How should IC discrimination be handled?

[Arkandel]

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

Here, let's give another example. Old West storyline. A black PC goes for a job as a deputy, do you punish the sheriff for saying no?

In my experience (not for this particular example but more overall) the Sheriff would be given the, ahem, rope to hang himself with. He may say no and face the OOC windfall for it, or say yes and face the OOC windfall for it.

The real question for me is what is staff's role in this? Are they supposed to give him direction ("the general NPC populace would respond badly if the deputy was hired") or back his decision either way (such as run events with negative reactions, angry mobs, aggressive local merchants trying to strike back if he does make the new hire, for example) versus shielding the player from trying to OOC paint them as a racist?

[Ganymede]

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

Here, let's give another example. Old West storyline. A black PC goes for a job as a deputy, do you punish the sheriff for saying no?

As staff, no.

As a PC, do whatever the heck you want.

[faraday]

@Collective @Ganymede

Honest question since I think something may be getting lost in translation here.

I haven't seen anybody dispute the idea that raging slur-spouting bigots shouldn't be allowed as PCs because they're disruptive. Just like serial killers or unhinged sociopaths probably shouldn't either.

So if that's the consensus, and modern/sci-fi themes don't generally have the historical baggage of dumb laws that have since been overturned (women can't own property, interracial marriages are illegal, etc.) ... what exactly are the problems you're seeing in WoD/modern settings?

And in historic settings, what do you suggest? Just handwaving completely and having nobody be allowed to bat an eye at a female gunslinger or an African American sheriff, even in eras where, say, iRL women weren't allowed to wear pants and slavery was still a thing?

[saosmash]

I'm really genuinely confused about what this argument even is anymore.

[Collective]

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

So if that's the consensus, and modern/sci-fi themes don't generally have the historical baggage of dumb laws that have since been overturned (women can't own property, interracial marriages are illegal, etc.) ... what exactly are the problems you're seeing in WoD/modern settings?

My problems with WoD games aside (and that's a mountain off to the side), I notice a fairly solid helping of casual isms that get shrugged off by staff and players, routinely. Hell, even in this discussion, it was dismissed as not a problem compared to X, where X is something only tangentially or marginally related.

Let me be upfront about my biases here. I'm an old queer. Not stonewall old, but I lost friends to AIDS when it was still a scary unknown. I even have the so cliched that nobody would use it backstory about being gay and coming from a religious, conservative family. So when I say that I've had a bellyful of hearing anti-gay slurs and such, please believe that's not some social justice warrior posturing. I've bled while people hurled those words. Literally.

I don't find it unreasonable to ask to NOT see them while I'm pretending to be a werewolf or something.

And in historic settings, what do you suggest? Just handwaving completely and having nobody be allowed to bat an eye at a female gunslinger or an African American sheriff, even in eras where, say, iRL women weren't allowed to wear pants and slavery was still a thing?

Hey, if everybody is going to be equally miserable, sure. So put in that random disease dropper that tells a random character every so often that their character is dying of typhoid or tuberculosis or syphilis. Bring on the weather effects that knock down a player's IC business or farm, completely at random.

But if you're not going to do that, singling out players for a fun tax on their play in the name of realism isn't realistic. Or rather, it's applying your 'realism' in such a way that you are making a statement about who is or isn't welcome on your game, even if you don't mean to make it.

[Ganymede]

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

So if that's the consensus, and modern/sci-fi themes don't generally have the historical baggage of dumb laws that have since been overturned (women can't own property, interracial marriages are illegal, etc.) ... what exactly are the problems you're seeing in WoD/modern settings?

GOOD LORD, WOMAN. How long of a post do you want?

(I kid.)

Regarding discrimination, IC discrimination is fairly uncommon, actually. In the old World of Darkness, you get an expected spate of racism or sexism through certain tropes, like the average Fenrir Werewolf. This is largely crushed in the new World of Darkness, and even moreso in the Second Edition of the new World of Darkness.

But, it's still there. Hardliner Sanctified PCs, for example, could be very anti-homosexual when it comes to mortals and vampires alike, and even punish vampire PCs for engaging in sodomy, which would probably be a violation of their dominant, hard-line creed. (In the new World of Darkness, they are the Christian/Catholic/monotheist vampires.) And an old Invictus could engage in the sort of racist behavior that was prevalent in his/her/its time.

Earnestly, I have not bumped into a problem recently. That doesn't mean I won't, or that it can't be a problem. I'm engaging in this discussion because I'm interested in figuring out whether there can be a sort of acceptable, pre-emptive policy that goes beyond the usual standard of: "knock it off with that shit if someone complains about it." My concern is that "knock it off with that shit if there's a complaint" presumes that a player will raise a complaint before leaving the game.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a boorish group of PCs will essentially turn other players off, and push them out. This happened on St. Petersburg, where an aggressive bunch of werewolf skinheads, essentially, carved out a territory, vociferously bullied others to stay out, and alienated just about everyone else who wanted to play. They did not intentionally drive people away from the game, and they were in theme, but the tone of their IC actions was so offensive that players simply walked off.

Ironically, Spider was trying to stymie them, but it was too little and ineffective, and too late.

