How should IC discrimination be handled?

[Sunny]

"I don't want to deal with this in my fun time" =/= "Nobody anywhere ever should have to deal with this in their fun time." I'm not really seeing anywhere in this thread where somebody said the latter, but it sure as hell seems like the former is being responded to as if it were the latter. Nor is anybody making the point saying anything about the people who like to RP this stuff, let alone that they're bad people.

[Sunny]

Like, the question I was initially answering was 'why are there so many games where IC -isms aren't allowed' and maybe I just don't know of them, but I can actually only think of one singular game in which this sort of RP was baked into the setting itself as off limits. The other period games I know of absolutely take them into consideration (afaik, @Auspice's game includes -isms, for example, and I am sure that M1963 has -isms).

So this is literally a complaint about one single game putting as off limits a sort of RP that some of us don't want to deal with (represented as ALL THE GAMES EVER), and it becomes a BFD. There's no value judgment here, there's no calling of names of people who like to play that sort of thing, there's just 'unrealistic' being leveled at the lack of inclusion of these things, there's misrepresentation of the point as a straw man, there's all sorts of other nonsense.

It is really, really, really okay if there's a game or two out there for those folks that don't want to deal with this stuff in their pretendy fun times. None of us are insisting that all games need to be this way, or even most. But a couple of games doing things this way is not 'some seismic shift' nor is it a problem in the community that needs to be addressed. @Arkandel's question is a good one, but I was addressing a specific statement, not making any of the points that are being attributed.

[Collective]

@sunny But ... but ... immersion!

Look, if a guy playing a werewolf from a family of reality bending mages who are tied to a small town that happens to be the epicenter for global cthuloid madness can't have his character call somebody the N-word while ripping a hole between the real world and a spirit realm so they can go chase rogue ghosts, well, that's just not realistic.

[Sunny]

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

@sunny But ... but ... immersion!

Look, if a guy playing a werewolf from a family of reality bending mages who are tied to a small town that happens to be the epicenter for global cthuloid madness can't have his character call somebody the N-word while ripping a hole between the real world and a spirit realm so they can go chase rogue ghosts, well, that's just not realistic.

Pfft. The n-word is fine to ban, I don't care, he just better be able to call some woman a whore.

[Collective]

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

"I don't want to deal with this in my fun time" =/= "Nobody anywhere ever should have to deal with this in their fun time." I'm not really seeing anywhere in this thread where somebody said the latter, but it sure as hell seems like the former is being responded to as if it were the latter. Nor is anybody making the point saying anything about the people who like to RP this stuff, let alone that they're bad people.

I feel like this can't be quoted enough.

I honestly don't get why there is such resistance to the idea that it is okay to have your character opt out of dealing with racism/sexism/homophobia, etc that may hit you on a personal level.

Your character in a game might be sexually abused, but we don't make players RP that out.

Your character in a game might be eaten, but we don't make you play out vore. (For god's sake don't Google that, if you don't know. I sincerely wish I didn't.)

I'm not sure why just saying 'I'd prefer not to deal with slurs' is suddenly a giant attack on every gamer's sovereignty and fun. I don't assume that a person who has a fondness for bigoted characters is a bigot (I do assume that if they make a habit of making those characters that they are a troll, but not a bigot) but I do assume that a player who can't play a character without those traits, ever, is at the very least lacking in imagination.

It's not even unrealistic. Bigots have to go stealth all the time, even in the era of Trump, to keep their social status and employment secure.

[surreality]

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

I honestly don't get why there is such resistance to the idea that it is okay to have your character opt out of dealing with racism/sexism/homophobia, etc that may hit you on a personal level.

My take on this is to require direct consent for it to occur, like many other controversial themes.

I heard this was completely stupid crazy talk and it should be banned outright if people could just 'opt out' and got aggressively browbeaten about it from both sides of the argument -- as in, 'it even existing in the world where it might be read in a log in which consensual participants go there' was unacceptable, and 'allowing people to opt-out breaks immersion and that's important above all!'

I find both attitudes to be complete bullshit nonsense, but I am apparently stupid and crazy. <shrugs>

(This isn't the first time this topic has come up.)

[Collective]

It's almost like gamers (be they tabletop, MMO, MUSHer or whatever) have a more readily identifiable minority of people with crippling social issues in their communities.

Almost.

Which isn't to say those people don't exist everywhere. Hell, my roomie's stories of the crazy casual racism on her favorite knitting forum are enough to make you swear off sweaters. Just that a hobby all about social interactions tends to put the bad stuff more on display than one that doesn't.

[surreality]

@collective Agreed.

I went with 'you have to opt-IN' to those subjects, and direct OOC consent was still required.

It had a setup for 'RP preferences' where people could write their personal comfort zones for various forms of content. All the controversial content was there. As in, you could detail exactly what was, and was not, OK with you, on any given subject, since a lot of this stuff is fairly nuanced. For instance, somebody might be OK with hearing 'bitch' thrown around, but find 'no, I'm not hiring you because you're a woman and thus too emotional!' -- or might be fine with some kind of Gorean whatever, but only with negotiation first, or... the list is endless, and giving people a neutral space to outline their personal OK/NOT OK boundaries strikes me as helpful. (Many people disagree. Still doing it if I do a thing.)

