@Ghost said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
"A player in this scene has pressed the X-Card. Please either FTB, end the scene, or continue without the following element(s): <string>"
Won't this provoke more anxiety?
Think about it. What if you're in a scene with more than a handful of people? The other players may be confused about why <string> is so distasteful, but they don't know who pulled the card out so they cannot converse with the card-puller. So they have to publicly lodge a request for staff to get to the bottom of things. And that seems reasonable.
But what if staff isn't around? What if it is impossible to continue without that element? I can see why other players would be kind of pissed: in their opinion, play has stopped for no good reason and they cannot escape without obviating the RP as a whole or waiting until a staff member finally shows up.
But what about the card-puller? Although no one should feel responsible for what makes them uncomfortable, I can see how this would make an anxious person feel terrible about themselves because they are the ones stopping play.
I'm uncertain if this actually solves the problem; rather I can see it exacerbating it. All it takes is for one nimrod to make some dry comment about "snowflakes" or something stupid like that, and faith in the system erodes.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
Come on already with this nonsense.
Which is exactly how I feel about this entire topic.
But cool. You're right. Discuss amongst yourselves. I will absolutely not be implementing this, and I advise others to do the same. I don't have much more to add here.
For the record? I'm fine with you disagreeing with me on this. There's multiple schools of thought, and not every idea is the right idea. Not even the most popular idea is the most well-thought-out idea. I wouldn't think less of you for not implementing this.
@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
Then stop participating in it.
What this topic is about is right there on the tin, after all. Why are you here discussing it if it's not for you?
Is the complexity of the problem becoming clearer to you?
Look, I 
you and all, but you have basically been equally refusing to engage in discourse and just telling people that if they don't agree with you they're bad and wrong when I have what I feel are legitimate concerns about this system, and I do not want it to see widespread use as yet another tool for manipulative assholes to use to try and control others.
But we don't want to actually talk about that, because every solution comes back to "YOU HAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER PEOPLE", which this tool expressly bypasses -- and that is its whole intention.
Is the complexity of the problem becoming clearer to YOU?
Just because someone doesn't agree with your solution doesn't mean that their wrong, or bad, or that they don't deserve a place in the discourse that you insist this tool is not a means to replace.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
you have basically been equally refusing to engage in discourse and just telling people that if they don't agree with you they're bad and wrong
Citation please. Actual direct quote required. Not 'what you're reading into things', not what you assume are my motives or reasoning. Find where I said this 'throughout the whole conversation' and quote this endless stream of repetitive commentary.
@Ganymede You may be right. Its just an idea.
But really, at some point people have to take responsibility for their social anxieties in terms of understanding that people can't preamble every scene or action with miles and miles of digital signatures and pausing to ask ooc approval for every pose. Likewise, people have to take some responsibility for their content and how they implement it; players cannot predict every single action, but they should be able to hit the pause button.
If someone is belittling someone for pressing the xcard, then they need to go. Not because they're not following policy, but because they're belittling someone. You and I RPed plenty and if at any time I was uncomfortable you wouldn't have made me feel small. GOOD PEOPLE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE BUT AT LEAST CAN BE RESPECTFUL.
I worry more about how people are treating each other at the dinner table than I do whether or not they think my casserole is amazing.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ghost said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
I worry more about how people are treating each other at the dinner table than I do whether or not they think my casserole is amazing.
Yes, but getting people to treat each other better at the table takes more than adding an extra fork or spoon to each setting. People may tolerate the lack of napkins if your casserole is damn good, but good guests are hard to come by.
That tortured analogy aside, I surmise that many players aren't going to fully understand the +xcard function or motivations initially, so there will be belittling and there will be teasing because: (1) this happens in social settings, regardless; (2) this happens often where people are relatively anonymous; and (3) this happens more often where people have social issues.
I wish I knew of a panacea to make people feel more comfortable on games, but at this moment I don't. I support tools to report bad players, but I'm not so sure I support tools which are calculated to terminate forms of role-play due to a player's personal experiences. It's impossible to predict with any efficacy what will set anyone off, and even more so on games which are clearly by design meant to cater to "darker" topics.
WoD games used to have things like +rpprefs which would alert others to what RP you want your PC to engage in. Maybe that's all we can do insofar as "personal agency" in setting your personal boundaries for others not to cross. If there were a clear policy along the lines of "set your prefs and respect others' prefs" I would certainly get behind it. And since we have done it before, we aren't re-inventing the wheel.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
WoD games used to have things like +rpprefs which would alert others to what RP you want your PC to engage in. Maybe that's all we can do insofar as "personal agency" in setting your personal boundaries for others not to cross. If there were a clear policy along the lines of "set your prefs and respect others' prefs" I would certainly get behind it. And since we have done it before, we aren't re-inventing the wheel.
I wanted to add something.
Maybe we ought to add in our character applications a little section where people can inform staff as to RP that they do not want to experience or be a part of. I'm thinking about the Arx thread and the post which triggered trauma in a player. I don't intend to victim-blame at all, and the section should not have to explain why that RP makes the player uncomfortable, but that little section might at least give staff a heads-up as to what might be inappropriate in a game-wide setting.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
Maybe we ought to add in our character applications a little section where people can inform staff as to RP that they do not want to experience or be a part of. I'm thinking about the Arx thread and the post which triggered trauma in a player. I don't intend to victim-blame at all, and the section should not have to explain why that RP makes the player uncomfortable, but that little section might at least give staff a heads-up as to what might be inappropriate in a game-wide setting.
