You know, this sounds very much like the +kinks system from Shangrila, only adapted simply to list triggers/themes/squicks and whatever-else-have-you that you want called out. It could be easily adapted, code-wise, if someone had something like this lying around. It's essentially a managed list with comments.
I mean, seriously. The functionality is there, a display screen, a like/dislike command, a comment field.
@Rook said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
You know, this sounds very much like the +kinks system from Shangrila, only adapted simply to list triggers/themes/squicks and whatever-else-have-you that you want called out. It could be easily adapted, code-wise, if someone had something like this lying around. It's essentially a managed list with comments.
I mean, seriously. The functionality is there, a display screen, a like/dislike command, a comment field.
The problem with the +kinks system is that, by definition, you need to make it public and people other than yourself need to respect your preferences.
This implementation has neither of those drawbacks; your squicks are yours alone, and as long as the ST lists the themes they'll use for their +event it's easy for you to know if you'd be triggered by it.
Then it also becomes trivial for staff to regulate the system without violating anyone's privacy; if a ST didn't list things properly for their event they simply don't get XP for it. Any problems should sort themselves out pretty fast after that. 
Nothing saying that this system has to be public. Could be ST_Only or by using a /show command to another player. That's explicit consent.
@faraday There are some additional layers of separation in what you're describing there, too, though, which are important to take note of.
The events you're describing are more or less scene-set background, or are implied.
That's a step removed from 'it happens to an NPC in front of you'.
And that's another step removed from 'it happens to your PC'.
And that's in addition to the passive vs. interactive layer issue.
People typically have less issue with things implied or in the background than events unfolding in real time, or things happening to their character directly.
@Arkandel @Auspice To give you some idea, the list there, someone could, when setting up an event on the wiki, directly link to the subjects that may be in play in that event in addition to any written warning or set of generic content warning flags. It would be super simple to implement that, in fact.
There are solid reasons to make the information public. Namely, STs and staff aren't the only people this information is useful to. Here's the partial writeup on this that went with the thing in the other links: http://138.68.45.233/index.php/Resource:Prefs
The bit re: Emotional Land Mines is relevant for everyone on a game, frankly.
The implementation of an ST tagging things that might come up in their plot seems a little more favorable than setting up a personal yes/no/whateveryouwanttocallit list for characters. There are all kinds of things I'd be willing to RP happening to my character if it came up that I'd never put on a list of things I'm interested in, and I don't necessarily want to have people inherently lean toward whatever interests I do put on it. Nor would I want to tempt fate with an 'anything' goes clause only to find out my imagination pales in comparison to some diabolical antagonist that rivals AM.
@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
This might be a case @Thenomain might want to chip in about code solving social problems, but what if we allowed players to privately or publicly list general categories of things they are into or squicked by?
The rule is: "Be very careful when trying to solve social issues with code."
The reason for this is because you can't expect everyone to act in the same way. (MUDs are proving me wrong; there are games that can expect everyone to act in the same way, but I'm not going to get into that right now.)
This is the RP Preferences list, another cue taken from Shang, et al., that works. It works because it doesn't enforce, it informs.
A case of code being used poorly is, "If it's on someone's list and you hit them with it, you can be punished." There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Another, more code-centric example would be, "At the start of each scene, everyone must enter keywords about what they're going to do in this scene." This may work for events (again, informs), but for every scene that someone might be involved in? No. No. One hundred times no.
Let's say no one can see the 'no' list because some people might not want to announce their blindspots for the whole world to see. So how it'd work is I spot an +event I like and I /signup for it. The ST then (perhaps after a delay so they can't deduce who is who) gets to get a list of all the participants' YES and NO lists, without knowing who's who, and can plan accordingly.
Would that work?
Er, sorry, I got distracted. Yes, it would work, but it would be probably far too easy to social engineer people's "no" lists. Hell, I have people tagging my alts within three poses. If your game culture accepts the 'no' list is kind of an open secret, like how we deal with 'What Race Are You' in WoD/CoD games, then it would work far better. Put the social pressure on people who use events to abuse the system.
I would like to see it tried.
