Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries

[Kestrel]

I scrolled back through the thread to see where or if @faraday was being dogpiled because I wasn't reading the thread that way at all, and it made me wonder if that comment was referring to my one specific comment @ them. What I saw was @Pandora propose this idea and the vast majority of responses saying 'nah that's not necessary'. I upvoted the OP when I first read it, then went on with my life and came back a few days later to some confusion, because I'd assumed there'd be a unanimous +1 consensus and evidently that was not the case. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting at all because I wouldn't have assumed my voice would add anything to the discussion that wasn't already being said.

I was wrong, and I saw a lot of people agreeing with @faraday, so felt the need to back the underdog.

To clarify I have a lot of respect for @faraday. I have no idea what she does/doesn't do on her games to ensure things run smoothly, as I haven't played a game she's staffed, so can only base my responses on what was said on this thread.

In particular, this —

@faraday said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Pandora My policy is simple: Work it out amongst yourselves. If you can't or aren't comfortable doing so, contact staff to help mediate.

— I take some issue with as criticism of @Pandora's proposal.

Whether intended or not, the phrasing of this policy, as expressed here in particular, can come across as pretty victim-blamey. I can only speak for myself that it wouldn't in any way encourage me to come forward with any complaints I had, because it implies that doing so isn't the adult thing to do, and makes me somehow lesser. It also puts the person complaining on equal footing in staff's eyes with the person they're complaining about, as a baseline.

Operating from a position of 'innocent until proven guilty', this makes perfect sense. In the case of most existing systems, you don't know what happened, your job is to find out and treat the situation without bias to start.

What @Pandora is proposing is a lot more clear-cut and I would feel much more comfortable coming forward under such a system, because it would mean all I have to say to staff is 'I used red and they continued', which is an explicit rule violation that doesn't require any kind of mediation or consideration, in theory. It gives me the immediate upper hand should I complain. The problem-player in this case is plainly evident.

A while ago a friend told me they got banned on Arx for sexist behaviour. I was surprised by this news because they'd never displayed sexist behaviour anywhere I'd personally seen (and I'm one of those diabolical loud-mouthed feminists you hear so much about from insecure men). But I wasn't there, I don't know what happened, and accept that maybe they behave totally different around me vs. around others. If they'd told me something like 'someone used a flag that means I'm supposed to cut that shit out but I just couldn't help myself', I wouldn't have to wonder whether anyone was being reasonable in accusing him or just jumping the gun.

[Pandora]

@Kestrel said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

A while ago a friend told me they got banned on Arx for sexist behaviour.

Eye twitching.

Did they mention how many times they got banned?

[Kestrel]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Kestrel said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

A while ago a friend told me they got banned on Arx for sexist behaviour.

Eye twitching.

Did they mention how many times they got banned?

It's not Azazello.

I'm pretty sure it was just the once but I didn't really follow up on it. I don't know the full story, I just gave a sympathetic ear when they griped about it. Their version of events didn't sound so bad, but it's the only version I heard. I'm not in the habit of vouching for people in situations I didn't witness that I don't know anything about.

[Pandora]

@Kestrel Understandable. I just know Arx has a history of giving people more than enough rope to hang themselves before an actual ban comes down. I'm sure if your friend feels things happened unfairly they could try to talk it out; especially if it was some sort of one-time-only misunderstanding, things happen.

[Ganymede]

@Kestrel said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Whether intended or not, the phrasing of this policy, as expressed here in particular, can come across as pretty victim-blamey. I can only speak for myself that it wouldn't in any way encourage me to come forward with any complaints I had, because it implies that doing so isn't the adult thing to do, and makes me somehow lesser. It also puts the person complaining on equal footing in staff's eyes with the person they're complaining about, as a baseline.

I cannot argue against how the policy makes you feel, but I would suggest that you are reading too far into it.

I think it irrefutable that expecting players to work issues out among themselves is reasonable. I also think it irrefutable that if this cannot be done, for whatever reason, contacting an authority is the next step to resolving the situation. Frankly, this is exactly what I tell my own kids to do: don't fucking bug me unless you can't work it out between you two, you little shits. (And, as they are twins, they are on equal footing with each other and this is another problem all on its own.)

