How should IC discrimination be handled?

[Lithium]

@deadculture Perpetually offended? Oh honey, if you /knew/ what I had to deal with every day.

Just calling out sweeping generalizations as bad mmkay?

patpats

[Roz]

@lithium said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@deadculture said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@kitteh said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@deadculture I don't remember the details of the character trying it. Some noble. But it was right in the main, public area of the Temple. She was sitting in the pews praying, he sat next to her, and a pose or two later had a hand under her dress trying to... well, I'll leave it there, before I went scrambling.

sigh

I'm pretty sure the noble privilege shit started during the Taleo era. Of course, trust Gold Dragon nobles to take it to fucking eleven.

As a person who PLAYED a gold dragon noble, I don't like being painted with broad strokes of a brush like that. Not every Gold Dragon noble was a skeezy fucker. In fact, it was kind of weird when I took the character how fast people /wanted/ me to take noble privilege with them and I was like... no. Am kinda glad my character ended up dying in war, never went back.

Heck it was Firan, maybe my denying people their rape RP was what got me killed.

lol is this really #notallgolddragonnobles

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Really? I would say people do that all the time.

Do what? Force people to deal with unpleasantness?

From a certain perspective, yes. You have to deal with unpleasantness on many games out there, such as the unpleasantness of watching your PC get torn apart by Cylon gunfire or failing at something they ought to be really good at. And I would agree that we do so when we step on games because we accept a game's resolution system when we engage in play.

But there's a difference between accepting a PC death in combat and being forced to witness racist, sexist, or derogatory slurs. As an analogy, consider a Call of Duty multiplayer match. I'll accept getting shot to pieces by some 12-year-old kid, but I will log the fuck out in a second when he starts crowing about how he "raped" me or how girls shouldn't be gamers.

[insomniac7809]

This post is deleted!

[faraday]

@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

As an analogy, consider a Call of Duty multiplayer match. I'll accept getting shot to pieces by some 12-year-old kid, but I will log the fuck out in a second when he starts crowing about how he "raped" me or how girls shouldn't be gamers.

Of course. But that's OOC abuse. We were talking about IC behavior. Everyone has sensitive subjects they would prefer not to RP about. For me it's "kids in mortal peril". For someone else it might be assault, or suicide or losing a close relative, or - yes - IC discrimination/harassment. I think there's general agreement that nobody should be forced to sit at a keyboard and be subjected to things that upset them. I mean really - is there anyone here arguing against FTB? What's being debated is whether and how people should be allowed to avoid such parts of the theme entirely - and what impacts that has on other players.

[saosmash]

I mean people make other people deal with unfun shit in rp all the time. I spent like two days of my rp time this week dealing with a character being a whiny passive aggressive shit about something stupid. I don't think that's at all uncommon. It's just not really the same issue as IC discrimination.

[Auspice]

@roz said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@lithium said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@deadculture said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@kitteh said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@deadculture I don't remember the details of the character trying it. Some noble. But it was right in the main, public area of the Temple. She was sitting in the pews praying, he sat next to her, and a pose or two later had a hand under her dress trying to... well, I'll leave it there, before I went scrambling.

sigh

I'm pretty sure the noble privilege shit started during the Taleo era. Of course, trust Gold Dragon nobles to take it to fucking eleven.

As a person who PLAYED a gold dragon noble, I don't like being painted with broad strokes of a brush like that. Not every Gold Dragon noble was a skeezy fucker. In fact, it was kind of weird when I took the character how fast people /wanted/ me to take noble privilege with them and I was like... no. Am kinda glad my character ended up dying in war, never went back.

Heck it was Firan, maybe my denying people their rape RP was what got me killed.

lol is this really #notallgolddragonnobles

It was also 'let me adjust my fedora and get all euphoric'

[Seraphim73]

@the_generic_one Yeah.... no. This is an extremely privileged position to take.