Jesus. If there was some expectation as a prp runner that I input every thing that I thought could possibly come up into some code every single time (for others who probably didn't bother to list all their +nopes in the same code or who don't know them), shit if I would run things for people I don't know.
And if you have a shitty ST that takes out their aggro on someone or who behaves like poor me princess, then you /leave/.
I'm sorry, but the people who sit around and take abusive behavior because "I don't want anyone to be mad at me," are not victims, they are contributors.
You can walk from a scene, and you can boot disruptive players from a player run scene. Perhaps if people were less willing to tolerate crappy behavior less would occur. Or people who "don't know any better" could eventually learn as their ass got dumped enough times.
If staff storytellers are doing rude and railroading and ooc manipulative things, you got much worse problems that a content warning won't solve.
Not only that, as mentioned above, there are some people who may not be aware of their triggers. There are some people who have really weird ones. There are some people who aren't usually triggered by a subject but in certain circumstances or the stars and planets aligning just right that day, it might happen.
I think it's better to just have one to one communication with the people you're running for, and to make sure there's a line of communication during the scene. Not just for no-go areas but hell, just helping your folks hook in if they are ooc stumbling a bit. What is the point of running something for people if you don't bother to find out what's fun for them while it's going on?
As Theno says, code isn't going to solve what ultimately boils down to a social problem.
My issue with something like Shang's list is it's so fucking massive. But I think a 'general themes' could be covered.
Like 'drugs,' 'domestic abuse,' etc. Reno has, for example, its Core Themes for beats. Maybe STs could provide a list of 'This scene may include the following themes...' It need not be extensive, but have just a sort of general overview of common themes.
That way people have a heads up or to know OK, maybe sit this one out. It'd set a stage of communication, at least. Hell, doesn't even require code. Just an extra line in the +event listing.
'Themes: Alcoholism, domestic abuse' in a Law plot in which cops have to investigate a call for a domestic disturbance. Gives a bit of a heads up, you don't have to comb over every possible thing, but it also lets your players know that you're aware that such things can be an issue for some and potentially approachable if an issue does arise.
@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Where is the correct balance point between the players' responsibility to maintain the separation between the fictional content and their real life trigger points, and the game/plot runners' responsibility to flag such material?
What is the correct response by the latter to the former after such a triggered response? Even assuming the best of intentions such things are bound to happen, so how should staff handle an upset player?
How do we achieve both (1) and (2) without discouraging people from running things which aren't either inoffensive or completely black and white? Or is it better in certain games that controversial themes are never ran, and staff plots/public PrPs are always 'safe'? If so, when?
I think the term reasonable applies. With so many content policies, the only real responsibility a game/scene runner has is to keep scenes within acceptable use. Easily, 90% of the responsibility of a player to maintain separation. These games are not lives and these characters are not themselves. People should not be subject to someone else's inability to cope with creative playspace. But, reasonably, the game runner/gm needs to stay within the (key word here) agreed upon lines. If a player cannot maintain their level of separation, they should not play these games. Period.
The triggered needs to behave reasonably. Its not everyone's responsibility to cater to every trigger that exists. People need to understand that a virtual minefield of triggers will not sustain, and if there were any content allowance concerns because of some all important trigger, then the triggered should review with staff as part of their decision making process before applying. Once in, understand that in very few situations is an action designed to trigger you, and if it is within bounds of policy, the gm/runner may not be doing anything wrong at all. So the triggered has a responsibility to behave. They may excuse themselves from the scene, discuss with staff if certain content is within acceptable use, but very rarely is a personal-attack response warranted. On the same hand, a reasonable GM should include details of potential content or themes as a favor to players. Many games allow for rating, but never, ever should being triggered result in an attack. We are all adults. We need to maintain order and ensure said triggering isn't being used as an offensive weapon against staff or other players.
