Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online)

Deleted

@Thenomain I've been in situations where you are forced to use that sort of system. You compare it to raising a hand in class, but that is to avoid a large group of people all shouting 'LEMME GO PEE!'

In small social environments such as a tabletop, if you aren't comfortable enough speaking up to say 'Hey, this is bothering me' then the group hasn't done a very good job of making you feel welcome/safe enough to speak up. That's a failure of the dynamic, and implementing a system to get around it is not addressing the core problem that you don't feel comfortable enough to speak up.

I understand where you are coming from, though. I just disagree with the methodology.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

Bear in mind, though, those examples are seemingly silly, yeah... but I am that person that got asked for a coffee shop scene and got mage-panther mind-control oral rape from out of nowhere, and piping up about not being super keen on that or expecting that out of a coffee shop scene was 'it's a non-consent game, deal with it'.

When I was 19, I might have thought the same. I'm now 38. I mean, if this happened recently, @surreality, I have no idea what demon you peed on as a kid, but karma's coming back hard and inexplicably.

A harder situation is where there's a player that's very active, but who makes other players uncomfortable with inappropriate or badly-timed comments on channels or in pages. Still, in that case, the instant there is one complaint there is probably a dozen other players that have quietly left.

Thenomain

@Admiral said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

@Thenomain I've been in situations where you are forced to use that sort of system. You compare it to raising a hand in class, but that is to avoid a large group of people all shouting 'LEMME GO PEE!'

In small social environments such as a tabletop, if you aren't comfortable enough speaking up to say 'Hey, this is bothering me' then the group hasn't done a very good job of making you feel welcome/safe enough to speak up.

And is it not plausible that suggesting tools to aid in this welcome/safe sense is reasonable enough to mention? You say that the system "gets around it", while I wholeheartedly disagree: It's another tool that people use to communicate. We don't consider crutches bad when someone's leg is broken, yet we use the term "a crutch" as if all people can stand equally on their own. This isn't true, and is a flaw in our language when we relate a tool to an attitude.

Not that you said it directly, but to follow your interest in solving an issue you personally had before you personally get burned by it again, I personally believe that how someone uses a tool starts with a shape of the tool, a personal belief understood by thousands of industrial designers, coders, writers, and artists.

I will follow this up with my personal belief that drawing lines of fault to a system that hasn't been attempted is a flawed argument. I'm sorry that you got hurt by people being too worried in the past, but people have been hurt because their own flaws needed help to overcome. A kind of crutch, we might say. A tool that is usually used to help people learn how to walk when they have problems doing so.

It's for them, not you, and until someone starts forcing it on you then I really wouldn't worry about it.

Whether or not you understand this after this moment is no longer something I care to help you with. Best of luck in your future gaming endeavors.

(follow-up: Re-reading this, I apologize for my part in Soapbox's latest spate of people basically not giving a shit what other people are trying to say, and only saying what they want to hear. I know some of this wasn't your intent, Admiral, but whether or not you get it means that you don't need it, and you're far from the first person in this thread to quasi-imply, quasi-be-inferred that these people are doing something wrong. It would be great if all of us could be as mouthy as me, or bold as you, or as comfortable as Faraday, or or or, but it's not, and after what happened in the White Wolf Vampire beta adventure basically having WW's loudest douchebag saying 'lol you guys can't handle hints of pedophilia also it's not pedophilia you're wrong lol you hate me but this wasn't me lol', I'm honestly pretty glad that Onyx Path has the balls to say, up front, This Is Going To Get Bad, these might help.)

Deleted

Your response was dismissive and rather passive aggressive. That being said, cheerio.

surreality

@Ganymede Seriously, I must be wearing a sign: Persistent creepers with unannounced fetishes, inquire within! That look of shock and horror on my face just means I'm totally into it!

I would like to spend less life hours like this:

...and I know I'm not alone here.

That's the Jeurg story, and it was about 3 years back now I guess? Which, as we all know now, is best resolved by way of get rid of Jeurg. Not helpful if you had no idea who he is/was.

