Emotional separation from fictional content
-
This thread is so strange. I see multiple people talking straight past each other and basically reading the worst possible versions of what people are saying. I feel like everyone here is already basically agreeing that communication of potentially triggering themes -- for the major expected triggers, come on, we all know we can't do content warnings about every potential trigger ever, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to hit the major common ones -- is a good thing. And that having methods of communicating that on both sides (player and GM) is even better.
And yet I've seen people on this thread basically misreading stuff to be like, "You're saying that I'm a terrible person because I don't want to put up an outline of my entire plot!!!" I don't know. I feel like people are not so far apart on this as it seems to have come about in this thread. Yes, we all know no one can warn for everything. We all know that things come up via GM improv. Obviously there is no foolproof system. The idea of having a basic content warning for major specific themes that you know are going to be in your plot seems pretty simple and easy. The idea of being able to list major triggers you have and want to avoid in RP player-side also seems pretty simple and easy.
It sounds like there are some GMs on this thread who have basically developed systems of their own that they have used successfully, which is great. I mean, people being thoughtful and deliberate about making effort to keep folks comfortable with the RP they're engaging in is really the main point. I don't think people are so far apart on this as it seems.
-
@Roz I think that's a fairly accurate assessment.
@Thenomain touched on it briefly, but I think part of the impassioned response to this topic is somewhat self-defense in nature, like an emotionally guarding response to protecting oneself against the dangers of triggering content and the uncomfortable feelings that may come from the onus being placed onto them to maintain objectivity.
Accidental tripwire to some, thoughtless attack to others.
-
@Roz said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
And yet I've seen people on this thread basically misreading stuff to be like, "You're saying that I'm a terrible person because I don't want to put up an outline of my entire plot!!!" I don't know. I feel like people are not so far apart on this as it seems to have come about in this thread.
And that's one of the reasons we need threads like this. Think of it this way - if we can't avoid such miscommunications or taking things personally here, where we're in an emotional vacuum since nothing has actually happened we're already upset by, and where we're just talking about it from a theoretical point of view, how worse is it usually when this thing comes up in games between players who might not be in good terms (or any terms) with each other, burdened by perceived agendas ('he's Invictus, of course he wants to screw me over') and already triggered by whatever's happening?
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
People need to read the MU-style policies and EULA things.
Although I still do think these need to exist I'm dubious about them doing anything. Most of the time they're just a wiki page very few people will ever read or even just glance at.
Culture is shaped on a day to day basis primarily by the tone staff gives their game through their actions and their inaction.
-
@Roz said:
This thread is so strange. I see multiple people talking straight past each other and basically reading the worst possible versions of what people are saying.
I believe that I've seen this in "conversations" between staff and players, players and players, hell even staff and staff on games before. Lesson: Passionate opinion almost invariably leads to stagnant thinking about it, and closes the mind to new opinions or thoughts. You see it every day.
But my point here is that this is the crux of why people get kicked off of games, in a lot of cases. Two different viewpoints, both talking past each other and eventually someone steps over a policy/polite line and gets booted.
As to policies themselves, yeah they have to exist for when they are needed in disciplinary conversations. However, no, I don't think that they are applied until that happens. People chase their passionate opinion and end up crossing a line, and I think that they choose to cross that line to prove whatever point they have. Yes, there are the occasional assholes just trying to be disruptive, but they never last long (like trolls on a forum). People go activist, is all. Which, to me, means that this position of theirs isn't their usual, day-to-day position/attitude/voice, it has simply "come to a head" with them and they needed to stand their ground on whatever it was.
-
@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Although I still do think these need to exist I'm dubious about them doing anything. Most of the time they're just a wiki page very few people will ever read or even just glance at.
While I'm not of the way some companies hide behind dreadful EULA's and "I ACCEPT" statements, I think they apply.
By clicking +accept, a player is stating that they have read and have agreed to the policies and behaviors of a game. While it doesn't help much in the heat of the moment, it is entirely fair game for staff to note that they +agreed to the policies and rule on behalf of them.
Whether or not they took the time to read them or take them to heart (or memory) isn't the fault of every other staffer or player on the game.