And in historic settings, what do you suggest? Just handwaving completely and having nobody be allowed to bat an eye at a female gunslinger or an African American sheriff, even in eras where, say, iRL women weren't allowed to wear pants and slavery was still a thing?

Here, I think a straight-up warning is in order.

To expand, when it came to a game like Fifth Kingdom, I expressly asked the staff as to their feelings on racism/sexism/homosexuality. They did not think non-whites would be in their fictional setting set in Ireland, but they weren't against it. They made it clear that men and white were generally considered equals, save perhaps for matrimonial matters. And they made it clear that they didn't really care what people did in their fun times but that marriage was a social thing, and the setting socially wasn't prepared to recognize same-sex unions.

And, as far as I can tell, there was no IC discrimination on that game. Especially when my big, bad-ass dude (Turtle) got mangled by some neophyte played by Maisie Williams (Snail).

My wisdom may be more anecdotal, but I think these concerns arise out of games that I do not frequent or visit.

[Apos]

@collective For clarity, I meant people wanting to RP racist/sexist/whateverist characters in the edgy quip, in the whole, 'I'm playing an asshole' mindset that enjoy disruptive RP. I don't include anyone who would rather not deal with those themes at all in that. I don't even include people that -do- wanna deal in those themes as that, unless they go out of their way to involve players that have zero desire to touch on it.

And, in agreeing with you, this is a huge problem in that people just wanting to play a gunslinger in a wild west game don't really want to deal with the problematic themes they find zero fun to RP. A lot just want to play a gunslinger shooting bad guys, not deal with racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever, but other people do want to play those themes almost always from the sense of overcoming them and I think the only fair answer to that is more games- purist historical vs ones that don't touch those themes at all. I'm usually in the later camp, but the problem is more people really liking one part of a game and hating another part, and wanting to change the part they hate even if it would make a lot of other players miserable that do like that part. It'd be a whole lot less of an issue if there were clearly different games that appealed to different tastes.

@Ganymede Hey man I feel you, I was horrified when I played WoD briefly and saw channel chats. But I don't really think that's a matter of players so much as constant, relentless vigilance and every staffer being on board with being the bad guy and being called hitler for telling people they can't passive aggressively whine someone didn't RP with them or make fun of someone else's RP decisions or imply someone is wrongbad or any of a million things. Really only takes one staffer to be like, 'Aw Bob was just kidding when he said that Sarah's character was better off dead and her RP was stupid' to undermine it. And I think you know better than most that pretty much everyone wants maximum leniency for themselves and their friends and maximum punishments for people they personally dislike. I see it as a given that someone will think it was too harsh for us to call someone out for something problematic, while others will think we gave them a pass by not immediately banning them.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

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

I'm really genuinely confused about what this argument even is anymore.

There seems to have been some goal-post moving away from whether or not players should be able to opt-out of RP that includes racist/sexist/homophobic slurs or storylines, to whether it's OK for those storylines to exist at all, to whether fictional discrimination is functionally the same as RL discrimination (damn the Man for keeping those Bajorans down), to whether any kind of fictional or non-fictional discrimination should exist at all on MUs or has ever made for good stories in the history of fiction across the world.

Some of these arguments are dumber than others, imo.

[Collective]

I am still not arguing that those story lines shouldn't exist. And I'm still not even engaging in the terrible troubles of imaginary minorities.

As always, my point is, was and probably always will be that players should be allowed to opt out of dealing with slurs and abuse when they hit too close to home.

I did however, expand that point to suggest that you're using historical realism as an excuse to allow abuse, it's not actually ethical to do so unless you insure that every character is hit by awful stuff out of player control and preferably randomly.

That's pretty much it on my part.

[Lithium]

@collective Here's the thing, anyone has the ability to opt out on most any game by simple FTB or leaving a scene if it's not to their taste.

All else fails, there's the whole ability to type 'QUIT' and log out. Nothing can really stop anyone from doing that.

If the setting and theme are of a type where such -ism's and -obias are appropriate, and such things really bother an individual player then that game is probably not the game for them.

This is an entirely optional hobby, with entirely optional worlds, with entirely arbitrary settings decided by the game runners and creators.

There is no way to please everyone, all we can do as a game runner is present the game we want to run and enforce the decisions we have made.

To try and turn the whole idea into some sort of 'blanket' ruling is nonsensical because some settings and themes have certain aspects built in.

So the answer to me seems pretty simple:

Is the IC discrimination part of the setting and theme of the game? If so, then ICA=ICC.

If it's not, then Staff may need to step in and enforce the tone of their theme and setting.

It is impossible to please everyone, and it's all pretendy funtimes but that's the thing... not everyone finds the same things fun.

[Collective]

@lithium

Am I correct in understanding that you basically believe that if minority or queer people don't want to deal with abuse, they shouldn't play any game they don't run?

[Lithium]

@collective No. As a minority and a 'queer' as you like to use that term, I am saying that it is impossible to please everyone and nobody should even try. It is doomed to failure.

Find a game that you enjoy and play that rather than try to enforce the same sensibilities onto every setting, every theme, and every game out there.