Plenty of other people pulled similarly skeevy garbage in the same period of 6-8 months or so, with the same 'defense', and plenty of people I spoke to had similar experiences to mine. So, unfortunately, yes, this still happens, and it did not vanish in the 90s.

Sometimes staff was awesome; they were willing to boot someone who was reported, and though they requested to be frozen at the same time, apparently, I'm pretty sure if they hadn't asked, it was going to happen anyway. Other times, the same 'it's a non-consent game, deal with it', even if it involved some really shady and suspicious bait and switch, or 'we don't need dice, don't worry!' (we totally did need dice ).

I have no reason to believe people aren't still doing exactly this kind of crap, because there is no time over the 20+ years I've been playing that I haven't run into them. I have heard too many people share similar stories. Many have only shared them privately in page on a game or in PMs here on the forums after I've said something and will say flat out they don't feel safe even posting about their experience here on the forum, let alone reporting on the game, for a variety of reasons.

Should they speak up? Yes, I think they should. At the same time, I can only encourage them to do that so much before it starts to become bullying, from my perspective, and some people I've spoken to over the years have even mentioned this: that their friends push them to report it to the extent that they feel attacked on all sides and without support. Or the friends report it and they get dragged in when all they wanted was for this to go away or to have never have happened in the first place.

I adore the shit out of you, @Ganymede, but -- and this is not an insult -- this is a very different personality type from yours in many cases; you're very self-assured, confident, and willing to speak up. Not everybody is comfortable with this in the same way, or in the moment, and this is all I mean here. I can get why this seems really alien to you that people aren't just doing this in the way you're describing they should. I really do agree that people should be willing and able to speak up, but -- and this is critical -- people have different comfort zones here. Some people will speak up on a game that doesn't even say anywhere that you can, others won't without a real culture of it as a common thing supported by policy and reporting methods and transparency of punishments --
and some people will or will not be more likely to speak up or report based on any one of those three example things, too, for any number of reasons.

You have your solution, and I applaud that. I very strongly encourage others to embrace it, in the same way that I think players should inquire if there's a reasonable expectation that one of their specific sensitivities may come up in the course of an event/PrP/scene and they can't tell as @faraday describes, too.

I just also think that if you know you are, or are likely to, include rape, torture, child abuse, or a similar common major trigger in your event, PrP, or scene, you should mention this in the event announcement so people sensitive to the content can self-police by opting out, and people are prepared to engage with this content. I believe that providing tools and methods to foster communication are helpful. I get it; you don't need them. That doesn't mean they aren't, or cannot be, useful and helpful to others.

From game to game, what's useful is going to vary. Something that covers all the necessary bases for a setting like WoD is going to be way over the top for many other games. This is common sense, right?

So how's it different from person to person? We are not all the same, and we are not just collections of points on a sheet like a character is. Why would a 'one size fits all' solution work any better here?

That solution is what we already have now and I am telling you in no uncertain terms that it has absolutely failed people, and not just because they're cowards or irresponsible jerks who won't speak up/etc. or because they are somehow flawed in a way that makes them unfit for participation in the hobby.
Some feel intimidated.
Some feel they will be abused more if they speak up.
Some feel staff will punish or humiliate them if they report, or even speak up in the scene, and then get reported as 'the problem'.
Some feel they will be harassed or chased off the game.

There are lots of other possibilities here and here's the problem: we know these things have absolutely all happened and we've talked them to death over the years when they do; people who are not as comfortable by default typically have a reason for it that doesn't come down to being an irresponsible jerk who figures the warning didn't apply to them and charged in then started whining later, or that they're just too fragile a snowflake to properly function in the real world.

You've spoken about wondering about the people who just quietly leave because of these issues? See above; leaving was easier for them than they felt, for whatever reason, that conversation and the potential consequences of it would have been.

This problem is sincerely an immense and complicated one with a lot of moving parts. "Speak up, period" and "Ask, period" actually require more elaborate underpinnings than it may appear at first.