Blah blah blah fuck it I don't care; let me make a character already.
Crude wording for the moment? It isn't the purpose of the game to entitle players to a place to roleplay without agreeing to certain behaviors. Fuck off with your policies and let me play already might get you through to CGen more quickly, but once you're on the game, that lack of care taken towards policies might be a big part of the problem.
Game is fun. Game is what we want. Game should not be placed in front of proper behavior for many good reasons.
-
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
While I'm not of the way some companies hide behind dreadful EULA's and "I ACCEPT" statements, I think they apply.
I hate saying @Coin is right because, come on, but he had a point earlier in the thread when he said some games are pretty much guaranteed to contain certain sensitive themes by definition - Changeling to involve kidnapping and stalking, Vampire to portray addiction, objectification or mental influence, etc. They are in fact such intrisic part of the material you probably don't even need to ask players to +agree such things might happen on the grid since of course they will! You can (and should) have FTB, you can even have strict levels of consent so they don't happen to your character but they will absolutely exist in the MU*.
Even so people get into hot waters - not can, they do, we've all seen it. I'm not talking about Juerg-level shit but just normal playing the game as written, someone will treat their ghoul as an object rather than a human being with feelings and ambitions of their own and... boom.
At that point it's not an answer to remind them it's what they signed up for; they know. The reason it's not an answer is we're not robots, we're not trying to shred responsibility here - in fact, to address @mietze, I'd say that's a hefty word, and that it's not necessarily the Storyteller's 'responsibility' past a certain point to ensure this doesn't happen, or at least to be able to point at some point in time - where that player typed +accept, or where they joined the +event even after tags were in place or... anything - and go "well, it's your fault".
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. I think looking for that is wrong in the first place because really, who cares? Knowing it's my fault for playing or yours for not warning me doesn't fix anything. What matters is trying to somehow mitigate the problem (we can't eliminate it) and give everyone the tools to avoid stepping lightly around each other. Or... after something does go awry to make sure staff at least recognizes their role in all of it, and not try to overreact either by swingin' the old banhammer around wildly or by dismissing an upset, hurt person's feelings as improper.
I am not a therapist, I don't know what's best for someone who's struggling with certain things, but I do know I'd like to help not make it worse for them - if I can. But they do need to meet me halfway for that.
-
@Roz
That's sort of how I feel about the thread. I'm not suggesting that an ST list a major trigger as being part of their intended scene to take the onus of 'therapist' onto their shoulders, but to sort of open that door of communication.To say 'I know this maybe a potential issue, so I want to make sure you are forewarned and prepared. So you know that if this will be an issue, that this isn't the plot for you.' and so that people that don't know you also know, in the future, that you're probably pretty open-minded to talk to if, say, something comes up someday (perhaps on a future plot) that they struggle with. It puts the sign on the door that says 'My door is open, I'm cool. You may not need it today, but it's there the day you do.'
So that next week, when you run the scene without a warning, but midway through something totally different irks them (maybe they're having a clash with another player and unsure how to handle it), they feel that extra layer of comfort reaching out to ask 'Hey, can I get your help resolving this?'.
We stress and stress and stress and stress communication here and a lot of what I keep seeing on this thread is well the other person needs to come to me, first.
...which is kind of a failure to communicate, itself. I don't give a fuck how awesome you think you are, if you're new on a game, Bob has no clue whatsoever if you're someone he can actually sit down and work something out with.
-
@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
These two statements articulate very well why I am so resistant to the suggestions by @surreality and others to put the onus on the plot/game runners.
I will repeat for, what, jesus, the fifth time? Everyone has a part to play in this, the players included.
There would not be the option for people to list preferences I described (and actually built) to go along with that idea if players did not have a vital part to play in this to make note of their interests•, and in the things they are not interested in doing at all.
By clicking a checkbox to indicate a plan, or likely potential for, a short list of commonly problematic subjects -- which is all I'm suggesting any GM be asked to do here -- you are giving people notice so they can take responsibility for managing themselves and their own reactions.
For these kinds of subjects, yeah, I do think it's on the game to say something about them, somewhere. I think the example statement you included is just fine.