So I believe Faraday's policy to be appropriate and reasonable for most if not all issues. Going to staff immediately about harassment or discomfort is perfectly reasonable and fits within the policy. Ultimately, whether by +warn or some other command that alerts staff to inappropriate behavior, what we are discussing is a way for players to: (1) notify staff of a problem; and (2) have staff resolve the issue.

It has been said by greater minds than I that you cannot invent code or implement policies to change social issues. Harassment and the anxiety associated with reporting the same are social issues. The issues I see in this discussion is whether there is value to implementing more tools, and, if so, how should those tools work. Faraday's policy is of itself another tool: a printed policy.

[Pandora]

@Kestrel said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

There's a MUD called After Earth which has a "graphic" command which I think is a pretty neat idea:

Graphic is used to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the content of the RP, either due to its violent nature, sexual content, or some other reason which would justify omitting, editing, or otherwise toning the RP down to a more acceptable level.

When this command is used, all persons in the room should comply and reduce the level of detail. It should not require clarification or lapse into OOC discussion.

See also: MUDSEX, TURNS

Mudsex (TS) is also never supposed to occur without use of a "consent" command.

Helpfile for Consent

Syntax: consent list
consent give <name> [note]
consent revoke <name> [note]
consent alert <name> <reason>
consent check <name>
consent request <name> [reason]

All players are required to seek and obtain consent prior to engaging in sexually explicit roleplay.

The consent list command lists all characters that your character has provided consent to. Consent give <name> will add a character to the list, with an optional note if desired. Consent revoke <name> will remove consent at any time, also with an optional note.

All players are required to confirm that they have received consent before pursuing sexual intercourse using the consent check <name> command. Likewise, a player can OOCly declare their character's IC intentions with consent request <name> with an optional reason.

The consent system is PRIVATE. It does not report to staff unless a player uses the consent alert <name> <reason> command to tell staff that something is wrong.

At first glance I really like this idea, but a few concerns come to mind. First and foremost, at what point is one supposed to use the consent command? How far can RP go without the command being used? Kissing? Cuddling? Intimate non-penetrative touching? Let's say the RP has gotten that far, and although both characters seem into it, one of them has not provided consent or responded to the consent request command. Does that mean the scene should end? What if they didn't see it or don't know how the system works? Should you OOCly bring it up?

That brings us to another can of worms I see, which is people OOCly pressuring others to use the consent command. The helpfile doesn't seem to make any mention of whether or not it is against policy to OOCly pressure/cajole/convince anyone to give consent; as we all hopefully know, consent given under pressure isn't true consent.

Another issue is one that probably shouldn't be an issue, but if you've ever been in a game Discord with more than your immediate circle of friends, you've probably witnessed something of the sort: If Susie and Katie are RPing and flirting and having a good time and seem to mesh well and Katie activates consent before Susie and then Susie jokes to her Discord chat "Ha, I'm so awesome Katie gave me consent already and we're only having a drink in the bar." & then this triggers a wave of 'Katie is a slut' and 'Katie gave me consent her first day on the grid' and 'Katie is a mesbian all they want is TS' - you know, the usual slut-shaming, except now with coded 'proof' that player-of-Katie is DTF.

---

I don't mean to be a pessimist, I just know some of the people I unfortunately roleplay adjacent to; considering the downsides to everything is just a result to that.

[surreality]

@Pandora My main concern is that -- while it's private on the player level?

I have encountered one too many staff members over time that would, with access to such a list, behave in what I could call a questionable manner at best.

It's bad enough that, in this day and age in the hobby, we still have people who think it's OK to page people with presumptive commentary when two people are alone in a room on +where, when arguably they could be doing absolutely anything in there.

Confirmation that two characters are, indeed, sometimes boning? Nnnnnngh.

I like the intent there, and I wish I could say I'm comfortable enough with the community to call it the positive I know it clearly aims to be. If (collective) we were better folks universally, or got rid of the people who abuse this kind of information? It'd be awesome.

[eye8urcake]

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Pandora My main concern is that -- while it's private on the player level?