(I'm not trying to drag you back into this conversation, @faraday, and you are being used exclusively as a positive example here.) Look at @faraday's system. There are actually a number of reasons that is much more likely to work on her game than it is on a game like TR or FC or another large, sprawling staff, many many GMs, sort of game.

She's running all the staff work. She knows what's going on. There is no he-said-she-said amongst staffers, staff-shopping, or unknowns on the staff side. The amount of shady garbage cut out of the loop by this is big, and the amount of trouble caused by completely innocent miscommunications or omissions amongst staffers when resolving an issue is even more huge, because it's much more common. This makes a big difference in the end result.
She's running the main events and plots. (I think?) She knows who has inquired about what and when. She has also mentioned in other threads that she cares enough about her players that if there's a subject she knows is worrisome for someone, she will do her best to be mindful of not throwing that in their face herself, and will steer others away from that subject within reason. (There was a baby seal example in another thread about this, from what I half-recall at this hour.) That is a real demonstration of 'give a damn' and not everybody does. Also, again... one person running things. The amount of confusion or manipulation or 'did everybody get the memo?' is cut down dramatically, and this makes a huge difference in the end result in a whole bunch of ways.
She's seeing all the interpersonal issues that are reported and is aware of them. All of them. They're not filtering in through a variety of staffers who may or may not pass the information along and while there's still probably always going to be second hand reporting of issues by friends of people who had an issue, it's still a whole lot less 'game of telephone' and that means problem children become much more obvious, much more quickly, and she has a well-earned reputation as someone who is trustworthy and won't put up with people being abusive toward each other on her games. This is super huge, and yep, it makes a big difference, too.

So there's a lot going on there that isn't immediately evident in the specific resolution policy/method for these issues that has a real impact on the end result.

Change just one of those things, and you'll see what I'm getting at here, most likely. For instance, now picture swapping out @faraday with Elsa. Would you think the same approach would work just as well with Elsa at the helm? What about one of the old school 90s legends of crazy?

faraday

@surreality While I appreciate the positive example, I fail to see how any of that relates to what we're talking about here.

It doesn't matter who's running a game, or how many staffers there are, uncomfortable scenes are a thing. Much as I encourage people to work together and try to work with them myself, my games are non-consent. BSGU may be a PvE game about fighting robots, but there are also gritty themes of war and genocide. Even in that theme, which I'd say is miles safer than something like WoD, there's a non-zero chance of a sexual assault plotline coming up. After all, it happened in the show.. twice. (Edit to clarify: Not a PvP assault that the victim didn't consent to happening; I would never allow that to happen to someone.) Sweetwater wasn't set up as PvP either, but I actually had to navigate a situation where some PCs had a legitimate historical IC reason to want to put together a lynch mob against another PC (want to talk about an uncomfortable plotline? Geez.)

So yes, I care, and yes, I run most (but not all) of the event scenes, and yes, I don't have to play whisper-down-the-lane with other staffers. But none of that makes these problems magically go away. And even with all that, I still have people who are reluctant to bring up issues to me. (Just as @Auspice , who has helped to nudge some into speaking up.)

At the end of the day though, players need to take personal responsibility for their own fun. In my view that means being willing to speak up for themselves.

surreality

It does make a pretty big difference in the end result. All of those things that aren't factors there? They create complications even when people do speak up, and that's not a complication to discount. (And seriously, the idea of Elsa trying to pull that off is... welp, I do not plan to drink today, but it makes me really want to. It makes me really want to a lot.)

Also, I think part of it here is that -- from what I can tell -- this is something you're looking at predominantly from a GM's perspective. It's less likely for a GM to have the kind of controversial content come up in a scene (the rape example especially) as it is in a downtime PvP scenario. Technically, this can happen on any game, no matter what content it includes. Somebody off in a room somewhere could go off on a crazy space rape tangent in the middle of a My Little Pony all ages game, for instance, as out of left field as that is.

You mention that you'd never allow that situation to occur PvP, and I'm full-on in support of that, no question. The problem is: what happens when a player takes it on themselves to go there? Yeah, the other party should definitely speak up, but you have a situation here where some real damage may already be done. How would you ever stop this from happening?