Am I writing more than that? Yeah, but I think it's obvious enough by now that I'm wordy as heck by default just as a me thing, and I actually have a few other things going on policy-wise that are sometimes relevant based on subject matter. For instance, there's a list of subjects on the game that will always require consent to do to, or attempt to do to, another PC (this is stuff like IC physical intimacy, rape, pregnancy/miscarriage, acts against sexual preference, and so on -- things that we really should generally not be forcing on others who aren't interested in exploring that with the person who wants to do so with them, in my opinion). Yeah, I gotta list those; I also feel I should explain why a subject is included.
As an example, the original setup also includes 'no forced template changes', as it was created for a WoD setup. It is entirely possible for this to happen without a player's consent -- you can actually get sucked into a sphere -- and if you already have an alt in that sphere, well, you are now in the unfun position of being required to give up one of your characters completely due to the common structure of alt rules, and the only say you potentially get is 'which one'. That, frankly, blows if you didn't plan for it or weren't interested in getting into that, and there's no IC reason one of those characters is simply vanishing into the ether, it's a case of common game policy coming into conflict with itself in a way that can suck for the player.
I also think it's important to note why not every subject someone might mention is going to be included, why any things are like this at all, etc. This is actually a little closer to some of the subjects @Ghost mentions later, or at least there's a lot of overlap in this list with the RP dynamics in which they emerge. But a lot of what I'm looking at is like this: it's a 'whole game' approach.
Do I think everybody needs to do this or go to this level of detail? Pfft, no. Foolproof? Hahahaha no, because, again, nothing is. Things that can potentially help reduce a measure of drama, give people a clear, policy-and-staff supported means of saying: no, that is not something I am comfortable with and I am not interested in doing that, other than just FTB (which isn't infallible; some things, often intimate things, leave people with a character they are no longer comfortable playing when the lights flick back on again).
- This is also intended to be a tool for people looking for like minds to explore certain subject matter with, and a great tool for staff and GMs to see the kinds of stories players do or do not want to see among the current active playerbase. Nobody wants exploration scenes? Then don't spend a week planning and getting ready to run that, everybody wants raids instead, so write up a good raid. There's only three other people who like exploration? Get in touch with those people and see if you can do something with them for that. And so on. I would love to have this information as a GM to save me some time and maximize the fun I can create for others on the game, and I'd love to have it as a player to know who loves underwater basket weaving so I can get in touch with them and we can get our underwater basket weaving groove on even if absolutely nobody else on the game could possibly give a crap about underwater basket weaving.
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
@Thenomain touched on it briefly, but I think part of the impassioned response to this topic is somewhat self-defense in nature, like an emotionally guarding response to protecting oneself against the dangers of triggering content and the uncomfortable feelings that may come from the onus being placed onto them to maintain objectivity.
Accidental tripwire to some, thoughtless attack to others.
Here's the problem: it's neither.
The way you are putting this, it is coming across -- to me, at least -- like so: "If you think any combination of circumstances might at any time cause you to lose objectivity, you are not welcome here."
But you, yourself, are not approaching this issue from a position of objectivity. Nobody is. It's just that some of the assumptions here are a little more transparent -- it's about 'protecting oneself' only, about protecting oneself from 'discomfort', etc. You've continued to conflate other issues that, while emotional and important to handle with maturity, are not the same.
I keep saying they're not the same because they aren't the same.
Being sad is simply not the same thing as having something appear that triggers a flashback. Not feeling like you're included in the group enough this week is not the same thing as triggering a panic attack. Stop thinking in terms of the pop culture definition of 'trigger' as 'something that made me feel my own feels' (<dodgeball>"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!"</dodgeball> <cough>), because that is not the reality you're actually dealing with here. (Yeah, you're going to have to explain that to countless folks who inhabit the strange corners of tumblr sometimes, too. "No, Quyzzylynne Millenialyx, being sad that you didn't get your wish granted is not the same as having a panic attack or flashback.")
This is like the difference between eating food that gives you gas and bloating or the runs, vs. eating something that causes anaphylactic shock. Treatment for these things is not the same, because these things are not the same, and the risks associated with these things are not the same. Sure, I'd take a bad case of the runs over anaphylaxis any day, but I don't get to pick. Nobody does. And that's why demanding someone that has anaphylaxis must behave as though they're just bloated and gassy is not only not a solution, it's either uninformed or insulting, and it's also potentially dangerous. That's essentially the attitude you're taking, here.