While I'm all in favor of including -isms that make sense for the setting (usually a historical one... if it's a fantasy or sci-fi setting, why not arrange -isms that aren't likely to trouble people?), and playing them somewhat delicately to avoid making people upset... just expecting people to suck it up and RP things that may disturb them in real life every day is not a good way to keep people having fun on your game--or to keep them on your game at all.

I think there are ways to make the experience immersive without shoving people's noses in the crap they have to deal with RL too. Or, I don't know, do you think a lot of people RP urinary tract infections, or tooth abscesses, or paying taxes (sure, everyone RPs raising them, but how many RP paying them)? There are some things that are too painful (physically, socially, spiritually, whatever) to be required to be RPed.

[insomniac7809]

Okay, I was going to directly quote @surreality responding to me, but the thread's moved on and it would be just chopped up anyway, so instead I'm posting a few thoughts.

-I don't think there are limits to what art should explore, if done in a considered and respectful fashion by someone who earns that trust. (If it's badly handled, the creators can and often do catch flack for it.)

-I think RP, with people I trust to be sensitive and thoughtful, should have no fewer restrictions put in place.

-I think a MU* environment, for several of the same reasons I love the MU* environment (fast, loose, messy collaborative storytelling with complete strangers) is an absolutely terrible setting to foster the sort of sensitivity and trust that it takes to bring the sort of real-world hate and slurs into the fiction.

-I think that banning in-character slurs is a reasonable restriction to foster player comfort and inclusivity, in the same way many MU*s ban in-character rape. Yes, it happens in real life; no we do not want to deal with it.

(-I don't think "son of a bitch" or "motherfucker" are in any way equitable with racial or homophobic slurs in this context.)

-I think that talking about how aspects of real-world discrimination resembles aspects of fantastical racism ignores that most of the complaints are in the vein of "hate speech against groups I'm a member of is disruptive to my fun time."

-I think that, say, a cowboy MU* is less likely to be a thoughtful expression of American race relations in the 1870s and more an excuse for people to pretend to be awesome gunslingers in cowboy outfits, and setting a "you must be this white/male/straight to be awesome" bar is not a good look for inclusivity in the hobby.

-I think that, while some degree of historical accuracy is a concern, the activities of one in-character month in our hypothetical cowboy MU* have a good chance of overshadowing the collected lifetime achievements of any real western gunfighter, and I also think that people would object if TS in the cowboy MU was required to focus on a cowboy's saddle sores, BO, and dickcheese, historically accurate or not. I think allowances can be made.

-I think that, with what I see across the hobby of the people arguing that it's beneficial to use slurs in-character versus the people who express discomfort toward their use in-scene, it starts to feel like a bunch of us white straight folk talking about how real we keep it while alienating minority players from the hobby.

That's just my thoughts.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Of course. But that's OOC abuse. We were talking about IC behavior.

This is true, but the choice to engage in IC discriminatory behavior or language is an OOC one.

If we presume for a moment that PCs have no real existence or life outside of the player behind the screen, then a PC engages in IC discriminatory behavior at the behest of the player, and is an OOC choice regarding how to engage in RP.

As another example, if I'm doing on-stage improv and a partner decides to use derogatory or abuse language I am well within my rights to stop what I'm doing and demand that the partner stop as well. Even if that language is reasonable within the scene in which we are acting, the choice to demand the cessation of such language is also reasonable.

I know you're not arguing to the contrary, which brings me to the next point.

What's being debated is whether and how people should be allowed to avoid such parts of the theme entirely - and what impacts that has on other players.

Even if a theme has discriminatory elements -- i.e., in BSG, the Tauron-Caprican conflict -- I do think that a Tauron player can demand that a Caprican player cease engaging in some RP, even if it is within the theme and setting. I think it is reasonable to presume that the Tauron player understands that there could be discrimination and accepts it, but, at the same time, I don't think that means that it is unreasonable for them to expect the Caprican player to stop.