Stuff can exist in the world, but whether someone engages with that stuff or not absolutely should be up to the player, because the player is ultimately more important than anybody's character.

[faraday]

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

"I don't want to deal with this in my fun time" =/= "Nobody anywhere ever should have to deal with this in their fun time." I'm not really seeing anywhere in this thread where somebody said the latter, but it sure as hell seems like the former is being responded to as if it were the latter. Nor is anybody making the point saying anything about the people who like to RP this stuff, let alone that they're bad people.

I have seen several posts in the thread that are shades of 'this shouldn't be allowed on games' including statements like 'those (-ist) characters shouldn't be played period' and describing IC -isms as 'fun at someone else's expense'. Now maybe that's not what those folks meant and it's just a misunderstanding - that's fine. But as @surreality said, this isn't the first time this discussion has come up and those points you highlight have most assuredly been made before.

Saying that people should be able to out on a personal level is no silver bullet either. What if you're, say, a woman character in an era rife with sexism? Does that mean nobody can be the slightest bit sexist towards you? Men have to hire you? Etc.? It's complicated. Which is why I think it's good to discuss.

[Sunny]

@faraday It's really difficult to have a discussion when any point made that's not part of the dominant narrative is completely mischaracterized and misrepresented when it's being responded to. I'm not sure how you think you're going to get a good discussion out of this sort of behavior. Sure, people have said it before. @Collective and I are surely not saying it now, but it's sure being addressed like we are. I disagree that there's been some sort of seismic shift in the community. I disagree that anybody here and now is suggesting that folks are bad people.

Why are we addressing 'bad people' when there's an actual issue that's actually happening to talk about?

[Ganymede]

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

So this is literally a complaint about one single game putting as off limits a sort of RP that some of us don't want to deal with (represented as ALL THE GAMES EVER), and it becomes a BFD.

I'm wondering which game that is because I'm confused now.

[saosmash]

@ganymede Arx specifically thematically doesn't have sexism, racism, etc., except racism versus Shav'Arvani and/or elves of various kinds. I think that's what Sunny is referring to.

[faraday]

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

@Collective and I are surely not saying it now, but it's sure being addressed like we are.

I seriously don't know what you're talking about. Who do you think is misrepresenting what?

I see:

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

And yes, I know my characters are not me. But I also don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask why the 'right' to be vile and hurtful to other people is so much more important than anyone else feeling welcome in a given environment. Because those words hit the players with the same force they hit the characters sometimes.

That certainly comes across to me as saying that it's bad for people to argue for the "right" to have IC -ism in their games. And there have been other comments in this thread to that same effect. If that's not what was intended, then it's just a miscommunication.

Now bear in mind I said earlier that I prefer to avoid RL -isms too in RP. They make me uncomfortable. So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that viewpoint. But I'm just genuinely puzzled by the assertion that "nobody's saying it shouldn't be allowed" when I think some are.

[Collective]

@faraday

Please don't use me as your straw man. You don't need to interpret my words to fit your point. They are already written in plain English.

And my point, all along, has not been 'nobody should be allowed to do this'. It has been to ask, 'why is doing this more important than other people's comfort levels?' and 'why is it unreasonable to opt out of that kind of RP'?

If you can point at me asking for a ban of anything, please do so. If you can't, then don't twist my words to fit your biases and assumptions, please.

Thank you.

[Roz]

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

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

@Collective and I are surely not saying it now, but it's sure being addressed like we are.

I seriously don't know what you're talking about. Who do you think is misrepresenting what?

I see:

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

And yes, I know my characters are not me. But I also don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask why the 'right' to be vile and hurtful to other people is so much more important than anyone else feeling welcome in a given environment. Because those words hit the players with the same force they hit the characters sometimes.

That certainly comes across to me as saying that it's bad for people to argue for the "right" to have IC -ism in their games. And there have been other comments in this thread to that same effect. If that's not what was intended, then it's just a miscommunication.

I took it to mean that it's bad for people to insist they should be allowed to force this RP onto people who don't want it.

[faraday]

@collective Wow. I point out how maybe your words came across differently than you intended while also supportively saying there's nothing wrong with it, and you decide to attack with I can't read English and I'm making straw man arguments?

Every time I think maybe people can have a civil discussion on MSB and decide to give it another try I'm proven wrong.

[Sunny]

@faraday

@Roz and @Collective have answered your question, and made my point quite well. This is what I am talking about when I am referring to the misrepresentation of the point being made.

[Collective]

@faraday

If you meant that in good faith, then sure, I apologize.

That having been said, you were quoting me to illustrate a point I was not making and I do not believe could be reasonably inferred from the text. That's not kosher. Not even a little.

[Sunny]

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

"I don't want to deal with this in my fun time" =/= "Nobody anywhere ever should have to deal with this in their fun time."

[surreality]

@collective I should be out the door already, I really should, but I think you maybe need to look at that statement again.

It's very easy to infer what @faraday did, and I read it the same way when what is literally stated is that people are "arguing for the right to be vile and hurtful" by discussing any inclusion of these subjects at all, no matter what checks, balances, or protections might be in place.

That is a pretty serious accusation to make, and it's an accusation about people behind the screen and those having the discussion, not any hypothetical character they might be playing. Please re-read; I think you'll see why this is a problematic statement and why it's being interpreted in the way it is.

And on that note, I'm actually out the door, because work's a thing.