You... can't, actually. Which is a horrible thing to realize. There's no actual way to prevent this from potentially occurring. The real freedom of these games -- that somebody can literally type anything, anywhere, at any time (and ultimately whether it's thematic or not, whether it even makes logical sense or not, whether it's within or against the rules or not) -- is sometimes a stumbling block in that respect. There really isn't any solution here that works.

That's the really frustrating thing, and for anybody who gives a damn (and I think that applies to absolutely everyone commenting in this thread, regardless of what implementation they prefer), it really is pretty damn frustrating. The freedom of any given setting (and however much someone adheres to it or not) is one of the most rewarding things about this hobby, but it definitely has its pitfalls, too.

I feel the more complicated or controversial a theme gets, it just becomes easier to label things on a slightly more granular level. Even a game set in the completely mundane real world could very easily contain a whole range of subjects that would eventually opt almost everyone in the hobby out. (The first IC IRS tax audit dropped by an event randomizer and you'd probably see the place clear out like somebody bombed the server, for instance.)

Rook

In any sampling of MU*ers, I think that 1 out of 20 is a dirtbag for any of the following reasons:

racist beliefs, subtle or overt
sexist beliefs, subtle or overt
hidden need to dominate/ruin others in the name of 'fun'
someone simply looking for sex/rape/BDSM RP, no matter the theme of the game, or even discussion leading up to.

It's been pretty much my experience that WoD games simply have a higher concentration of these assholes, as most people don't equate other genres with at least the last item above. The first three? Everywhere. EVERY. WHERE.

Anyone who MUs has run into one, or a dozen, of these pricks, and yet people still sort of freak. Staff still acts dubious, gives plenty of chances, meanwhile pages are happening and people are quietly leaving...

Yet, no one wants to hear of a staff that sets the reported player SUSPECT and carefully watches EVERYTHING that they do on the game, including pages. That's a violation of privacy. Well, if you feel that way, fine, but you leave the Staff one course: play he-said, she-said and maybe rely on logs that may or may not be edited to support whatever argument they are presenting.

Arkandel

@Rook said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

In any sampling of MU*ers, I think that 1 out of 20 is a dirtbag for any of the following reasons:

racist beliefs, subtle or overt

sexist beliefs, subtle or overt

hidden need to dominate/ruin others in the name of 'fun'

someone simply looking for sex/rape/BDSM RP, no matter the theme of the game, or even discussion leading up to.

Devil's advocate though... we are playing charcters, too. So for example I would like (well, in general, I'm not saying I want to ) to be able to play a racist character without being racist myself.

So how is that done? How do you play out villainous values without being branded a villain? What's the mechanism of introducing discomfort in a way that serves the plot without it taking over that plot?

I very much want you to hate my character but I'm not keen on being hated.

Roz

@Arkandel said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

@Rook said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

In any sampling of MU*ers, I think that 1 out of 20 is a dirtbag for any of the following reasons:

racist beliefs, subtle or overt

sexist beliefs, subtle or overt

hidden need to dominate/ruin others in the name of 'fun'

someone simply looking for sex/rape/BDSM RP, no matter the theme of the game, or even discussion leading up to.

Devil's advocate though... we are playing charcters, too. So for example I would like (well, in general, I'm not saying I want to ) to be able to play a racist character without being racist myself.

So how is that done? How do you play out villainous values without being branded a villain? What's the mechanism of introducing discomfort in a way that serves the plot without it taking over that plot?

I very much want you to hate my character but I'm not keen on being hated.

I didn't have the impression that Rook was talking about IC behavior with his list.

Arkandel

@Roz Neither did I.

But I think the counter-question I asked still holds merit; how do we best differentiate between a player playing an asshole from a player who is an asshole?

If we can answer that convincingly then we can also do away with the ol' "oh, it's just IC/ICA=ICC/this is a non-consent game" excuses actual assholes use to justify themselves.

faraday

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

You mention that you'd never allow that situation to occur PvP, and I'm full-on in support of that, no question. The problem is: what happens when a player takes it on themselves to go there? Yeah, the other party should definitely speak up, but you have a situation here where some real damage may already be done. How would you ever stop this from happening?

