@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:
Are there any more games left that prohibit TS? Sounds like a bad investment idea on the part of the people who took the time to stand the game up.
Ostensibly, yes. I play on at least one where it's a halfway written rule. But those staffers are at least smart enough to know that they're never going to be able to enforce such a rule, so it's not treated like a Big Deal.
@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:
Are there any more games left that prohibit TS? Sounds like a bad investment idea on the part of the people who took the time to stand the game up.
I think there are some games with child PCs that have an interest in implementing the policy and enforcing it.
@DareDaemon said in TS - Danger zone:
You don't have the right to tell staff that they have to adjudicate textfucking if people have some gripes about what happened during their textfucking. Insisting that as staff that's part of my job, is fucking disgusting.
I agree with @Tinuviel
It sucks to have to get all staffy, but unfortunately there are ooc pressures and some pretty extreme behaviors that happen surrounding TS that it's important for staff to enforce those sorts of things as policy.
Staff settling some kind of IC tryst drama? Nah.
Staff settling someone trying to rape their character ICly? Absolutely.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:
It sucks to have to get all staffy, but unfortunately there are ooc pressures and some pretty extreme behaviors that happen surrounding TS that it's important for staff to enforce those sorts of things as policy.
For everyone that would rather not have to get staffy on others, I open my availability. I will gladly and insistently enforce the rules of a game.
It is not unreasonable to expect other people to do the same when asked.
“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 In the vague example I gave, I'd treat it more like... well, prostitution as it is depicted on television. Yes, you're doing wrong. But this big thing you're reporting is way more important to deal with right now.
ETA: I wouldn't want anyone to feel that they would be punished for reporting a serious incident, under almost any circumstances.
He/Him
@Ganymede I would, too. Only...you know.
Being on hand to back up people getting pressured into sexual situations or trying to simulate sexual situations without consent is a worthy cause.
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
In the vague example I gave, I'd treat it more like... well, prostitution as it is depicted on television. Yes, you're doing wrong. But this big thing you're reporting is way more important to deal with right now.
ETA: I wouldn't want anyone to feel that they would be punished for reporting a serious incident, under almost any circumstances.
In my little area of the world there is an active campaign promoting the public shaming of johns in an effort to stave off prostitution. Perhaps surprisingly I am a strong opponent of this movement.
Anti-prostitution laws do not address the underlying problem. Whereas there are some prostitutes that are actually slaves, by drugs or intimidation, to men, the majority of them are adults who have entered the business to get money. Usually, this is because these adults, for their personal reasons, cannot hold a "regular" job or have no marketable skills. Prostitution isn't the safest of adult professions, but it has a flexible schedule and does not require devoting hours of time, as exotic dancing might.
Shaming the customers will cut off the demand. Cutting off the demand puts financial pressure on the prostitutes, which forces them into riskier situations to make money. That will push them to the pimps, which only allows them to profit more.
Anyhow.
I guess what I'm saying here is that there are unintended consequences to some of staff rules. Stigmatizing TS and other adult situations in games makes it easier for stalkers and abusers to get their way. Being open about what we do in our spare time allows us to make connections, spot the bad people, and ostracize them.
The realization that you can't effectively protect people from behaviors surrounding acts that have been disallowed is not in consent 101, and 'staff are people with boundaries too' is. It took a lot of arguing and discussing over the years, and 'because I say so' doesn't explain shit.
@Sunny said in TS - Danger zone:
'because I say so' doesn't explain shit
It doesn't work on children, why would we expect it to work on relatively seasoned adults?
He/Him
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@Sunny said in TS - Danger zone:
'because I say so' doesn't explain shit
It doesn't work on children, why would we expect it to work on relatively seasoned adults?
Exactly!
@Sunny said in TS - Danger zone:
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@Sunny said in TS - Danger zone:
'because I say so' doesn't explain shit
It doesn't work on children, why would we expect it to work on relatively seasoned adults?
