TS - Danger zone
-
@mietze just listen to dubstep. That's basically the jist.
-
THIS TIME NOT IN THE BOARD GAME THREAD
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
You've mentioned 'I can do this and you can't stop me' stuff including out of band communication.
Uh, no? No, I haven't. I only said that I don't take No-TS policies into account in my decision making. Others brought up other venues, not I.
Apologies if I got that wrong. Then again, I think its relevant and somewhat implicit to the 'people can circumvent your policies no matter what you do' argument. Staffers can spy on all in-game communication if they choose to, so they certainly can stop all TS on their server if they choose such an approach. Your basic premise fails if you don't include the back channel stuff.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
Plus, again, games with kids. There's no other choice there, right?
We aren't talking about games with kids. I've already made it clear that games with kids don't exist to me in so far as TS is concerned. And arguably, "no ts because kids" isn't a policy it's a law.
Who's we? I am. And it seems relevant, because nothing else changes. Kids can and will (with perhaps even greater likelihood) break your rules to do what they want, including sex stuff. They can get stalked and harassed (and its much more of a danger for them). I think pretending this case doesn't exist is an artificial way of tweaking the argument.
But I can even do without it: what about a game that just bans rape? People have rape kinks, and can and will RP it even if it's banned. Harassment will still ensue, perhaps with even greater prevalence. Some staffers may have related RL trauma and not want to deal with that material. Are they also required to allow it because 'you can't stop it?'
I want to poke at some of your wording again, just for a moment. You repeatedly say "cheater" when talking about people that violate this hypothetical policy, and that's inaccurate. Cheaters break the rules to gain an unfair advantage, and that should always be discouraged and punished.
People that violate an innocuous policy, and are then too reticent to comment on abuses suffered because they will be punished are not cheaters.
Eh .To me any player that looks at a policy and says 'nah, I'm the exception!' is automatically in a different category, because they have established a lack of respect for the space staff has created. I will acknowledge that there are different degrees and I would look at someone who sought mechanical advantage or other forms of in-game manipulation differently, but that doesn't equate in my mind that I should not treat these violations seriously.
My argument is, if it's an argument at all, that banning something doesn't eliminate it. It drives it underground where it can become dangerous to its participants. Yes, I agree, people should abide by policy. But even those that don't, without actually cheating (in terms of its actual definition), still deserve to feel safe enough to report it. If it goes unreported, who knows how many people are abused in the same fashion?
Most of this is a re-hash, but I will comment on the very last part since you haven't engaged with this part of my argument: the people who are following policy but also deal with harassment. Most serious offenders (ie not MUers being shit at communication) are multiple offenders (this is actually supported by RL research: I recall a study that found rapists each had something like six victims), so the likelihood of them surviving unnoticed is actually pretty low, because those compliant players will feel much more empowered and can highlight violations much more easily.
And yes, I understand that you don't want to spend your free time wading through the crap brought about by people you don't desire on your game in the first place. But when it comes to harrassment, it's not just a game anymore. MUers, people here in fact, have had their personal details accessed and leaked, in some cases their real lives invaded, due to the actions of abusers and harrassers. I'm glad that you take harrassment seriously, but I think you're seriously underestimating the potential impact of such harrassers and abusers when they know that their victims will be punished just like them if they're reported.
You say you the out of band argument isn't yours part of yours but you're bringing it up again here, right? This stuff gets serious when it violates the game boundaries, but inside the game boundaries are the only place where a staffer can meaningfully act. So again, I empathize, but again, this stuff doesn't really factor into MU policy for me.
A clear TS policy is required, yes. But not a blanket ban. It hurts more than it helps.
Any policy is equivalent insofar as people ignoring it as they please, whether a total ban, ban of particular acts, etc.
-
Well it looks like we have a fundamentally different view of our roles in the world, so I think we can leave it at that.
-
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
Well it looks like we have a fundamentally different view of our roles in the world, so I think we can leave it at that.
No, you don't get to argue that staff is wrong for being unwilling to deal with TS and then pretend you're not someone with massive disrespect for other people's boundaries.
-
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
Well it looks like we have a fundamentally different view of our roles in the world, so I think we can leave it at that.
No, you don't get to argue that staff is wrong for being unwilling to deal with TS and then pretend you're not someone with massive disrespect for other people's boundaries.
Actually I do get to do that! Because arguing about it in theory rather than demanding it be instituted everywhere is the entire fucking point of this forum!
If you feel disrespected by anything I said... that's your problem, not mine. I'll remind you, once again, this is the constructive section. And, excepting everything you typed, this was a constructive conversation.
-
@Tinuviel You have a really weird definition of constructive, then. Because I just saw you repeatedly argue that me wanting to have my boundaries respected was enabling sexual harassment. And doing this while knowing that I am a victim of that specific kind of sexual harassment.
That's not constructive. The reason I haven't gone into detail in response to you because there is no constructive response to such a statement.
-
Peoples' opinions being different than yours is not a personal attack.
-
@Sunny No it's not. But this is not a difference of opinion. This is someone effectively telling me to suck it up in respects to sexual harassment.
-
No, this is you twisting someone else's words to imply what you want to imply so you can sound like you're being oppressed.
-
@DareDaemon No, actually. I wasn't talking about you at all. For most of the conversation, I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking about you. I wasn't even vaguely aware that you existed. I was discussing my views on the duties of staff and policy with @bored.