Let's take this analogy further: say you know you have a food allergy that could cause this to occur. Like everybody else, you have stuff that doesn't agree with you, but you have a food allergy that could potentially cause anaphylactic shock. We see the same kind of warnings as the one you're proposing on menus all the time, sometimes posted on the front of the restaurant before you even go in the door. There's a warning on the menu that tells you: fish and shellfish are prepared in our kitchens. If you have a strong enough allergy to fish and shellfish, even if you don't eat them, you may choose to avoid that restaurant. Let's say, though, it's a restaurant that's actually known for it's beef and chicken BBQ. That's its primary draw and what it specializes in, and they only have one fish item on the menu.
Do you still avoid the restaurant?
And then there's another note on the menu, one we're likely all also familiar with, mentioning how, specifically, uncooked or undercooked meat or fish or eggs may cause illness, usually right alongside the steaks and the descriptions of what they mean by rare, medium, and well-done. You're still allowed to order the rare, they offer the rare, but they're still telling you: there are risks associated with ordering this, be advised, and giving you the opportunity to make up your own mind about the risks you're going to take.
Even as someone without a food allergy to worry about -- do you not order the rare? Do you just order something that isn't steak instead? That's ultimately up to you, because there are more options than just rare steak to be had on the menu, and you can order any of those other things and enjoy them just fine. There's just a known risk associated with the rare steak that the restaurant wants you to be aware of before you proceed with your order.
It's a fairly broad standard to list a standardized risk level or specific types of risks to the character in a game on any plot or event. We already accept this as a part of the culture.
We do this because it gives the players -- who are ultimately more important than characters, and aren't replaceable like characters are -- the agency to choose: is this a risk I want to take? And we consider that to be important, and valid.
It makes the entire situation here a baffling exercise in cognitive dissonance to me.
Players are ultimately more important than characters.
We recognize a need to label risk to characters for individual plots to provide players with the agency to choose whether or not to engage with that potential risk.Why, then, does the idea of labeling an individual plots being labeled with potential risks to the players so they can do the very same thing -- choose whether or not to engage with that potential risk -- seem anything but a complete reasonable measure to consider?
Instead, it's all 'get the fuck out of my hobby if you can't demonstrate flawless grace, poise, and self-control in the midst of that unexpected seizure, go play some tennis.' Seriously? No. Fuck that idea.
-
To be clear, absolutely clear--I am in no way opposed to content warnings, and I apply them in every scene I run whether or not the game requires it.
My opposition is only to the express idea that we could or should put into place a system that removes any expectation of personal communication between players, because some people with triggers don't ever want to have to disclose they have them because they are so avoidant.
I do not care if there's a coded +triggers thing; though I don't have much faith given how many players across all genres neglect to keep things like +info updated as time goes on, that it would be super helpful where it's most needed.
I do very much care about a stated attempt that there should be no expectation of direct communication between people doing a prp or other scene together. I do think it is kind of a paper shield, because if at the start of a spontaneous or last minute scene, if I scene runner pull my +trigger command and see that there is one person that has "please no mention of suicide" in the anonymous feedback response and I say "tonight for this cop scene you will be encountering an apparent suicide" and that person leaves then here then their expectation of total anonymity is destroyed too, and I'd worry if no one leaves that it means I have an extremely avoidant person here now that will not say anything at all but will be damaged.
I really do not at all see why the problem with blind, no communication strategies in dealing with player discomfort is so hard for people to see. I think it encourages terrible habits and game culture. And I would not feel safe playing on a place that actively encourages people to think that personal communication about issues in scenes is optional, rather than expected.
-
@Roz said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
And yet I've seen people on this thread basically misreading stuff to be like, "You're saying that I'm a terrible person because I don't want to put up an outline of my entire plot!!!" I don't know. I feel like people are not so far apart on this as it seems to have come about in this thread.
It's easy to talk past people and misinterpret what they are saying when there is too much being said for a person to get a quick, cogent understanding.