But this is different than if the Tauron player blithely ignores that part of the setting, and expects that every Caprican is going to treat them nicely; in that case, while the Tauron player can ask to avoid that kind of RP, it would probably behoove staff to step in and politely inform the player that he/she/it shouldn't expected to be treated as an equal ICly, if his/her/its PC ends up on a Caprican crew.

[surreality]

@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

This is true, but the choice to engage in IC discriminatory behavior or language is an OOC one.

Thing is, the same would be true for the choice to attack someone instead of negotiate, to murder a rival, etc. We wouldn't -- rightly -- think the player is violent or murder-happy RL based on this choice, and it's also a choice that is reasonably going to create some unhappiness or discomfort or upset on the part of the targeted player.

This is why I think we need to be careful about blurring the lines too much around this issue, because that's a really big can of worms (and I am convinced some of them have rabies).

As another example, if I'm doing on-stage improv and a partner decides to use derogatory or abuse language I am well within my rights to stop what I'm doing and demand that the partner stop as well. Even if that language is reasonable within the scene in which we are acting, the choice to demand the cessation of such language is also reasonable.

I don't disagree with this in the context of improv theater. That said... some pedantry not entirely without a point: I don't know how well the improv parallel works here, in part due to the above considerations. Improv typically doesn't have long-running persistent characters that can be removed from play in the same way as a M* character, essentially, and that is something worth keeping in mind as it is a profound difference. (There are some long-running characters in improv -- ren faire roles being a good example -- but they reset at the end of the day even if dead... )

[Thenomain]

Rule #1: Real Life Comes First.

This means if you have to leave in the middle of a scene because you have an emergency, or even if your SO is pulling you away offering sex, your character should not be punished for your actions.

Real Life Coming First also includes your physical and mental health. While it's not up to staff to keep you happy--and this is hard for some people to take but not one single game on the planet has the edict of making sure that you personally have fun--it's entirely reasonable to expect that they will help maintain a space where you can find your own enjoyment.

In spite of my agreeing with most of the sentiment, the game never, ever, ever trumps the player. The game does have a responsibility to maintain the game, and sometimes that means suggesting to the player that this isn't the place for them, that gives nobody the right to do so in a manner lacking in respect.

We do, however, live in an increasingly socially open society where emotional harm is defined by the person taking harm, and I personally think it's dangerous simply giving the offended the right to stop the game for their beliefs.

How much effort is "reasonable"? Which requests on whom are "reasonable" and which are not? Here's where I think we simply cannot come up with an answer. It's going to rely entirely on the game staff's interpretation, and some of us are going to take that interpretation as not reasonable.

For me, that answer is: Whatever allows the most people to enjoy the game as designed by staff.

Nobody trumps anyone else, but everyone should be aware of their effects on others as they're asking others to be aware of effects on them. Understand and respect.

[Ganymede]

@surreality said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Thing is, the same would be true for the choice to attack someone instead of negotiate, to murder a rival, etc. We wouldn't -- rightly -- think the player is violent or murder-happy RL based on this choice, and it's also a choice that is reasonably going to create some unhappiness or discomfort or upset on the part of the targeted player.

You've moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about assaults or murders; I was talking about IC discrimination, which is the topic here.

If the point of engaging in IC discrimination is to demonstrate that a PC is a bastard, there are innumerable ways to do the same without engaging in IC discrimination. For me, the key question is: why would a player engage in IC discrimination? And as I have yet to hear a solid reason as to why a player must engage in IC discrimination, and cannot find any situation where a player should engage in it.

So, as an idea, then, I would say that there is no objective in portraying a character that cannot be done without engaging in IC discrimination based on RL "classes." And, if this is the case, then there's really no harm in banning that kind of behavior everywhere.

It's just an idea. I don't know, maybe people will pick up on it.

[surreality]

@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@surreality said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Thing is, the same would be true for the choice to attack someone instead of negotiate, to murder a rival, etc. We wouldn't -- rightly -- think the player is violent or murder-happy RL based on this choice, and it's also a choice that is reasonably going to create some unhappiness or discomfort or upset on the part of the targeted player.