[ThatGuyThere]

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

@apos

So, I'm curious. What's your threshold for the amount of IC abuse that's okay and doesn't need a disclaimer? I thought we were at the point in the discussion where folks were saying that as long as everything is IC, we're all good?

Not Apos, but I will offer my opinion, I have nothing against a disclaimer but I would put it more like this.
IC interactions may be unpleasant, if an interaction becomes OOCly unpleasant it is the duty of all parties to find an acceptable compromise or end the interaction.

To me it comes down to being an adult, we are on games to have fun if RPing with someone makes a game unfun then avoid them. I fully support giving everyone the ability to have fun with those they enjoy and avoiding those they don't.
I would also avoid RPing with someone who tossed around RL slurs whether or not those slurs pertained to me, but I would not take the step to ban such behavior on an IC level, because that gets to the same level of staff micro managing that I think is far worse to deal with than just avoiding the unpleasant folks.

[rebekahse]

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

I did however, expand that point to suggest that you're using historical realism as an excuse to allow abuse, it's not actually ethical to do so unless you insure that every character is hit by awful stuff out of player control and preferably randomly.

I'm not a historian, but I think one's chances of surviving the Old West without contracting tuberculosis were slightly higher than the chances of an openly gay black man being elected sheriff of an Arizona boom town.

Aside from that, I actually like the idea of a random-bad-things generator, if only because it would separate the people playing characters with a healthy IC/OOC disconnect from the people playing thinly-veiled author-insertion fantasy personas.

[Collective]

@lithium Nowhere did I say I was attempting to enforce anything. Anywhere.

[Collective]

@rebekahse

I didn't say it should be a huge chance. But it should be there. If the historically accurate misery is going to rain, it should rain on everybody, right?

[faraday]

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

But if you're not going to do that, singling out players for a fun tax on their play in the name of realism isn't realistic. Or rather, it's applying your 'realism' in such a way that you are making a statement about who is or isn't welcome on your game, even if you don't mean to make it.

I have great sympathy for the types of discrimination you've endured. I can understand not wanting to play on certain themes, just like I would have zero fun in playing on a game where unconventional women were subjected to heaping piles of abuse.

The only difference is that I wouldn't attribute any malice to somebody running a period historical game and saying "Yo, we don't want 27 Calamity Janes running around because it breaks our immersion". That's their right to go for a more grounded setting, and it's my right to say "Okay bye". (Maybe you're not attributing malice either but it kinda sounds like you are so maybe there's a miscommunication again.)

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

Hey, if everybody is going to be equally miserable, sure. So put in that random disease dropper that tells a random character every so often that their character is dying of typhoid or tuberculosis or syphilis. Bring on the weather effects that knock down a player's IC business or farm, completely at random.

That seems kind of extreme. Just because I, as staff, wouldn't inflict Random Typhoid or Random Fires or Random Murder or Random Racism on somebody doesn't mean that typhoid and fires and murder and racism don't exist in the theme. It doesn't stop someone from doing a plot where their character gets sick, or tries to burn down someone else's business in revenge, or tries to murder someone else. All of these things have happened.

They are less likely to happen, though, if you set up your game's theme to foster cooperation instead of PvP. But even on a co-op game you can end up with a clash of fictional ideals.

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

That doesn't mean I won't, or that it can't be a problem. I'm engaging in this discussion because I'm interested in figuring out whether there can be a sort of acceptable, pre-emptive policy that goes beyond the usual standard of: "knock it off with that shit if someone complains about it."

I am interested in whether such a solution exists as well. I'm not sure what you mean by a straight-up warning for historical settings though. Warning about what?

[Ganymede]

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

I am interested in whether such a solution exists as well. I'm not sure what you mean by a straight-up warning for historical settings though. Warning about what?

I expanded after you started your response.

So, if you have a historical setting, a warning would be open and public. Let's say you were running a Wild West game where racism and sexism exist and are tropes to be fought, staff should make it clear that such racism and sexism are a part of the setting, and, while it may be overlooked by PCs, players should expect that racism and sexism to be in the game. Players can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to play there.

I feel that there is some responsibility of a player to scout out a game before joining it, and part of that is searching for a place that provides a nice, safe zone. If a game clearly says AIN'T NO SAFETY HERE, I probably wouldn't join it and would advise others similarly.

[Lithium]

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

@lithium Nowhere did I say I was attempting to enforce anything. Anywhere.

You imply it a great deal, and imply it's wrongfun to allow discrimination at the IC level.

I am not going to touch OOC discrimination because that is off topic.

I am sticking to my guns, because:

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

@lithium

Am I correct in understanding that you basically believe that if minority or queer people don't want to deal with abuse, they shouldn't play any game they don't run?

I am tired of the fucking innuendo and twisting of words you are doing.

[surreality]

Please ignore this tangent, but goddamn. Watching this argument occur the way it has...

...I still think the conceptual framework I had in mind would be of help to resolve these issues.

Dammit, people. I don't know if it'll ever have a game or setting attached to it, but I'm back to basic bare-bones dev for something someone else may potentially be able to use some day to see if it helps.

(We need a user named Khan for me to yell at for this moment to feel appropriately conveyed, y'all.)