We must all strive to encourage in others the ethic to separate IC from OOC. We can post content warnings on events, which is no different from an MPAA or ESRB rating for other content. We can watch for predatory players, both triggered or people pushing fucked up rp on others, and we can remember the term reasonable when making staffing decisions when it comes to players who have lost their objectivity or use a minefield of triggers as a means to control others. In the end, we can be reasonable, set reasonable content warnings and policies, respond to things we don't like in a reasonable manner, and handle any issues with an eyeball on what should be reasonably expected from any given player.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Jesus. If there was some expectation as a prp runner that I input every thing that I thought could possibly come up into some code every single time (for others who probably didn't bother to list all their +nopes in the same code or who don't know them), shit if I would run things for people I don't know.
This is part of the current social expectation, and a little why I'm a little jealous at MUDs being able to say, "Fuck off if you don't like our system." (note: Hyperbole.)
But it's why I gave a thumbs-up to Ark's idea; if someone can't take a scene with ... I dunno, sadness or something ... then the person running the scene can go, 'Warning: May have feels.'
What I agree with you completely is that the societal expectation that we cater to everyone. When I was a kid (warning: "in my day" story), if we stepped on a nail we'd get some cortisone and a tetanus shot. Sometimes we would choke on pennies. We were stupid. It's what we did. My doctor was honestly surprised when he said I was almost up for my tetanus booster and I said, 'Yeah, okay, let's do this.' Most people don't like needles, he said. I don't, I said, but if it means I don't get sick when I'm being stupid then let's do this.
Needle now? Possibility of lockjaw? Needle? Lockjaw? That people think there is math here baffles me.
Accidents happen. Accidents between people happen. Sometimes it leads to beating the shit out of someone for it. Sometimes it means yelling, then realizing that you're the jerk, apologizing, and moving on.
I am never against information. I'm against the expectations of socially mandated happiness.
@Coin said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
lulzwhut at hating hashtags.
Like, I get it, a lot of people are supremely annoying with their (ab)use of hashtags, but what hashtags actually are are just an easy coded/visual was to recognize tags, which have been around for. fucking. ever.
Hashtags was just coders finding a symbol that wasn't widely used and applying it for a purpose, much the same way we use @ here to activate the code that calls up usernames, and how if you preface an active username with @ you get a link to their profile, and they get notified.
I'm just like, lulzwhut, hating hashtags. You can be grumpy about people who abuse them or tag stupid shit, but the hashtag is functional within the structure of how the internet and social media work.
Now, if you hate the internet or social media, well, have I got bad news for yoooooooooooooooooooou...
Tagging is fine conceptually, but hashtags in particular are inextricably linked to social media dog piles of stupidity for me, not to mention the absolute worse, most toxic forms of slacktivism. It's impossible for me to separate my hatred of the slacktivists who popularized #foo from the # by now; not after seeing so much stupid flow across my screen--despite my best efforts to avoid it!--for so many years.
Yeah, but doesn't 'slacktivism' describe a greater social application of the political correctness that we have watched turn from "be nice to others" to "be nice to meeeeeeeeeee!!!!" ...?
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
If there was compulsory participation by all, it could be useful for the elements that the ST knows to plug in ahead of time. Hell I might be out of touch, but I have never run a scene where I had mapped out everything that could possibly happen. I like for pcs to come up with things I didn't anticipate. (Which is why people who needed straight formulaic plug in right answer get prearranged outcome plots and scenes did not sign up for/ask me to run theirs. It's not that I think that style is bad, it's not, many people enjoy it both running and participating but it's not how my brain functions.)
I could see this also being useful on a game where the only plot runners are staff. Both from a habit (of plugging in plot elements) and empowerment (being able to respond swiftly to ooc shenanigans/knowing more of what you're going to get as a player based on staff temperament and ability).
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
On the same hand, a reasonable GM should include details of potential content or themes as a favor to players.
To me, this is not a favor.
This is 'upholding the GM side of the mutual respect and responsible behavior' bargain, in the same way 'if something does go wrong, behave as reasonably as possible and remove yourself from the situation without personal attacks or accusations or screeching to all and sundry' is the player-side appropriate behavior in the mutual respect and reasonable behavior bargain.
Everyone has a part to play in maintaining a respectful game environment. That's not doing a favor to others -- that's an essential part of creating a positive game community with minimal drama and stress for all involved, in whatever capacity in which they are involved.