I'm watching and listening, but I've elected not to engage, even to clarify others' good points.
-
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Let's take this analogy further: say you know you have a food allergy that could cause this to occur. Like everybody else, you have stuff that doesn't agree with you, but you have a food allergy that could potentially cause anaphylactic shock. We see the same kind of warnings as the one you're proposing on menus all the time, sometimes posted on the front of the restaurant before you even go in the door. There's a warning on the menu that tells you: fish and shellfish are prepared in our kitchens. If you have a strong enough allergy to fish and shellfish, even if you don't eat them, you may choose to avoid that restaurant. Let's say, though, it's a restaurant that's actually known for it's beef and chicken BBQ. That's its primary draw and what it specializes in, and they only have one fish item on the menu.
Do you still avoid the restaurant?
I think the issue here is that it's not a restaurant. It's a back-yard BBQ people are offering for free to all comers. The implication is that anyone can come and have something and they'll try to not put peanuts in any of the food, or warn if they do, but there's only so far they're willing to go... so if someone has a peanut allergy they should stick to the back ribs.
So while we're all mostly agreeing there should be some form of communication - maybe it's a sign "May Contain Peanuts" over the salad, or the cook saying "hey, if you have any allergies ask me about the food before you have some" - we're still trying to figure out how to do this right. More so since some of the cooks really fucking like their peanuts and put them in everything, even the back-ribs sauce.
-
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
The way you are putting this, it is coming across -- to me, at least -- like so: "If you think any combination of circumstances might at any time cause you to lose objectivity, you are not welcome here."
But you, yourself, are not approaching this issue from a position of objectivity. Nobody is.I don't think that that is an entirely accurate, or fair, assessment. I think plenty of people are being plenty objective on the topic, without resorting to taking it to the personal arena or losing their temper.
So let's turn it down a notch, please?
I think the food allergy analogy actually works pretty well.
When someone with a food allergy goes into a restaurant and sits at the table with an epi-pen, a lot of things happen. They:
- inform the staff that they have a serious food allergy and may go into shock if the slightest drop of peanut oil is cooked in with their food
- tell the server that the staff has to cook an entirely fresh batch of food
- need to find a pan in the back that hasn't been cooked with at all that night
- need to prepare their food on a cutting board in which no peanuts had touched that day
- serve the food to them and be very careful because if the customer gets sick or dies because a drop of peanut oil forced them to go into shock.
I'm sure using this analogy, the person with the food allergy might believe that they're an excited customer taking on all of the risks to try this wonderful food!
However, they're also stepping into a restaurant and directing traffic, seeding all kinds of risk that most people would want to avoid, and whether or not the customer is assuming the risk, they're also assuming that the restaurant is willing to assume the risk of lawsuit if some kind of mistake is made. Now making their meal becomes an actual life or death task, and the other customers in the restaurant get to wait and see whether or not they get some mid-meal death/shock action with their dining experience.
Now, I am sympathetic to people with food allergies, even violent ones, and it must be very hard to work with, but when customers do this in restaurants, it's not that the customer is assuming all of the risk. They're introducing the risk, to themselves and others, and have decided that since they're willing to accept the risks, then the other people present should be willing to accept the risks on their behalf.
Just because guy with peanut allergy wants to assume the risk to eat at my Chinese restaurant doesn't mean that I'm required to be in any way okay with the discomfort that comes with cooking a meal that may inadvertently poison someone and get my business sued.
Mistakes happen, but when peanut allergy guy decides that it's going to be a risky night, the expectation is that you will not make a mistake on their behalf.
-
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Let's take this analogy further: say you know you have a food allergy that could cause this to occur. Like everybody else, you have stuff that doesn't agree with you, but you have a food allergy that could potentially cause anaphylactic shock. We see the same kind of warnings as the one you're proposing on menus all the time, sometimes posted on the front of the restaurant before you even go in the door. There's a warning on the menu that tells you: fish and shellfish are prepared in our kitchens. If you have a strong enough allergy to fish and shellfish, even if you don't eat them, you may choose to avoid that restaurant. Let's say, though, it's a restaurant that's actually known for it's beef and chicken BBQ. That's its primary draw and what it specializes in, and they only have one fish item on the menu.