There's a policy in place that says "if two players don't agree on an outcome, call upon staff to mediate". Assuming that you're not going to agree to be assaulted, you talk to me and I'm gonna say no. If someone's not willing to talk to me about it then that's their problem, not mine. (Side note: I won't necessarily side with the victim in every circumstance, but sexual assault is a special case for various reasons.)

And yes, damage may have already been done. But when playing on a non-consent game with strangers, I think my grandma's favorite quote applies here: "you pays your money and you takes your chances". If you're not willing to take that chance, don't play. Because as you said, there's literally no way to prevent someone from typing something insane. The best you can do is retcon or clean up the mess.

As for looking for things from a GM's perspective... what, you think I don't play anywhere else? Of course I do. I've had bad experiences too. Maybe not the Wylie Coyote version you have (thank goodness), but it's not like I've managed to get through 20 years in this hobby unscathed.

Most recently I played on @Seraphim73's 100 game. I didn't know him from Adam prior to making up a character there. When I had a problem, it was on me to speak up about it. Otherwise I could either suck it up or leave. (By the way, I did speak up - and while we didn't always agree he always listened, and that's why we're now friends.)

You and me don't see eye to eye about the solution and that's perfectly fine, but I really wish you wouldn't make assumptions about my experiences or perceptions.

Misadventure

@thenomain Definitely a good idea to drop this topic. Let us never speak on it again.

surreality

@faraday I'm only talking about instances of 'transferring obligations and responsibility to the GM', which has been the objection (which I understand, even if I disagree with it), which seems to be the bulk of the argument.

Things are generally different in a GM-led scene than they are in a random pick-up downtime scene. A GM is rarely going to do something shady because they have a broad audience. It happens, but it's much more rare than the cases of two people off in a pickup scene -- and usually the moment someone invokes oversight, it's amazing how fast the shady lot backpedals, which... well, obviously, I 100% agree with and support that policy being one of the tools in the box. I'd call that one a true essential more than absolutely anything else, and if anything was a 'every game should absolutely have this or they are idjits', it's that one.

I went with a number of things. This included subjects that required consent to proceed, the ability to list interests and mehs and no-go-zones personally, the ability to label plots for controversial content to allow people to self-police and avoid the plot if it hit their bad mojo zone (in general, or even just that day, really; sometimes somebody normally fine with <thing> is just not going to be up for it right then), and a few other bits and pieces all designed to work together for that specific setting, the intended themes, and help encourage the measure of collaboration and consideration of others I want to see there on the OOC level.

If I ever haul something out of the mothballs, I'll see if it helps, or doesn't. I think it will help. In other environments it might not, or might be counterproductive and feel like needless work and hoop-jumping, etc. I don't think requiring this (or anything save for the one rule noted above) everywhere makes any sense as a 'one true way'; similarly I don't think dismissing it entirely as a waste of time or a bad idea because some people in specific circumstances that will not match what I aim to do have a way that works for them in their end use case.

faraday

@surreality My objection involves transferring obligations to any other player, whether they're a GM, or just someone in a pick-up scene. As I stated in my game's policy: if someone is sensitive to a particular topic, it's on them to figure out a way to establish boundaries. It's not on anyone else. I understand we disagree on this point; that's totally fine. When you have a game, you do whatever you see fit. I'm just clarifying since apparently you thought I was only speaking about GM'ed scenes.

Rook

@Arkandel
I don't mind IC behaviors when done IC. That, to me, is not an issue on games. Sure, some people may not play with a racist character, but most understand that it is a character flaw being played out, providing RP tension, RP hooks, whatever. ICA = ICC is all fine and dandy. But OCA = OCC should be enforced, too, and we never really talk about that.

Sure, some players are timid, not as self-confident about standing up for themselves, and that is all very valid. But when someone knows that something happened, it should be dealt with. What is wrong with staff saying "Look, you fuck with a player's zen on this game, and we will fuck with yours. In fact, we will take yours away, period."? If you take Mary Jane into a private scene, and suddenly Mary Jane is OOCly not the same person, that should be red warning flags everywhere for any staff, any player-friends paying attention.

