Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries

[TNP]

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

All the ones that want it there, I assume.

Or the ones who think of it. As a for instance, all the staff on ESH are strong-willed and opinionated. We don't need a command to take the place of speaking up. Nor would we have trouble, as a player, in shooting down someone who argued about an FTB request.

I honestly didn't consider it needed clarification since it is such an accepted thing on games pretty much going back to when I started playing at the dawn of time. If I want to FTB, it happens. Argue with me? +ooc buh-bye.

I personally don't need such a policy clarification so it just didn't occur to me that it might be necessary. But since it was brought up, I have no problem with explicitly stating it for those people who need things spelled out in black and white before they will 1) assert their right to do something or 2) not do something. It's a small enough effort to make in order to give someone some peace of mind.

[BlondeBot]

@TNP said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

All the ones that want it there, I assume.

Or the ones who think of it. As a for instance, all the staff on ESH are strong-willed and opinionated. We don't need a command to take the place of speaking up. Nor would we have trouble, as a player, in shooting down someone who argued about an FTB request.

I honestly didn't consider it needed clarification since it is such an accepted thing on games pretty much going back to when I started playing at the dawn of time. If I want to FTB, it happens. Argue with me? +ooc buh-bye.

I personally don't need such a policy clarification so it just didn't occur to me that it might be necessary. But since it was brought up, I have no problem with explicitly stating it for those people who need things spelled out in black and white before they will 1) assert their right to do something or 2) not do something. It's a small enough effort to make in order to give someone some peace of mind.

It's a good policy! And I agree that not everyone will think to word it that exact way. No issues taken with that, at all. It is always a good thing to have expectations spelled out as clearly as possible with no wiggle room!

[Pandora]

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Again, my solution is this: Staff need to consistently and relentlessly enforce mutual respect and toleration for other players distress, within reasonable limits.

Again, staffers on most games are already attempting to do this. If it worked just fine we wouldn't be having this conversation, because everything would be wonderful and every single player would feel respected and every single limit would be expressly tolerated.

This thread is not about staffers not making an effort, I know damn well many of them are & I applaud and approve. @faraday makes a good point that people should be able to speak up and deal with their issues & I entirely agree, but again if everyone was doing that, we wouldn't still be having these same issues on a regular basis.

This thread is about how we help, as best we can, the people that fall through the cracks for whatever reason, and how we make it more abundantly clear and more immediately accessible than a line in a policy file that says 'Any player may request a FTB (fade to black) at any time.' but does not specify what the FTB process entails or if they are obligated to deal with negotiating through some creep's 2-paragraph paged description of every sordid detail of what his character did during this so-called FTB.

I don't know why this thread is devolving into 'What we're doing already works' when it so obviously doesn't work for everyone.

[Carex]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

'Lol, let me just do one more pose, your character will get a kick out of this.'

Actually, a good way to make that problem go away is stating that if someone requests a fade-to-black they get to do the final scene pose.

That way there is a closing pose but it's on the terms of the person uncomfortable not the person making someone uncomfortable.

[surreality]

The 'didn't think of it' is likely the most common issue with this not appearing in files.

People thinking it's fine to 'haggle' it lose their protection/excuse for this behavior when it's explicitly stated, and the people who may not realize this isn't to be haggled once they say it -- and may be further pressured or coerced -- get the full force of staff behind the 'no'.

[Derp]

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

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'.

We do have some 'strictly out of bounds' items on the list, but given the nature of the source material, it's probably not as extensive as many people would like. That said, we also put up great big warning flags all over the place about exactly that, make sure that players understand what they're getting into, and have created extensive policies about communication and conflict for exactly this reason. It's not a game for everyone. It's not intended to be. But for those that are playing, we make sure that there are resources available to them to manage their experience.

[Testament]

There is always the option of simply walking out of the scene as well. You don't owe anyone anything if the other person is making you feel uncomfortable. You don't owe a reason or a justification or anything. At worst, the other person gets reported. At best, the other party apologizes and you're able to talk it out.