I have encountered one too many staff members over time that would, with access to such a list, behave in what I could call a questionable manner at best.

A page or so back someone, I forget who, said something about possibly getting a group of people who have had boundary issues in the past and/or who are uncomfortable/anxious about dealing with reporting directly to staff to chime in on this. This particular part of the last post @surreality made has nudged me into speaking up a bit.

I've played on multiple games where the actions and words of staff in response to being asked to mediate in these types of situations have ensured I would never go to them if/when things happened to me in their games. I've played on at least one game where the main bad actor in regards to my issues with speaking up when my boundaries were slapped, beaten, tied and torched was staff. I've seen conversations in Discord that are absolutely the thing of @surreality's nightmares, where complaints made to staff about even heavy-duty 'against policy' OOC shit like sexual harassment and blackmail were fed to the game's server by the staff member that's supposed to adjudicate them for shits and giggles and to mock the people making the complaints with the people that were being reported. I prefer to play without any OOC communication whatsoever, even for consent negotiations because of the sheer number of assholes who think it's somehow okay to perve on me via these channels simply because our stories in a fictional textual game have crossed in some sexual form or other.

If there was a 'tool' that the guidelines of a game called for using de rigeur that let me not have to page/tell to someone who was already making my teeth itch, or not have to interact with, for example, the only staffer online at that moment who happened to be an asshole I knew considered the whole of the playerbase to be on his wank bank's menu, I'd use the hell out of it. I like the idea of a consent command tool better than a rape command tool insofar as normalizing this type of 'checking in' or 'marking' on admin logs because it seems less gross somehow and it seems like it would foster 'consent' becoming habitual within that particular community, with 'rape' being the aberration but beyond this... I've got nothing to add in terms of useful suggestions.

The one thing that gets old in these conversations is the sheer number of people who shrug these things off and want the players who get fucked over to shut the fuck up and go the fuck away simply because they don't ever have these interactions or they, as game runners, don't care to expend more of their precious free time in dealing with them - which is fair, but also why I just don't even try so many of the games I see advertised bc those are the people in charge of them. I'd also postulate that in some cases, at least, this kind of attitude might just be a visible symptom of a greater problem with said games' cultures and why they either dry up and die or end up with a few die hards who get off on doing shitty things to each other enough to suck it up and deal with the shitty things done to them so they can keep their fixes coming.

Before the 'Type quit and close your client then, you whiny bitch,' brigade gets going, I'm going to own that in hindsight, yes, I see that this was definitely what should have been done on those occasions. At the time, though, on each occasion I was playing a PC that I'd put hundreds of hours into, PCs that had leadership roles, PCs that had metaplot/story resting on them with enough weight that at no time did my 'Should I quit, or no?' decision ever feel like it affected me/my game and only me/my game and so, sure, hindsight is 20/20 and I should've just said 'Fuck this shit (and them), I'm out,' but I didn't. I'm not sure I would recognize that I was blundering into the same shit today if I'd put enough time and effort into a game and/or had enough responsibility in my role(s) to other people.

[Apos]

@Pandora Pretty much any command would be a huge cultural shift for the game in how it feels, but a command doesn't have to be on an opt-out.

One approach would be to not put responsibility on the party that feels uncomfortable, with not using a command to duck out in the +Iamreallynotdownwiththis or whatever, but instead to go entirely to a culture of affirmative consent. Say that every scene in public defaults to a PG-rating, and anyone wanting to take it to say, a hard R rating would have to do a command of, +okaytimeforadultcontent and if everyone codedly agrees, it's now an R rating scene and scene keeps going as private/adult/whatever. If they don't all opt-in, scene ends and FTBs, and they then do a handwaved, offscreen synopsis. If contentious, just arbitrated through dice.