Do you still avoid the restaurant?
YES.
I could say more, but I'm done being ranted and sworn at.
-
@mietze That's why I am kinda nnngh on the blind system YES/NO idea, personally.
I'm interested in the prefs setup not because it's a way of replacing -- or ever forbidding -- communication.
I'm interested in the 'can state the basics in a neutral way, in their own time, while they're in a comfort zone (which fosters more openness) outside of a direct conversation, inquiry, or potential confrontation' factor because there are folks who do have trouble bringing this up. This allows people to bring this up in a way that is comfortable for them, doesn't involve pressure (to impress or go along or comply or not offend, which a lot of folks also have), and gives them time to go into whatever level of detail they do or don't want.
This information is there to form a baseline to start a conversation if one is warranted on the subject -- not replace one.
And this is handy not just for GMs, but for fellow players. "Hey, should I start a brawl with this guy for fu--oooh, he loves brawls, hells yeah, let me ask him about that!" "Should I flirt with that gir--oh, she's a lesbian and isn't comfortable with that kind of male attention, I'll talk shop with her and hit on Judy over there instead when I want to get my flirt on." And so on.
This idea? Came up because of FC's infamous 'bang list' page. "OMG how do you know that player is cool with that kind of thing? Well, how do you know they aren't?!" -- and it grew from there. Why not give people a place to make their wishes clearly known that's easily referenced? Yeah, this isn't a moment to moment read, but space to make general preferences and views and limits known is a handy thing to have for a lot of reasons.
You take a pretty pro-active approach (and the stuff you've described is stuff I wish more people would do), but that's not something I've ever actually seen go down or had someone do. Not everybody does it that way, though -- and for the folks who just list an event and run with it, the warning tags can be a big help. (And really... this is most folks who run things. )
@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Let's take this analogy further: say you know you have a food allergy that could cause this to occur. Like everybody else, you have stuff that doesn't agree with you, but you have a food allergy that could potentially cause anaphylactic shock. We see the same kind of warnings as the one you're proposing on menus all the time, sometimes posted on the front of the restaurant before you even go in the door. There's a warning on the menu that tells you: fish and shellfish are prepared in our kitchens. If you have a strong enough allergy to fish and shellfish, even if you don't eat them, you may choose to avoid that restaurant. Let's say, though, it's a restaurant that's actually known for it's beef and chicken BBQ. That's its primary draw and what it specializes in, and they only have one fish item on the menu.
Do you still avoid the restaurant?
YES.
I could say more, but I'm done being ranted and sworn at.
...and, you know, I had something constructive to say here, but since it's being interpreted as ranting and swearing at people, and @Ghost's post is all about the most entitled of all possible bullshit behavior and bears no resemblance to the way mature and reasonable adults behave, fuck this. Really. This is beyond pointless.
-
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
I think the food allergy analogy actually works pretty well.
Kind of.
Do you have a food allergy? I do. It's an insidious sort of allergy, something which even my mother doesn't always watch out for. (She fed me something with allergens in it last night.)
I'm allergic to legumes: beans, peanuts, etc. Specifically, I'm allergic to proteins in the seeds. The proteins are mostly eliminated through brewing, and don't exist in the oil; soy sauce is fine and so is peanut oil. However, isolated soy protein is in a lot of things, especially store-bought, pre-packaged frozen meats. A lot of "Asian sauces" also use some form of black bean in it.
In my case, I assume all of the risk. If I eat the wrong thing, I'm the one doing the choking and dying: not you, not the owner, and not the cook. Further, in my case, there's no way in God's green earth that a cook is going to be able to make reasonable accommodations for me. And, in my opinion, it would be my damn fault, so that's why I carry an epipen.
I pick my meals and restaurants very wisely, see.
And if a customer comes in and announces they have an allergy, everything you listed is how most restaurants would accommodate the customer. And as long as reasonable precautions are taken, there is absolutely no risk of a successful lawsuit. At all.
So, your analysis isn't great, and your analogy isn't great. At least, not in the liability context or from the perspective of someone who has to deal with a shitty, shitty set of allergies.