You've moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about assaults or murders; I was talking about IC discrimination, which is the topic here.

I see this as the same thing: you can't and shouldn't assume someone is RL what they are playing based on 'they made the choice to play that thing'.

That is not something that I see as having any special exceptions for any subject matter. Not murder, not rape, not discrimination, not sex of any kind with anyone or anything, nothing. Not when it comes to 'make negative value judgements about the player based on their choice to consider this concept or course of action'.

So, as an idea, then, I would say that there is no objective in portraying a character that cannot be done without engaging in IC discrimination based on RL "classes." And, if this is the case, then there's really no harm in banning that kind of behavior everywhere.

That pushes the notion of this not being acceptable subject matter period in the hobby, and I can't get behind that at all. Not even the tiniest little bit.

I see a lot of harm in it in a variety of ways, and a lot of them are very obvious to me beyond the really, really obvious slippery slope "What next, then?" argument about banning certain subjects from being permissible in the hobby.

It is pretty much the epitome of 'identifying a subject as wrongfun, regardless of whether or not the participants in the roleplay are wholly consenting and respectful of one another's boundaries and personal comfort zones or not'.

Bear in mind, by this logic, games like the all-male superhero adult game would be labeled wrongfun top to bottom for not even permitting female PCs to exist. I'm completely supportive of that game's right to exist, and to exist precisely as it is, even though its actual OOC policies are intentionally and overtly discriminatory as a necessary function of defining and retaining focus on the game's intended scope.

[rebekahse]

@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

If the point of engaging in IC discrimination is to demonstrate that a PC is a bastard, there are innumerable ways to do the same without engaging in IC discrimination.

What if the 'point' of engaging in IC discrimination is to demonstrate that the PC is a sexist or a racist?

For me, the key question is: why would a player engage in IC discrimination? And as I have yet to hear a solid reason as to why a player must engage in IC discrimination, and cannot find any situation where a player should engage in it.

This is actually a really good example of what I meant when I said it felt like there had been some kind of shift in the hobby over the past few years. Nobody would be asking this question, as @surreality already pointed out, about murdering another PC. You can end my character that I've worked on for five years in the blink of an eye, and that's not wrongfun, but playing a construction contractor who won't hire me because I'm a woman is somehow far worse and somehow has far more impact on my enjoyment of RP? I genuinely do not get this point of view.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

And as I have yet to hear a solid reason as to why a player must engage in IC discrimination, and cannot find any situation where a player should engage in it.

OOC player-to-player discrimination is never excusable, but here are a couple of real IC examples.

A frontier game set in 1840's Australia. My female ranchhand was subject to IC discrimination by various PCs, including her reluctant boss, for being unconventional, 'loose' (their impression because she worked with the men), and a bad influence on 'proper' young ladies. The discrimination was entirely thematic and I had no problem with it. I would have actually been a bit bewildered if nobody had batted an eye at her, since her struggle against convention was what interested me most about the character.

Same frontier game (still 1840s, remember). My char's BFF came out to her, revealing she was a trans woman and oh-by-the-way was romantically interested in my char. Later that same char admitted she had married a man, in church, without revealing the truth about her identity. My char, a practicing Catholic, was more than a little "WTF" by all this. But although it started out with entirely-period rejection and damnation, it led to a really great character arc where my char came to realize that her BFF was still her BFF, and that these other unconventional people were really her only true friends and allies in town, and who the heck was she to throw stones.

BSG game. My char is Space Irish (using the paper-thin analogies for the sake of those unfamiliar with the setting), her father was jailed for being part of the Space IRA, and she's suffered a lifetime of abuse at the hands of the Space British. You can bet she's bigoted against Space British characters. She had a lot of issues dealing with her NPC Space British boss.