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
If a player cannot maintain their level of separation, they should not play these games. Period.
By this example, going back to my first post, should I no longer watch movies because I found a scene in Strange Days traumatic? Of course not.
This shit absolutely happens to perfectly reasonable people at times and for reasons they cannot predict. That's why people refer to these things often as 'land mines'.
This is the attitude I'm talking about when I'm talking about vilifying players for having a reaction to something; it's a downright shocking demonstration of privilege and ignorance. Seriously, there's a part of me that wants to just shake my head, because someone actually hitting a PTSD trigger is not a case of 'something happened IC that made me sad and I don't like it!' It is a visceral, intensely jarring experience, and it's actually rather rare. (I've had it happen twice in twenty years, for reference.)
To tell someone they are not welcome in this hobby if it is possible for this to happen to them is as ignorant as telling them they shouldn't participate on these games if they have ADD, or OCD, or depression, or anxiety... the list goes on and on.
Does it absolve them from consequences of bad behavior taken under those circumstances? No. Does it absolve them from IC consequences of whatever's going on? No. Just the same way the other things don't.
No one has suggested a free pass on 'nothing ever happens that makes me a little sad' and other than the initial tv-wish fulfillment framing, no one is suggesting 'nothing ever happens that isn't precisely what I want' is a good idea at all. Those things would not be reasonable.
Telling someone they're unwelcome in the hobby because they would like to be able to make informed choices about their participation in various events or specific aspects of the game ultimately in order to preserve everyone's peace of mind and the peace in general? Is... I kinda don't have words for this.
Oh fucking well.
@Thenomain said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
Yeah, but doesn't 'slacktivism' describe a greater social application of the political correctness that we have watched turn from "be nice to others" to "be nice to meeeeeeeeeee!!!!" ...?
That … isn't how I've ever heard it used, no.
Slacktivism is "activism" the lazy way. Most ribbon campaigns of the '90s, for example (or anything else that's "raising awareness" of things people have known for decades). Or bumper sticker slacktivism starting in the '50s and going strong still. All the lazy-assed ways people show they "care" by doing something trivial, whether that's sending ferocious tweets or wearing a zillion colourful ribbons. You know "activism" without actually doing anything.
It has nothing to do with unwelcome in the hobby.
However. If someone refuses to disclose to me large glaring or uncommon as triggers but not uncommon in theme no go areas, or does not possess the personal strength or will to communicate with me during a scene if something unexpected happens then yeah, I player don't feel especially safe inviting them into my scenes/play when there are certain boundaries that they feel they can trample on.
I treat everyone on a place like a real life human with feelings and things going on that I may or may not know about. I /expect/ that /they/ will behave in the same manner towards me. If they cannot or will not communicate in a way that gives evidence they also are thinking of me in that way, then I don't really want to give them my time, energy, or attention beyond the cordial inclusion in social scenes/public ooc that I try my darnedness to hold myself to.
If that makes me "entitled" so be it, but I have enough dealing with mentally ill/selfish or narcissistic/emotional vampires in my RL extended family and volunteering organizations at present that I could not tolerate it in my recreational activities. When I did, or attempted to, the outcome was not well received by the other person ever and certainly didn't improve my experience in the hobby.
Eh, I never minded people wanting to raise awareness of something without being an activist for it. If they donate one dollar to a cause and ask everyone they know to also donate one dollar to a cause, they're still doing something for that cause.
I don't consider hashtags to be this kind of awareness. It is great for making people aware of what kind of beliefs you have, but the idea that I should care what you believe in is, IMO, contributing to the divisiveness of our great and glorious cultures. Not because dissenting views are bad, but because the other half of dissenting views is talking about them.
I consider Samantha Bee and Seth Meyers to be more informative than Stephen Colbert because they not only say what they believe, but they report on why. We can talk about why. We can't talk about whose dicks are in whom's mouth.
Yes, I think Bee and Meyers are the part of the solution. Colbert just has a different kind of show, which is fine.
Wait, where was I?