I think virtually any kind of coded flagging for adult activity is going to squick at least some people out, because it says the quiet part out loud in a way that can't really be politely ignored very well or code going places where they feel it has no business at all going. There's a lot of really strong reactions to Haven, Firan's sex code and so on, and I think anything coded trying to establish boundaries for consent is going to run into that, as well as people feeling that it just guts the organic feeling of RP and makes something that's freeform and flowing into a mechanical hassle they don't want to deal with. That said, if you are looking for more of a MUD-like vibe of player arbitration to reduce terrible outcomes and prevent creeps from trapping people in miserable and deeply offsetting scenes, I think forcing affirmative consent is a strong avenue. And for a MUD-like, you can do a lot with say, tagging specific grid areas as very clearly having different defaults that are not PG, and or categorize what people are comfortable with. And filter people's 'No, Absolutely Not, Will always FTB if this is in a scene' categories with very awkward degrees of detail.

For staff, I think code like that comes down to whether you're okay with approaches that feel ham-handed, in-organic or controlling, that could scare off anyone that takes a look at commands and decides you're running a sex game and they want absolutely nothing to do with that depending on the degree of the commands and the sensitivity in implementation. Otherwise, it's accepting that creepers will probably pressure the fuck out of people and put the responsibility of saying, "I'm not cool with this" on people that might feel like they should go along with intensely creepy shit because they don't want to feel like they are being dramatic and making a big deal out of someone slowly racheting up the pressure on them, like they have to 20 other people, since boundaries are not clearly defined and consent is just assumed until someone sets their boundaries very clearly.

[Lotherio]

@Apos said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

One approach would be to not put responsibility on the party that feels uncomfortable, with not using a command to duck out in the +Iamreallynotdownwiththis or whatever, but instead to go entirely to a culture of affirmative consent. Say that every scene in public defaults to a PG-rating, and anyone wanting to take it to say, a hard R rating would have to do a command of, +okaytimeforadultcontent and if everyone codedly agrees, it's now an R rating scene and scene keeps going as private/adult/whatever. If they don't all opt-in, scene ends and FTBs, and they then do a handwaved, offscreen synopsis. If contentious, just arbitrated through dice.

I've been at this point on my places lately. All public scenes are PG, any necessity for a public scene to go beyond this should be checked with all parties present to gain consent, otherwise FTB. Secondary, don't post the stuff beyond pg. Cutscenes and FTB are welcome. We'd done that to enforce harassment policy, with at most usually one warning, but leaning towards ban (we usually include coercion in after the fact reporting as warnable; and I do have to assume some reform potential its part of my rl job).

But, the culture of requiring the individual wanting to go beyond PG to initiate the code is intriguing. Something I could easily code in traditional mu softcode but find more difficult to make in like Ares which I've adapted too. I like the idea of placing the burden of acquiring affirmative consent on the individual wishing to initiate adult content.

[Ganymede]

@Lotherio

If you want to make players use a command to enter adult situations, you have to define it. And then we get into the whole Justice Stewart thing again.

[surreality]

@Lotherio I have a few concerns with this approach, but they're no more problematic IMO than any of the other solutions.

The main one is identifying 'adult content'. In the US at least, almost any level of violence can make it in under a PG or PG-13, while anything involving naked parts or the use of more than one instance of the word 'fuck' in a scene* would push it over the limit. Drug use, casual non-graphic discussion of sex, etc. could be issues, or they may not be. You'd basically need to find a way of describing your specific standard for a non-adult scene, since I don't think a film rating approach necessarily works here in a way that would leave everyone on the same page.

The second is just 'there are games that this would work on better than others', but that's a giant 'duh', really.

The big one -- and the first one is pretty big in terms of 'could be a potential nightmare to manage' -- is actually the peer pressure factor. If nine people in the room want the dance party to turn into a mosh pit, and the tenth isn't down for that? Unless there's a seriously important reason for #10 to be there (they're performing the music, they're the bouncer, etc.), there's a lot of pressure on #10 to play along or leave. Personally, I feel in such cases that #10 should leave (barring special circumstances as above) and let the others have their fun, but the other downside of the coin it's possible for one person to hold a whole room hostage with this. Neither of these issues are trivial ones, and there are jerks who will engage in either end of this particular jerkiness in order to manipulate outcomes or out of simple selfishness.

I think a carve-out of 'opt-in only' subject matter is the way to go here, and it isn't too far off from what some places have dipped a toe in for years. The ever-popular (hurk) rape policy is a good example of this one, which is commonly 'don't involve anyone in this on any level whatsoever unless they opt-in'.