...until when? You have a massive list of stuff that people aren't allowed to engage in and everyone must completely memorize?
This is the problem with universal vs individual. Individual has a crazy ability to aggregate and require tracking and ...
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@Ganymede This (as the public-facing prefs list), a list of 'consent required' subject matter, +warn (to advise of consequences before someone proceeds/continues with something that would have negative consequences for them), plot/story content labeling, and 'staff will enforce consequences as appropriate to the game world in consultation with the affected player(s) if necessary' is what I personally advocate and would use.
@Ganymede You may be right. It's not like rpprefs kept instances from taking place, and I'm sure there are some instances of stating "not looking for TS" made it hard for some players to find RP.
Yanno, side thought? I kind of feel like, in some baseline way, the concept of player expectations (in terms of participation expectations) is important to this topic.
Theres an unspoken expectation that if a player joins a game that they will be included. There is an unspoken expectation that if something makes them feel excluded that a game/player/staff will work to accommodate to assist in them feeling included. In reality, though, that's really a nicety and not an entitlement on any game. To a point, you're on your own.
My gut tells me that this concept applies to some degree in this whole thread.
@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
...until when? You have a massive list of stuff that people aren't allowed to engage in and everyone must completely memorize?
It's not about "allowed to engage in"; it's about giving staff some heads-up about what might really hurt someone. And if staff has some idea of what might really hurt, they could also tell the player before approval that the game is probably not for them.
@Ghost said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
You may be right. It's not like rpprefs kept instances from taking place, and I'm sure there are some instances of stating "not looking for TS" made it hard for some players to find RP.
Probably. But putting it up front means you can bar someone from engaging in that kind of RP with you. And if that means you don't get the RP, then maybe the game isn't for you.
As Derp has said multiple times since time in memoriam, not every game is for everyone. That's a truism. And I concur that there is an expectation that if a player makes a character that staff can and will bend over backwards to have them included. That is just not the case anywhere.
And this is what I think backgrounds are for. I couldn't give two shits about why you are a world-class fencer and bourbon distiller, but I really would like to know if your concept and RP preferences are ill-suited for the blood-orgy Vampire game I'm running.
@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
Maybe we ought to add in our character applications a little section where people can inform staff as to RP that they do not want to experience or be a part of. I'm thinking about the Arx thread and the post which triggered trauma in a player. I don't intend to victim-blame at all, and the section should not have to explain why that RP makes the player uncomfortable, but that little section might at least give staff a heads-up as to what might be inappropriate in a game-wide setting.
...until when? You have a massive list of stuff that people aren't allowed to engage in and everyone must completely memorize?
This is the problem with universal vs individual. Individual has a crazy ability to aggregate and require tracking and ...
This is why I think the focus should be on a scene-only basis where expectations of the WAY people choose to communicate.
You can't list or slate every situation like some kind of blacklist. Even in IT the problem with a blacklist is that you have to keep adding lines to it when something new happens. So I think it needs to be treated more like in-play football. Make a set of rules for expected in-play behavior.
If I ran a game I'd be more concerned about someone talking shit mid-scene or harassing another person than I would be concerned about making sure I marked "Iran-Contra-themed scenes are now verboten"
@Derp You said you were done. Are you not a man of your WORD?
I just want to know why it bothers him SO MUCH that people are talking about addressing this issue. Like cool, he doesn't want the people who need a tool like this on his game, but there are plenty of games that actually do?
@Kanye-Qwest Cmon. Derp is being respectful. If they're not done I'm fine with them continuing so long as they stay above line.
This is in the mildly constructive thread for a reason; if you don't have anything mildly constructive to add ('Fuck this idea, fuck this discussion, I'm out and you should be out too!' is not constructive, useful, polite, positive, affirmative, or any other positive word other than adamant) then please kindly see yourself out. No one here is obligated to like any idea posted here, the point is to come up with ideas and see what might help. No coded tool will be a 100% effective solution, the same way no policy has ever been a 100% effective solution, but damn if I'm not heartened to see people trying to bridge the gap. I might not be the friendliest or most sober member of this community, but I do appreciate you people, or I wouldn't be here.
you can be disrespectful while writing things respectfully. it's like how everyone dogpiled on faraday when she started talking about wanting to make a new MU* codebase with more web integration. she asked for opinions on doing that, but instead, everyone was like 'oh god you shouldn't do this at all it's horrible'. and sorry, that's not a respectful way to interact with a topic about ways to implement it.
#FreeFarfalla
@Sunny said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
I just want to know why it bothers him SO MUCH that people are talking about addressing this issue. Like cool, he doesn't want the people who need a tool like this on his game, but there are plenty of games that actually do?
I think on some level it's not insane to worry about misuse of social control mechanisms baked into a game or its code. I think it's reasonable to be concerned. Granted, I happen to be of the opinion that that xcard system I suggested would help identify bad actors on both sides, but three+ people have questioned how to protect people from its misuse. Misuse (and whether or not every place/player can be trusted to use concepts like this in good faith) is a concern.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:
you have basically been equally refusing to engage in discourse and just telling people that if they don't agree with you they're bad and wrong
Citation please. Actual direct quote required. Not 'what you're reading into things', not what you assume are my motives or reasoning. Find where I said this 'throughout the whole conversation' and quote this endless stream of repetitive commentary.
