering my 2 cents toward a potential solution to a problem that is not going to go away by doing absolutely nothing different and continuing to say 'People, just be better.'
Again, my solution is this: Staff need to consistently and relentlessly enforce mutual respect and toleration for other players distress, within reasonable limits.
There is no one-and-done answer to the Human Problem. There never will be. This can not be fixed by any command, ever. No policy will ever stop someone who ignores policies. No command can make someone feel safe.
When the problem is as complex and evolving as humans, the answers are not ever going to be something short, simple, or easy. No matter what is in place. I've been on games that make players feel safe by relentlessly squashing problem players and harassment and what-have-you. I've been on games that felt unsafe despite the best intentions and efforts of staffers. It's not simple.
Ultimately it can't be fixed. Not permanently.
I'm not saying no one should ever try. I'm not saying staff at whatever game this is being considered for aren't already doing their best. Your goal is great! But it's not achievable through any means involving code or writing policy. It can only come from changing the culture and atmosphere of the game, staff, and playerbase itself.
I actually fairly frequently stand up for players, and examine the motivations of the actor. But it's been my experience that the scales balance about evenly on 'unreasonableness'.
But if it'll help, here is a snippet of policy files (unfinalized) from a project that I am currently working on:
Consent
$GAMENAME is mostly a non-consent game in nature, meaning that a player cannot refuse to allow things to happen to their character, simply because they are uncomfortable with it. Some limitations on this exist:
Any player may request a FTB (fade to black) at any time. This does not mean that the event did not happen, only that it is not RP’ed.
PC death or any other effect lasting longer than the duration of a single scene requires the involvement of a judge or staffer. (Remember that a single scene may be flexible in its duration to some degree.)
However, all play on $GAMENAME is expected to consider the rights of other players, the storylines of all characters, and the overall storyline in its conception and execution. Play that sacrifices or ignores any of the three above items in favor of the personal aggrandizement of any player is not acceptable on $GAMENAME. All players are reminded that any concerns or issues with OOC communication are to be directed to staff for resolution if they cannot be readily resolved with the player(s).
Staff reserves the right to intervene in scenes or RP in-game if an NPC or world-based response to PC actions is deemed necessary and appropriate. ICA=ICC, and more powerful figures exist than any one character on the grid, no matter how high level. Nobody in the world depicted on $GAMENAME is immune from the consequences of their actions, and $GAMENAME relies on this fact to maintain story balance.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@Derp Yes, that is a huge help, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable unless there was a list of 'nope, not happening' (ex: rape, child rape, etc.) listed as 'can't be thrown at people without permission'.
'Anything lasting longer than a single scene' is pretty important; hopefully this will include things like 'this mentally fucks someone up for life' in practice.
Oh fucking well.
@Testament said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
This doesn't account for interactions with staff either. Staff may care, they may not. There's also the potential that a staffer is the person who might be causing the discomfort.
I'm going to bet a shiny nickel that staffers who don't care or who actively/knowingly put players in uncomfortable situations without recourse wouldn't implement this system in the first place.