I've advocated for a long while about a selection of subjects that would be treated in the same fashion. In part, this is because it's a lot easier to define a list of 'these things require an opt-in' than create an all-purpose list.

Will there always be that asshole that pulls some shit that isn't on the list, and then you have to go add it to the list? Yup, the ingenuity of idiots is one of the true constants of the universe; that's to be expected and is easily addressed with a 'don't be that jackass that makes us add to this list' tacked onto the top/bottom/in flashing scrolling marquee/whatever else.

• This may sound bonkers, but I have actually run across a player or two that has major issues with language. Not just 'slur language' as has been discussed on the forum lately and is understandably a concern, but any sort of profanity/etc.

[Lotherio]

@Ganymede @surreality Curse this thing you all call logic!

Opt-in is good too. I'm just uncertain where to bring legitimacy to support the potential victim and/or person too shy.

Personally I've always been able to walk away and 'nope' an idea I didn't like. If I didn't want in the violent mosh pit scene (though most mosh pits as pointed out elsewhere doen't involve elbows and broken noses), I pose my character out of it, let the room have its fun. If someone wanted to do something with my char I didn't like and it was optional, I opt out, if there was an ICC (I broke into the building, the police came to tazer me) I was comfortable FTB with discussion on results.

As staff, I have personally dealt with the 'they did this thing after I asked a few times to not do it and showed my disinterest, but they got me to through coercion and other tactics as noted in this thread and others just the more it settles a few days later, the more squicky it feels', more than once but in recent years (and I tend to have open code still when I do pennmush, there was some code shenanigans involving @locks and such, which made me feel bad about the situation more so than usual).

I do like the selection of subjects option, like the prefs/squicks on most adult places but extended to include general topics of RP that are on/off or need consent. With policy to indicate one player needs consent if they intent to cross a line on someone's no-subject line list. Just, again, the too timid/guild ridden/blamed/etc. to speak up potential victim vs. the coercion and how to help get around those to be more open with a feeling of safe environment.

If there ever is a good system to help, I'll know it when I see it (too soon?).

[Ghost]

I think a big part of the problem here is that there's no real right of way. The person who wants to opt-out of specific content often still wants the scene to progress; they dont want to STOP roleplaying, but instead want the content to fit within their guidelines. However, for people wanting specific content, there's an unspoken line where that's reasonable, but they dont feel like they should be forced to alter their preferred content to the whims of other okayers.

In short, there's a reasonable factor that someone playing vampires wants sex, blood, and rock and roll isnt truly required to alter their content because some player doesn't want to do that, but doesn't want to be left out of roleplay.

Opt-in is a great idea, but it only works under the assumption that players will accept being left out of scenes that they dont opt-into. RP on a MU isnt an entitlement. You can make the argument that in a perfect world everyone is welcoming and wants everyone' input, but the reality is that some games/scenes just aren't what a particular player is looking for and it isnt everyone else's responsibility to change for them.

This is why I dont play on Shang and avoided some other games.

[surreality]

@Lotherio I think Echoes is using some of the stuff I wrote up about consent subjects. They've tweaked it a lot, but if you want an example of what I'm talking about, peek here:

http://portland.echoes.wiki/MUX:Policy#Consent

[Auspice]

@Ghost said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Opt-in is a great idea, but it only works under the assumption that players will accept being left out of scenes that they dont opt-into. RP on a MU isnt an entitlement. You can make the argument that in a perfect world everyone is welcoming and wants everyone' input, but the reality is that some games/scenes just aren't what a particular player is looking for and it isnt everyone else's responsibility to change for them.

Honestly, opt-in is how it should be. It's why I always put warnings on my +events if there might be triggering topics. It's how I feel games, scenes, spheres- whatever! should be.

You make the choice to walk in through the door.

Opt-out is a whole other bag and it's a negative vs a positive.

Opt-in is the positive: 'we're all here to engage in the same thing, yay!'

Opt-out is the negative: 'I have decided I don't like this and I want everyone else to stop and cater to me.'