Now I'm a pretty empathetic person RL. I'm sure a lot of folks here are sick of my bleeding heart views about everyone getting along. But my characters are not me and IC is IC. If someone asks for a FTB, I will agree without question. If someone asks me to do (or not do) something because the RP is going in a direction they don't like, I'll do my best to work with them. But I'm not going to feel guilty for having my character react in thematically appropriate ways that are true to that character.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

When I play a character who's subject to IC discrimination, it's because there are aspects of the theme or setting that I think are interesting to explore with that specific type of character.

Like, on a GoT game in the long-long ago, I played a bastard (the illegitimate kind). There were specific class and personal issues I wanted to mine for dramatic purposes. I did this! There were character arcs! It was good times! Some people do enjoy playing off IC adversity. I have zero OOC issue with players who just don't want to engage in this stuff, but it would've been weird and not particularly fun for me if this character had been ICly legitimitized and never faced any sort of social side-eye.

Like I don't get the extension of the argument from 'players should be able to opt out of dealing with racial and homophobic slurs that exist IRL' (which I basically agree with) to 'all IC discrimination serves no dramatic purpose', if indeed that is the argument that is being made.

[Thenomain]

@three-eyed-crow

I think the question is, then, are people who play a woman agreeing to the discrimination of their gender? Or a person of color for their race? Nationality? Physical injury?

Unlike @Ganymede, I disagree that this is an all or nothing case, though I don't entirely disagree with her logic. I agree far more with @faraday because her thesis is that its harm can be mitigated, even eliminated, with respect of the people involved and recognition that this is not really happening.

Like you, I personally quite enjoy escapism into reality. But like everyone here, we don't like it when it goes too far.

Though if you look at Firan's boundless popularity even in its infamy, some people's definition of "too far" is on a galactic, not local, scale. Sheesh.

The balance is between "Anything Goes" and "Nanny State". Should be easy, right?

[Apos]

@rebekahse said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

This is actually a really good example of what I meant when I said it felt like there had been some kind of shift in the hobby over the past few years. Nobody would be asking this question, as @surreality already pointed out, about murdering another PC. You can end my character that I've worked on for five years in the blink of an eye, and that's not wrongfun, but playing a construction contractor who won't hire me because I'm a woman is somehow far worse and somehow has far more impact on my enjoyment of RP? I genuinely do not get this point of view.

I dunno about that. I wouldn't understand a game that has intense limits on how characters can speak but then unrestricted PVP and no limits on PKing. I think you either have a collaborative environment where you have reasonable restrictions or you don't police it at all and let the chips fall where they may. There is absolutely no way I'd approve like a serial killer PC, or I'd be permit like random PKing newbies or whatever because that's not the kind of game I'm making. Some games are fine with that, and I can respect the entirely hands off style, but I would have no idea why they would only be interventionist on speech and not on stuff that arbitrarily ends stories for no reason.

[Ganymede]

@rebekahse said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Nobody would be asking this question, as @surreality already pointed out, about murdering another PC.

I would ask the question, actually, because on many of the games I play on, murdering another PC is unthematic. Take, for example, Werewolf 2E. Written into the Oath of the Moon is a prohibition against killing other werewolves. So, if the PCs are werewolves, murdering a werewolf is verboten.

We don't murder people on BSG:U, and killing is generally frowned upon on comic book games, from what I've heard.

What if the 'point' of engaging in IC discrimination is to demonstrate that the PC is a sexist or a racist?

If this is the case, congratulations for perpetuating that horrible truism about art imitating life.

---

@thenomain said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

Unlike @Ganymede, I disagree that this is an all or nothing case, though I don't entirely disagree with her logic. I agree far more with @faraday because her thesis is that its harm can be mitigated, even eliminated, with respect of the people involved and recognition that this is not really happening.

I never said anything about an all-or-nothing policy.

I'm saying that anyone trying to justify their choice to engage in IC discrimination probably took lessons from the Dan Brown School of Writing. And, no, I don't mind being judgmental about it; there's good writing and there's terrible writing.