I'm sorry, truly, that you experienced harassment around this subject; but your personal experiences aren't going to stop me speaking about a subject, okay? You are not the be-all and end-all of every conversation that you happen to pop up in. I fully respect your right to run whatever you want the way you want for any reason you want. Have whatever boundaries you wish, I don't care.
I'm still going to call stupid policies stupid when I think they're stupid. If you think that's unfair, then that is unfortunate but that's just how it's going to be. If you don't like that, which is fine, there's an easy handy-dandy ignore feature.
Given the fact that my entire point was about the reticence of some folks in your position being unwilling or unable to report their sexual harrassment, I have no fucking idea where you pulled the "suck it up" bullshit you're spewing now. I'll quote for your benefit:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
My argument is, if it's an argument at all, that banning something doesn't eliminate it. It drives it underground where it can become dangerous to its participants. Yes, I agree, people should abide by policy. But even those that don't, without actually cheating (in terms of its actual definition), still deserve to feel safe enough to report it. If it goes unreported, who knows how many people are abused in the same fashion?
I'm afraid I don't see one skerrick of "sexual harassment victims need to suck it up." But if you're talking about my preference against a blanket ban on TS in general? I'll expand on that by reiterating a previous statement: You are not the be-all and end-all. Your experiences were terrible, and that is a true tragedy. There is no denying or minimising that. But most games have more than one staff member. You are not required to deal with every problem on a game, in the majority of times.
I disagree with your policy, not your reasons for having such a policy.
-
@Tinuviel Ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.
@Sunny said in TS - Danger zone:
No, this is you twisting someone else's words to imply what you want to imply so you can sound like you're being oppressed.
Fuck off with your self-righteous spiel.
-
I believe this conversation has exhausted its usefulness. Thank you.
He/Him
-
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
I believe this conversation has exhausted its usefulness. Thank you.
-
I'll spill some tea to try to necro the thread in a more useful direction.
I have a terrible, awful habit that I think you all deserve to know about. Quite often when TSing, I sit there at the keyboard and I....
Well. This is very uncomfortable to confess, but I'll soldier on. First I get very comfortable. Some music to set the mood helps -- something sexy. Loose, comfortable clothing is a plus here too. Once I'm all settled in and in the zone, it's time to get. it. on.
I loosen my belt, ease the tension of my waistband...
...and fucking binge on snacks. Loud snacks, messy snacks... whatever! I don't even give a fuck. Savage with it.
So just try to get that image out of your head.
Hating haters and their hate since a year that neither rhymes nor alliterates
-
As if a non-Hogpit thread was filled with angry posts ripe with gif opportunities that I was missing out on.
-
I'm not @ing anyone in this clusterfuck, but I'll say this: If a game has 'DO NOT TS' as a rule, you fucking obey it. Why? Because you don't know WHY that rule is in place. Perhaps the staffer is a prude. Perhaps the staffer's kid plays the game. Perhaps the staffer is not tech-savvy enough to figure out how to get their game registered with net-nanny or Google to make it internet-child-safe. Perhaps the staffer wants their game to focus on the theme and not get bogged down in the undeniable mess that is IC interpersonal relationships when font-fucking is involved.
If you want to write erotica, play somewhere else. Period. No one owes you a smut repository, this entitled shit from even veteran players is fucking crazy, ok boomers?
Edited to add: If as a staffer you don't want to 'deal with' anyone's TS bullshit on your no-TS game, the correct answer is to ban anyone that's decided to TS anyway. Responsibility fulfilled, drama avoided.
-
@gryphter This reminds me of something I've said a few dozen times over the years. Namely:
"Of course I'm typing one-handed. I am a clove-smoking artist cliche. Where else am I supposed to put the damn cigarette?"
I know I should run when someone provides suggestions. (Well, that or found someone with an appropriate warped sense of humor for whatever's about to happen next, depending on the suggestions, of course.)
Oh fucking well.
-
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel You have a really weird definition of constructive, then.
Let's not nitpick on this.
As long as the focus is on the argument and not the person making the argument we're fairly safe (or as safe as one can be in a thread literally called "TS - Danger zone".
Come on guys, it's not that hard. Just don't make it personal.
-
@surreality said in TS - Danger zone:
"Of course I'm typing one-handed. I am a clove-smoking artist cliche. Where else am I supposed to put the damn cigarette?"
In the eye of your lover.
God, you've played on Shang, jeez, you should know this, n00b.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede I haven't actually played there in years now.
Every once in a while, I consider it? It used to be a good 'judgment-free shake-off-the-dust' kind of place when I hadn't been writing for a while -- but then I go to the OOC Nexus, read the short descs, and just nope right back out again like somebody set my ass on fire.
...which I'm pretty sure somebody would actually do if I stuck around long enough.
Part of it is patience, or specifically my lack of it in Shang's case. I know -- know -- there are amazing writers and players on Shang. I know this as actual fact. It's just that the usual process of sifting the wheat from the chaff there is... uh, it's already a crapshoot on a normal game, but it's worse on Shang, and the worse is usually measured in magnitudes of 'just threw up in my mouth a little'.
The vast majority of folks there are just not looking for the sort of thing I am these days, which I accept means I'm ye olden boring wench, but also that the demographics there have evolved to a spot that isn't very me. They do that every few years, so it may eventually come around again, but I'm not holding my breath or hoping for it, really.