And most of our 'errrrrrrr-' uncertainties center around the opt-out options. X-card-type deals, reporting, etc. Because they can be abused. They can be manipulative. And they cut into that all-important thing: fun. They turn entire games into being about 'my fun' vs 'our fun'

whereas opt-in can be both my and our fun.

If I swan into a scene and part-way through decide I don't like that the demon is attacking my character and it makes her seem like a victim and Suzie Glitterpunch is NOT A VICTIM, I just throw down the opt-out and.......... oh. ST has to change things. Other players have to change things. And then everyone wars with: is she opting out because it's truly triggering? Is she opting out because she felt like she was losing? Is she opting out because she didn't like the way the scene was going?

We fuss and worry over what might get people whispering and it's opt-outs. Because yes, they should be no questions asked, but: people are always gonna wonder. Because there's a whole spectrum of stuff that can trigger someone and some of it is surprisingly tame. And just like there's OMG EVIL NEFARIOUS STAFFERS LURKING AROUND EVERY CORNER .... there's also abusive players who have it in their head that their PCs can do no wrong, can never lose, and must always be seen in a positive light. hell I've encountered more of those than I have evil Staffers.

So my vote, for any proposals, any systems, any whatever: opt-in. Make it player choice/agency as to whether they want to join something and once they're in, they're in. And before the 'but what if something happens that wasn't on the-' Then that's a whole other bag of tricks. That's completely different. That's the same as if a plot is labeled 'Low Risk' and you go in and find out it's 'High Risk, Probable Death' partway through. That's on the ST, that's viable reason to call an all-stop and have a discussion or just fucking leave.

Make an opt-in. Make people running scenes, plots, writing shit for the game, etc., label their stuff clearly.

[Ganymede]

@Auspice said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Make an opt-in. Make people running scenes, plots, writing shit for the game, etc., label their stuff clearly.

What's the default level of play?

If you have an opt-in, there has to be some expectation of baseline play. What is that baseline? What if baseline RP naturally progresses into a kind of RP that requires an opt-in, but the players involved forget about using the right command and barrel on in?

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Auspice said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Make an opt-in. Make people running scenes, plots, writing shit for the game, etc., label their stuff clearly.

What's the default level of play?

If you have an opt-in, there has to be some expectation of baseline play. What is that baseline? What if baseline RP naturally progresses into a kind of RP that requires an opt-in, but the players involved forget about using the right command and barrel on in?

tbh, for casual RP between two players? I wouldn't want any sort of special commands.

We're adults. I'd like to treat my players as adults who can communicate between one another what they're comfortable with.

'Hey this scene is going towards TS and I prefer FTB. Can we fast forward to the morning after?'
vs
oh before they pose again lemme trigger the opt-in command and make sure I put NO ...

Yeesh.

Most of what I view for this sort of thing are PRPs, events, etc. Things wherein you're going to have a larger group and there's a certain level of non-consent-based RP going on (even on consent games, an ST'd scene removes some level of full agency for the sake of storytelling).

But, I believe opt-in begins at creation, at 'ACCEPT' (if your game has such a stage). Lay out what your game is about, the 'rating' it may have, the sort of things people can expect to run into.

[Kanye Qwest]

Hi!

One time I banned someone from Arx for sexist behaviour and had to endure some really stupid pages from another player insisting that person was not sexist, they were just acerbic. To EVERYONE, you see? Equal opportunity jerk, and it was probably an overreaction on my part /the part of the players reporting him.

To which I said 'I discussed this behaviour with him and he acknowledged it was sexist but said he didn't think it was a big deal, so thanks info but maybe also don't devil's advocate'.

A lot of men aren't sexist until they experience a challenge to their presumed authority. The vast majority of people are pretty cool as long as they are getting their way.

So while I think a no-discussion-needed system for people to not be pushed out of their personal comfort zones is good, I couldn't care less about convincing third parties.

[Ganymede]

@Auspice said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

tbh, for casual RP between two players? I wouldn't want any sort of special commands.

We're adults. I'd like to treat my players as adults who can communicate between one another what they're comfortable with.

To pull the conversation back to where we started, though, I thought we were mulling over commands that may assist people in communicating the breach or existence of a personal boundary.

I will admit to being lackadaisical in following this discussion.