TS - Danger zone

[Pandora]

This won't please some people to hear, but I'm not in the business of holding my tongue.

There's a lot of grief heaped on people who don't seek OOC pre-consent for RP of questionable topics, and this fails to address the fact (not supposition, but fact) that there are and always will be players that want these types of RP to be spontaneous, that want to be able to say 'No, no' while thinking 'Yes', that want to be able to safely experience the thrill/horror/joy/disgust from their well-lit bedroom desk hidden behind an anonymous screen from which they can walk away at any point if they so choose.

I'm not arguing against the idea that it'd be healthier for them to be able to OOCly say 'I want X', I'm just saying that for some, that takes the excitement out of it in ways I'd imagine are similar to if a scary movie flashed a warning on the screen to let you know a jump-scare is coming. The same way the ominous music is a low-key warning something is about to happen so you might want to cover your eyes and peek through your fingers, most RP of a 'problematic' nature tends to have a build-up to it during which you can measure and weigh your options and decide if this is right for you.

There is no one-size-fits-all for consent in fiction, what's important is to know your own limits/boundaries and enforce them to your own level of comfort. No one can force anyone to RP anything. I repeat, no one can force anyone to RP anything. They may try, but your keyboard + mouse + mental well-being are in your hands, literally.

[Rinel]

@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:

There is no one-size-fits-all for consent in fiction, what's important is to know your own limits/boundaries and enforce them to your own level of comfort. No one can force anyone to RP anything. I repeat, no one can force anyone to RP anything. They may try, but your keyboard + mouse + mental well-being are in your hands, literally

Well, you did warn us you aren't in the business of holding your tongue...

I don't really agree with what you're saying here. I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from, and, yeah, ideally we'd live in a world where people don't have baggage. But what you're saying here is pretty reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's line about how only you can choose to let words hurt you.

RP is frequently a place where people expose vulnerabilities they wouldn't elsewhere. That means that they're more, well, vulnerable. Maybe you think that's unwise, but people are frequently unwise.

And besides, nobody can coerce you to do anything, right? If someone has you at gunpoint, you don't have to do what they want. You can always just get shot. In RP, the potential consequences are much less dire, but I think it's sort of dishonest to pretend that people aren't hugely coerced at times by OOC considerations.

Also I wrote this immediately after waking up and my head is full of spiders

[Pandora]

@Rinel Logging into a game with strangers is a conscious choice and the decision to do so should be made with the consideration of the fact that you cannot control what other people choose to type, and whether or not you are in the correct head-space to deal with the fact that people are going to type things you disagree with, from mild annoyances to Mayday alarm bells.

You can be vulnerable and still maintain responsibility for yourself and your choices, to say otherwise is to rob people of their own sense of agency. It is not the job of the internet to babysit you. There is a difference between 'I did not like that, please don't do it again.' and 'I did not like that, you are a horrible person & I will now proceed to tell everyone to cancel you because despite not breaking any game rules, you've upset me and must pay.'

The difference between what I said and what Mrs Reagan said is that I am not denying anyone their hurt, I am denying anyone the right to decide that the way to avoid being hurt is to disallow everyone from writing anything that could possibly hurt them.

The difference between being held at gunpoint in real life and being held at gunpoint in roleplay is that in one, you are flesh and bone and in danger. In the other, you can log off and go make a cup of tea. You do not have to roleplay anything, ever.

I have no interest in pretending people aren't coerced, I don't know where you got that idea. Even pre-obtained consent can be coerced from someone trying to be a good sport, or desperate to be liked, or anxious about ruining someone else's fun.

[Arkandel]

Folks, although the debate is still fine, please be careful lest it goes into that old cycle of judgment and victim-blaming that I'd rather it didn't.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

Folks, although the debate is still fine, please be careful lest it goes into that old cycle of judgment and victim-blaming that I'd rather it didn't.

So I shouldn't judge you and blame you for how I mistreat you? Because, ngl, that's my kink, Ark. You're so limiting, I swear, can't even nemesis at you anymore. God damn.

[surreality]

@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:

I have no interest in pretending people aren't coerced, I don't know where you got that idea. Even pre-obtained consent can be coerced from someone trying to be a good sport, or desperate to be liked, or anxious about ruining someone else's fun.

^ This deserves to be highlighted. Many problems come from this.

[Arkandel]

@Coin said in TS - Danger zone:

So I shouldn't judge you and blame you for how I mistreat you? Because, ngl, that's my kink, Ark. You're so limiting, I swear, can't even nemesis at you anymore. God damn.

Wait, I thought I was judging and blaming you.

What the hell is this.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

@Coin said in TS - Danger zone:

So I shouldn't judge you and blame you for how I mistreat you? Because, ngl, that's my kink, Ark. You're so limiting, I swear, can't even nemesis at you anymore. God damn.

Wait, I thought I was judging and blaming you.

What the hell is this.

A mutually abusive relationship.

Duh.

God, you're so slow sometimes.

Not your posing, your posing is on-time.

Bout the only thing, though.

[mietze]

You can still be discreet while not talking through everything proactively ooc. It really isn't hard. And anyone should be willing to stop immediately any RP with someone who says oocly to stop. You may need to negotiate (with or without a staffer) for how to handle whatever it is (FTB and any consequences/aftermath decisions).