Is this the best method? There are downsides to it, of course, but the reality is that shouldn't matter. This is obviously based in the realm where we're all sane and rational people. Sadly, this is almost never the case, but I do prefer the times where it's nothing more than an honest miscommunication.

[BlondeBot]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Again, my solution is this: Staff need to consistently and relentlessly enforce mutual respect and toleration for other players distress, within reasonable limits.

Again, staffers on most games are already attempting to do this. If it worked just fine we wouldn't be having this conversation, because everything would be wonderful and every single player would feel respected and every single limit would be expressly tolerated.

This thread is not about staffers not making an effort, I know damn well many of them are & I applaud and approve. @faraday makes a good point that people should be able to speak up and deal with their issues & I entirely agree, but again if everyone was doing that, we wouldn't still be having these same issues on a regular basis.

This thread is about how we help, as best we can, the people that fall through the cracks for whatever reason, and how we make it more abundantly clear and more immediately accessible than a line in a policy file that says 'Any player may request a FTB (fade to black) at any time.' but does not specify what the FTB process entails or if they are obligated to deal with negotiating through some creep's 2-paragraph paged description of every sordid detail of what his character did during this so-called FTB.

I don't know why this thread is devolving into 'What we're doing already works' when it so obviously doesn't work for everyone.

I have no idea where you are getting most of this from what I am saying. I figure that most of this is coming from a place of hostility (with regards to the conversation, not personal hostility) in what you see as an attack on the idea that things need to improve in whatever game you are referencing.

I am not attacking your goal.

I am not attacking your desire to address this goal.

I am not saying unnamed people/staffers are not trying.

I am not saying anyone is doing anything wrong.

I am not saying your initial idea here will hurt anything.

I simply disagree that this will address the problem. I disagree with the idea that any code will address the problem. If the game or culture doesn't make these ones you are referencing who are sliding between the cracks feel safe, then I doubt anything will. I am merely stating that the only way to reach the goal you want is to do 'what you're already doing' as you say, and keep doing it until it works.

There will always be a time when it fails, because no one is perfect. I'm not saying you shouldn't try because of that. I'm not saying 'throw your hands up and give up'. I'm having to spend a lot of time taking your words out of my mouth.

I'll try to make my point as brief and concise as possible, so there is no more room for misinterpretation:

Code can't make people feel safe enough to come forward with a problem.

That is all I am saying. Anything else you infer from that are neither my words nor my meaning.

[faraday]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I don't know why this thread is devolving into 'What we're doing already works' when it so obviously doesn't work for everyone.

Because in my experience I don’t see the “so obviously” part. Maybe it’s because my games have had a “you can always request a FTB and please call staff if there’s a problem” policy for ages. Nobody’s ever come to me with “Bob gave me grief when I asked to FTB.” or anything like that. Not once in the decades I’ve been staffing. Nor have I ever encountered it in all my time RPing.

And frankly if there are people unwilling to speak up despite such a policy, I don’t think a coded command will help them. I’m not telling you or anyone else not to do it in your game if you think it will help. I just don’t see the value personally.

[Pandora]

@BlondeBot This isn't about any specific game, it's about a recurring issue we see in this community where people have felt uncomfortable speaking up because there are no clear-cut policies in place for how conflict resolution should be handled. I don't have any hostility toward you or what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing with your stance that doing nothing different is the best option.

[Roz]

I still think that this sort of code tool has the potential to enhance existing policies and game culture that is already trying to make a game safe for people to voice issues, because I think it's one of many ways for staff to project how seriously they take the issue, and making code for something explicitly informs players that they can utilize something. I would still like to see a game or two try it out. That's pretty much my opinion.

[BlondeBot]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@BlondeBot This isn't about any specific game, it's about a recurring issue we see in this community where people have felt uncomfortable speaking up because there are no clear-cut policies in place for how conflict resolution should be handled. I don't have any hostility toward you or what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing with your stance that doing nothing different is the best option.