But what tags can do, and it's what we're talking about here, is start the discussion. But what we need to do in this modern culture is have the discussion. And if the hashtag draws attention to the discussion, then it's being used as part of the solution.
What code cannot do is force the discussion. That's up to us.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
To tell someone they are not welcome in this hobby if it is possible for this to happen to them is as ignorant as telling them they shouldn't participate on these games if they have ADD, or OCD, or depression, or anxiety... the list goes on and on.
No, there is a difference.
It is wholly reasonable for someone to to have empathy if a trigger gets, well, triggered? All kinds of people have all kinds of personal shit. That's a universal concept that everyone can understand and empathize with. If I run a scene and it squicks someone out? Hey, I didnt mean to squick you, that sucks, my bad. is reasonable.
There's a fine line about 10,000 miles wide between, say, running a violent gunfight scene (within acceptable use) that might trigger some Afghanistan-grade PTSD, and a GM forcing surprise rape RP upon a character. Call it a favor or something that should be standard, whatever word works best for you, but so long as we paint within the lines of agreed upon behavior and content, the responsibility of how that content is dealt with on a personal level is not the responsibility of other players.
Let me be perfectly clear.
I did not suggest that players who might be susceptible to being triggered should be told that they are not welcome in the hobby. Scratch this from any realm of intent.
My stance is this:
If a player is incapable of separating themselves from IC content to such a degree, then they have a responsibility to decide to accept the risks of triggering, agree to the behaviors and content when they type +accept, or move along.
It is not the responsibility of every other player, effectively strangers on the internet, to be responsible for every other player's triggers and ability to separate IC from OOC, levels of obsession, or other things that are unhealthy in this hobby.
So, in short, telling someone that if they have the "potential of being triggered then they're not welcome" is way different from saying: "If these games tend to compromise your ability to remain objective, behave in line with conflict resolution or behavior guidelines, or result in emotional responses that are upsetting to yourself and others, then it isn't a requirement that you play these games any more than it is a requirement that other people are subjected to your personal problems."
@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
It has nothing to do with unwelcome in the hobby.
However. If someone refuses to disclose to me large glaring or uncommon as triggers but not uncommon in theme no go areas, or does not possess the personal strength or will to communicate with me during a scene if something unexpected happens then yeah, I player don't feel especially safe inviting them into my scenes/play when there are certain boundaries that they feel they can trample on.
That's just it: part of the entire premise of everything I've been saying is that people need to disclose those things openly. It is on the players to make that information known.
If I didn't think this was critical, I wouldn't have written up an entire system to accomplish it in what I consider the most effective and useful way to communicate the information to others.
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
I did not suggest that players who might be susceptible to being triggered should be told that they are not welcome in the hobby. Scratch this from any realm of intent.
My stance is this:
If a player is incapable of separating themselves from IC content to such a degree, then they have a responsibility to decide to accept the risks of triggering, agree to the behaviors and content when they type +accept, or move along.
This is what you're missing here, though, and it's relevant: if it is possible for this to occur? If it 'might' happen? Could possibly? When it happens, it is going to shred that player's separation for a bit. The act of it happening, period, is 'this caused a flashback'.
That separation going !!!KABOOM!!! and causing a flashback or panic attack is the actual thing that occurs when an actually real trigger gets tripped. As such, if it possibly might happen? Then, yeah, the way you initially put this... they are simply not welcome.
I am not talking about people whining about not getting their way, or people getting their feels hurt. Don't confuse those things, 'cause they aren't the same.
Edit: To be clear: The player is not going to think, 'oh noes, I am experiencing what my character is!' and lose sight of the line in that direction. They are probably not going to be thinking of much of anything other than whatever trauma from their real life caused the issue in the first place -- which means the IC event crossed over the other direction, knocking them out of the character headspace entirely and into a very traumatic recollection of their own.
Oh fucking well.
You know, this sounds very much like the +kinks system from Shangrila, only adapted simply to list triggers/themes/squicks and whatever-else-have-you that you want called out. It could be easily adapted, code-wise, if someone had something like this lying around. It's essentially a managed list with comments.
I mean, seriously. The functionality is there, a display screen, a like/dislike command, a comment field.