I just personally do not think that another tool/method of throwing a red flag in a scene is going to solve the issue, when the issue is that players are timid, shy, don't wish to be disruptive or seen in a negative light, no matter what is about to happen that they don't like. Whether throwing the red flag constitutes paging a ST/DM/Staffer, the other person in the scene, triggering a +warn, saying something OOCly, or whatever tools that they already have at hand but are too intimidated to use. I don't think that Policies and Rules and Code solve this issue. Nothing will until the victim can stand up and simply throw that red flag. Tap out. SAY SOMETHING.

I am not against this new tool/approach, I just don't foresee it as a solution. The solution, to me, is to make it very clear to antagonists that they are held responsible. If you feel that this would restrict your RP or realism of your IC presentation of your character, that should make you wonder about the efficacy of your character. If you feel that this would open YOU up to action by staff, then that is exactly the thing that I'm going for here, to give YOU pause on what you're planning and how you're planning it.

I liken this to RL in so many ways. Dominant personality types, when paired with very submissive personality types, begin a very delicate dance of power exchange that includes surrender of willpower, the ability (sometimes the want) to stop things, and so on. It is a dangerous dance for those new or unfamiliar to it, surely. It's a razor's edge of what many would call instinctual behavior and reaction that cuts extremely close to social crimes, yet many cross this line willingly. Long story short, in these dynamics, those that practice that lifestyle will explain very adamantly that the dominant personality has RESPONSIBILITY for the submissive personality in all ways, at all times.

This dynamic of responsibility is not enforced on games. It seems that we are trying to enforce the submissive or timid personality to suddenly speak up, defend themselves, when it may be the most foreign concept to them at the moment that they most need it. So, my approach would be different, @Thenomain, I would put the onus on the antagonist of the scene. Have them +warn the victim and spell out what they believe will happen in the scene. Scene doesn't continue without explicit grant of consent of the victim. If the antagonist steps out of bounds of what was consented to explicitly, they are liable for disciplinary action. Full stop. End of policy.

I just think that we need different approaches in these borderline situations.

surreality

@faraday said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

@surreality My objection involves transferring obligations to any other player, whether they're a GM, or just someone in a pick-up scene. As I stated in my game's policy: if someone is sensitive to a particular topic, it's on them to figure out a way to establish boundaries. It's not on anyone else.

That's just it, though; I don't see how 'allow people to create a list that anyone on the game can refer to at any time' isn't just giving people a new means of making their boundaries known. Most games have rp-prefs in +finger, and similar stuff.

I just figure it's handy for people who are not always comfortable explaining themselves in detail when something has already potentially gone wrong, and being able to say, 'hey, I have a thing about that, it's here, can we work with this?' -- not 'hey, I have a thing about that, HOW DARE YOU GO THERE YOU MONSTER!'/etc.

Really, I think it would be much more useful for people looking to find people who are interested in the same kinds of things they are in the long run. "Oh, you like fishing RP, too? Rock on, let's meet up and do a thing!" So I'm looking at it from that angle, too, and would be putting in something like this for that purpose even if it didn't have a 'help potentially head trouble off at the pass/allow for an additional means of reduced conflict expression of boundaries and preferences' aspect to it.

faraday

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

I don't see how 'allow people to create a list that anyone on the game can refer to at any time' isn't just giving people a new means of making their boundaries known.

I get that you don't see it. I've tried to explain why I think it's inappropriate, like, several different ways. I have nothing else to offer so I'm once again going to try to bow out of the conversation.

surreality

@faraday Wait, it's inappropriate to allow players this option now? Wow. Yeah, there is absolutely nothing of value to be had by continuing this exchange on any level.

faraday

@surreality Sorry, "inappropriate" was a poor choice of words. What I mean is I don't agree with putting responsibility on other people. I've stated that pretty clearly from the get-go, I think. I've also said a bazillion times that you should do what you feel is right on your game and to heck with what I think.