But even if someone were to solicit a rape scene from you, if they say during the course of the scene hey, I need to stop, then it should. If someone promised you ooc that their PC was going to be your PC's partner forevermore and during the course of the game they decide that's actually not the direction they want (even if you have talked about it and had fun with the ooc conversation), then actually they do get to stop being that for your PC. Maybe you talk about extrication or if there might be ic game impacts, but they do not have to continue on with what they do not want to do. (Doesn't mean that they get to dodge consequences).

I do not think that someone deciding that they do not wish to RP certain things with someone (even if they have before with that person or others) or noping out constitutes expecting to be babysat. Nor do I think anyone has a right to demand a proactive ooc conversation (unless that's game policy--ive seen that for agency removal play such as rape, "forced conversion" to another template, kidnapping to another org, ect. that both parties have to put in writing that they understand/ooc consent, to prevent ooc misrepresentation campaigns later).

I think any sex/relationship rp should come with a huge caveat emptor with a huge side helping of understanding that things can shift radically over time. You have to be willing to hold it with an open hand. If you can't handle people changing their mind then it might be better to refrain. That's not to say that you cant be sad/mad/confused, but I do not think anyone is really entitled to an explanation to their satisfaction. It is really rewarding and fun RP (IMO) but there is also some risk involved.

[Pandora]

@mietze I agree with this post, but lest anyone run with an incorrect assumption here, my comment about being babysat was not about anyone noping out of something or deciding ahead of time that they don't want to do something. It was about the idea that everything has to be vetted and mapped out OOCly ahead of time or else you're a bad person.

[farfalla]

@Pandora What is your point? I can't even tell what I'm supposed to be displeased by. Is your argument that... we shouldn't ban certain types of behavior on games, because some people want the facade of non-con RP but won't say so, so we'd better make sure they can get their heart racing unexpressed desires over the expressed desires of other people to not be explicitly pressured and creeped on? Or is it that because you can't entirely eliminate pressure or coercion or non-con behavior, we shouldn't try to disallow any of it? Or that we don't have the "right" (whatever that means) to establish content rules and guidelines on games?

I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, tbh, but it really seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Pandora]

@farfalla said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora What is your point? I can't even tell what I'm supposed to be displeased by. Is your argument that... we shouldn't ban certain types of behavior on games, because some people want the facade of non-con RP but won't say so, so we'd better make sure they can get their heart racing unexpressed desires over the expressed desires of other people to not be explicitly pressured and creeped on? Or is it that because you can't entirely eliminate pressure or coercion or non-con behavior, we shouldn't try to disallow any of it? Or that we don't have the "right" (whatever that means) to establish content rules and guidelines on games?

I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, tbh, but it really seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You're boring.

[farfalla]

@Pandora I definitely am! Your "displeasing" post is still incomprehensible and dumb, though.

[Pandora]

@farfalla said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora I definitely am! Your "displeasing" post is still incomprehensible and dumb, though.

My sincerest apologies that you're incapable of comprehending plain English; please feel free to continue not having anything of substance to say in turn.

[farfalla]

@Pandora you told me

[mietze]

@farfalla well in a sense that is my point. Instead of banning noncon RP (which is going to happen anyway), remove the people incapable of acting responsibly.

[Jennkryst]

@mietze said in TS - Danger zone:

@farfalla well in a sense that is my point. Instead of banning noncon RP (which is going to happen anyway), remove the people incapable of acting responsibly.

Blanket bans of a thing because of people who are dumb, instead of banning the person who is dumb, continually leads to problems, yeah. In other news: fire hot. And this just in, water wet.

[mietze]

@Pandora here's the thing though. If a person knows that they are not going to be comfortable without negotiated cliff notes before they engage, it really isnt IMO asking for babysitting for them to ask that of someone. The someone can then decide if that price of admission is worth it or not. If the expectation is that no one ever has to ask for what they need instead everyone must provide exactly what they want by psychic deduction, I can see the point. Though isnt it the same if someone were to get upset and call everyone else spoiled babies because they never want to be asked for anything but instead want everyone to understand that they should never have to deal with that discomfort?

Unless a game has procedures spelled out (sometimes they do) I think it's better to assume playstyles will be mixed. It is therefore probably good if people are willing to be uncomfortable and speak up about what they want, and be willing to be uncomfortable and listen and say no and break it off or compromise, or comply, depending.

I think the majority of folks are relatively roll with it it, in my observation. But people with super strong needs either way should be willing to own it and realize that it might cause some hopefully temporary awkward feeling but ultimately a prevention of even more awkward down the road.

This is super difficult in practice though because I don't think most people are very practiced or willing to make the ask or listen to the ask, they just want things to naturally be their way.

[Roz]

The long and short of it is that some people want a fair amount of OOC negotiation and some people want none. Some of the former group will try to be excessive and use it as a method to avoid any conflict or loss, and some of the latter group will try to run roughshod. Bad behavior exists in both styles.

I think that specific game cultures tend to have one or the other be a bit more popular. I just suggest people look for games that feel comfortable to them.

[Arkandel]

@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:

@farfalla said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora What is your point? I can't even tell what I'm supposed to be displeased by. Is your argument that... we shouldn't ban certain types of behavior on games, because some people want the facade of non-con RP but won't say so, so we'd better make sure they can get their heart racing unexpressed desires over the expressed desires of other people to not be explicitly pressured and creeped on? Or is it that because you can't entirely eliminate pressure or coercion or non-con behavior, we shouldn't try to disallow any of it? Or that we don't have the "right" (whatever that means) to establish content rules and guidelines on games?

I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, tbh, but it really seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You're boring.

Guys, both of you, cut this out or get out of this thread.