Sidenote: on how to improve any improv, or how to make any MU* scene better. Seriously. https://medium.com/@TimELyons/the-greatest-improv-advice-i-can-give-674c09f07376
-
@Ganymede Fair enough. I've seen the absolute worry in the restaurant's eyes and I've been close enough to a few of those situations to know the tiny grade of freak out on the receiving end. It's not the best analogy, but I meant to tie it more towards the greater concept of how it's a risk introduced into an environment otherwise designed for the risk being the very occasional corner case.
Yourself having a food allergy, I hope you didn't feel like I was belittling people with such allergies. The statement wasn't about excluding people with allergies as a whole, but the all around risk in vague relation to MU-hobby.
But even then, I think that cooks in a restaurant are better equipped to handle working around a very specific set of food allergies than the random Joe/Jane on a MU is with handling emotional attachments, triggers, PTSD, etc beyond their control.
-
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Yourself having a food allergy, I hope you didn't feel like I was belittling people with such allergies. The statement wasn't about excluding people with allergies as a whole, but the all around risk in vague relation to MU-hobby.
If you think I thought you were belittling my people, I say to you: nigga plz.
To be blunt, I roll my eyes at the thought of risk in gaming. In my opinion, if the thought of risk in MUing comes across your mind, you should probably not MU at all, just as I would remind the average xenophobe that they ought to avoid playing Mass Effect games because omg fucking aliens is unpatriotic dey took err jerbz. There shouldn't be any risk in playing on MUs, and I believe this is @surreality's position.
I concur with it.
But it's impossible to predict exactly what risk exists. No one could have predicted that my partner would have a psychotic break one day at practice for A Streetcar Named Desire because she had repressed a sexual assault that she suffered in college. She never told me; she didn't tell anyone; but that made it no less scary or disturbing. But the issue was addressed quickly and calmly, and things returned to normal, because the people involved were empathetic, sympathetic, and caring. And I believe this is @faraday's position: you cannot stop all harms, no matter how many warnings you give, and no matter how aware people are, because trauma is a strange, disturbing, scary thing that pops up without warning a lot.
I'm going to keep eating at restaurants because I'm a foodie, and while I may not be able to enjoy everything everywhere, I still enjoy lots of it many places. The best we can do as a community is try to be accommodating without throttling the themes that we want to explore in relative safety.
-
@Ganymede It's not actually that I don't think there should be any risks in MUing -- mostly because that's impossible, pie-in-the-sky idealism. The RL scenario you describe demonstrates why.
I think that if there are reasonable, simple steps we can take to minimize the risks that exist, they are worth exploring.
Asking that people do the equivalent of putting a notice on a menu item to say: this contains <common allergen> does not seem like crazytown entitlement to me.
This is not so someone with that allergen can storm in like a giant tool and demand some allergen-free version is produced special just for them, and make the whole world jump through hoops to accommodate their want, which is how people with a sensitivity are depicted (as apparently the default for how we all are, I guess -- sure those people exist, but that being the default characterization is pretty galling. You don't notice the others because they're either not going to that restaurant or not ordering that thing and making demands).
It's so they know to avoid that thing, because it represents a risk to them.
Seriously, though, that's it for me -- I'm way beyond disgusted with the characterizations in this thread and need to step out.
-
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
It's not actually that I don't think there should be any risks in MUing -- mostly because that's impossible, pie-in-the-sky idealism. The RL scenario you describe demonstrates why.
Just because a goal seems impossible doesn't mean we can't strive towards it.
I think that if there are reasonable, simple steps we can take to minimize the risks that exist, they are worth exploring.
Then do so. Justifying your reasons for doing so isn't necessary, nor is admonishing anyone for deciding not to do so. If there's one thing I've learned from the "more open" era of debating MUs on forums, it is that stating your intentions and following through is more productive than trying to coerce anyone else to agree with your rationale. I've wasted a pretty hour trying to explain why flat-gain XP and XP caps are beneficial, and others have run with those ideas years after.
Do your thing.
-
@Ganymede "Do your thing." Amen, yo. Can't please everyone, can't convince everyone. Just do you. The people who like what you are doing will show up.