This is exactly my point: I'm not saying that. You're inferring it. I'm not saying 'nothing different is the best option'. That is not my stance.

I'm saying the culture and atmosphere of the hypthetical game/community we are debating here is not where it needs to be yet, and making strides in that regard is the only way to resolve the issue.

I'm not saying do nothing, nor 'do nothing different'. I'm saying keep doing the one thing that works, which is for staff to be as fair, consistent, and vigilant in cultivating the player atmosphere they want for their game. This is done through enforcement of polices both written and unwritten (such as the general Don't Be A Dick universal rule), over time, with consistency, and the timely removal of problem players and handling of issues that crop up.

Writing something down on a wiki or adding some code to a game will never be enough. Enforcement of the environment you want to see is what works, it is the only thing that works, and it is a never-ending, thankless slog.

I may someday be proven wrong on this, and that would be pretty great.

[BlondeBot]

@Roz said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I still think that this sort of code tool has the potential to enhance existing policies ... because I think it's one of many ways for staff to project how seriously they take the issue.

That's... actually not a bad point.

EDIT: It's a pretty damn good one, actually. This command might actually help after all!

[Pandora]

This post is deleted!

[Pandora]

@BlondeBot In my native language, 'be consistent and keep doing the one thing' = do nothing different. If you disagree, it's probably a language barrier of some sort, can't be helped.

[Ghost]

@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.'

Took some time to think about this. Spoilers, I'm gonna dig a little here.

So, (rhetorical) why do people try to force others into scenes they're not comfortable with via IC justification? We RARELY hear of a player calling "FTB" or a hard stop in, say, a coffee scene. It's usually involving sex, relationship, torture, rape, or potential PK. No one asks to FTB a house painting scene...unless it turns to one of those topics.

So, my first thought is that this topic is about entitlement. Players feel entitled to certain scenes or the right to roleplay specific concepts, and the worst players feel that other players shouldn't "pussy out" of that stuff. However, there are so many players who falsely throw these flags like harassment, consent, etc around in non-emergency situations (or to get revenge) that players oddly rush to err on the side of caution to implement something to protect players.

"We want people to not be harassed, forced into sexual situations, or to be preyed upon but there's nothing we can do about it because people will misuse the reporting system for their loopy bullshit."

And maybe a bit of...

"I dont want to be made to feel uncomfortable and want the ability to opt out of anything I don't want, but I dont want anyone to opt out of things I want."

Fairness? The people who are cool, and truly cool, are always very okay with FTB on any front and don't blacklist a player for asking for it. In theory any system that supports this and has a "omg staff help" alarm button SHOULD be no issue whatsoever to the people who aren't assholes. Everyone knows that some(most?) players come to this hobby to fulfill fantasies related to sex, relationship, rape, power, being wanted, etc. Theres simply more at play here than "it's just a scene" due to the hardcore focus on OOC personas, "bad actors", etc but there's very little assumption of trust that so many people are constantly at DEFCON 2.

So, in short? I support an XCard/RedYellowGreen system and think if people you want it? FUCKING IMPLEMENT IT. It will likely protect more than it harms, and if players abuse it because they're unethical, then they can get bounced from games just like the players who try to coerce other players into partaking in their power scene. People are always going on about how X player is horrible and Y player "blows up on them OOCly for not doing what they want" that maybe the right answer is to not choose what the paranoid/drama-filled corner of the community thinks about it (because this has been the state of the hobby for over 20 years and it'll just be argued for 20 more; nothing changes until someone takes a step), and just follow your heart, your good intention, and make a commitment to being fair as staff when it's used.

Just do it. A tool to protect people from unethical behavior is better than most places have in place.

[Pyrephox]

As noted previously, this conversation has come up several different times, and the objection always tossed out is, "Well, what if someone uses it to avoid reasonable consequences, or to have any bad things happen to their character?"

It used to be something I found pretty compelling, because I enjoy having outcomes being up in the air, and I, personally, only have a few 'hard lines', and I'm not the sort of person who's ever had trouble just walking away if I wasn't having fun. And the times when someone has pitched a public fit or tried to have all the rewards with none of the risks have stood out to me.

So I get the gut deep objection.

But, the more I think about it, the more I think that it's not really a good objection at all anywhere but a hard PvP game - and that a hard PvP game //should make it clear what avenues of the game are appropriate for pvp//. Boundaries and expectations, publicly stated, are your friends, and if you state the expectations for conflict, and someone tries to throw a flag on a reasonable consequence within that expectation, then they're abusing what they agreed to, and that can be dealt with the same way any other abuse of the system can be dealt with. And by stating the expectations for PvP conflict up front, you give people a chance to actually self-select for games that give them the experience they want. Which isn't a bad thing. I have no objection to no-holds-barred, any-IC-action goes games existing, as long as that is //clearly and boldly stated// to the players, and people know what they're getting.

Outside of a PvP context - if someone doesn't want bad things to happen to their character, then that's a problem that tends to fix itself by players self-sorting into playgroups...and that's okay. Sure, when someone is like, "But this rules change ruined my plans, how could you, I'm hugely upset," to what I consider to be excess, then...I just avoid them. Likewise with someone who always wants to be the center of a scene, or someone who is so passive it's like playing with a rock. Those things are annoying. They are not game breaking.

Allowing people to be pressured into playing out events that are not just actively unfun to them but which could be actively traumatizing? That's not just damaging to the game, that's damaging to actual people, and I believe it takes precedence. I would rather keep ten "but I didn't want to go to jail" players than one "I'm going to threaten you with cutting off your RP with everyone or damage your OOC reputation unless you play this out" player. Hell, I'd rather keep twenty of the former than ONE of the latter.

Which isn't to say that some games may end up just not being appropriate for some players. If you're severely arachnophobic, then Spider Holocaust 2000 is not your game. And it's possible that some 'mystery' games might have aspects of the setting/theme that turn out to be impossible for a player to deal with. (Disclosure: On RfK, I played a human ghoul. My regnant was great IC and OOC, and never creepy. I still ended up leaving the game because the more I played and thought about theme, the more I realized I was never, ever going to enjoy a Vampire game outside of a specific sort of tabletop setting. I hadn't ever played Vamp before, so I wanted to give it a chance. Nobody did anything wrong, but it still was Not A Game For Me. And that's okay.)

tldr: Ultimately, the people who want to abuse other people are more damaging to the game than the people who want to play with no stakes, and I think games can mitigate what danger there exists of "consequence dodging" with this system by communicating specific expectations, then treating violations of those expectations the same way they deal with any other player complaint.

[Tempest]

Man, some of you guys in this thread are talking like you play no-consent RPIs where people can literally walk into the room you’re in, beat you unconscious, and drag you to a cell somewhere all via coded commands.

And I know most of you don’t.

This problem seems like it wouldn’t even exist if people vetted/filtered the people they played with /at all/.

Have some standards.

[Pandora]

@Tempest Uh uh. Take that raggedy bullshit back to the Hog Pit. I respect your fire but this isn't the time or the dumpster for it.

[Tempest]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Tempest Uh uh. Take that raggedy bullshit back to the Hog Pit. I respect your fire but this isn't the time or the dumpster for it.

Nobody (except staff) can do anything to you on a MU unless you give them the opportunity to do so.

This is not as big of a problem as the same few (very loudly vocal) people seem to make out. And it is always the same handful of people crying wolf.

We have people on the board who will every few months go “I thought he was my friend!!!!!!!” over and over and over with some sob story.

At some point the responsibility is on you yourself to learn to avoid these situations.

Blahblahblah yes, the harassers are shitbags who need to go away, but they don’t because people keep giving them chances.