Exactly!
Sometimes, though. Just sometimes. "Because that's just the way it is..." is an acceptable answer. "Why do people break rules? Because they do."
I think it's perfectly fine to ban TS on your game (with the caveat that it might be a silly choice for certain thematic material). There are plenty of reasons, not the least of which is the underage player angle (insert hilarious reminder that Firan was an all ages game!), which people have treated like a throwaway concern but is pretty relevant. There's nothing about the medium that defaults adult, even if our sub-community is. And there is a real concern that staffers themselves may not be comfortable mediating such content.
You can declare this RP invalid on your game. You can't prevent people from sneakily doing it via whatever means, but worrying over this is a little silly: people can also sandbox being cyborg dragon ninjas on your serious history game. You'll never be able to police alternate channel RP, but you can demand that it never appear on the grid, be forced on other players as a topic they have to interact with, etc. And you can ban people who violate those rules.
I think/hope this is different than the discussion of 'stigmatizing' TS and the concerns for identifying and dealing with harassment. It's a matter of what your game is and what it is not. I would hope staffers would still address any complaint of harassment seriously. The danger here is only for the niche category of player who is harassed while breaking the rules, yet finds it preferable to tolerate the harassment rather than admit to and face any consequences for their own behavior. Given the level of crazy in our hobby vs. minimal chances of RL harm, this seems like a category of player not worth the energy protecting because they would not be trustworthy (we've established they're comfortable lying to staff) even if your policy was different.
The stigmas I have a problem with are games that allow some degree of sexuality but then refuse to fully treat it like an actual part of the game. A clear ban on behavior is much better than 'ts happens, we dont want to know about it.'
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
The danger here is only for the niche category of player who is harassed while breaking the rules, yet finds it preferable to tolerate the harassment rather than admit to and face any consequences for their own behavior.
Which ideal world is it that you live on, and where can I get a ticket?
People break rules all of the time. People are harrassed and abused all of the time. How is it so alien an idea that those two things criss-cross far more often than we hear about?
Yes. You can do whatever you want with your game. You can make it about anything, anywhere, any time, and with any rules. I still reserve the privilege (because rights don't exist here) to call you a fuckin' moron.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
this seems like a category of player not worth the energy protecting
The idea that a person being abused isn't worth the energy protecting makes you look utterly reprehensible. Who cares that they broke the rules? If you're going to ignore them, or punish them for reporting it to you, you're tacitly silencing people that need help.
He/Him
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
The danger here is only for the niche category of player who is harassed while breaking the rules, yet finds it preferable to tolerate the harassment rather than admit to and face any consequences for their own behavior.
Which ideal world is it that you live on, and where can I get a ticket?
People break rules all of the time. People are harrassed and abused all of the time. How is it so alien an idea that those two things criss-cross far more often than we hear about?
If 'niche' gives the wrong impression, that's my fault, but I don't mean to suggest that I think this is hugely rare or alien, so much that I was trying to highlight a particular intersection of player behaviors. Whether I think it's precisely more or less common than some other combinations would be hard to comment on without it being wildly unscientific guesswork. Nonetheless, this is clearly a particular subset of all claims of harassment (and this is an important distinction).
Yes. You can do whatever you want with your game. You can make it about anything, anywhere, any time, and with any rules. I still reserve the privilege (because rights don't exist here) to call you a fuckin' moron.
I mean, OK? And staff reserves the right to ban you. I am not sure what you're trying to get across here. Players play by choice, staffers allow players to play by choice and no one has any power of enforcement. This is 101 stuff.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
this seems like a category of player not worth the energy protecting
The idea that a person being abused isn't worth the energy protecting makes you look utterly reprehensible. Who cares that they broke the rules? If you're going to ignore them, or punish them for reporting it to you, you're tacitly silencing people that need help.
Lets be clear, first off, with all the really hostile 'you' shit you're throwing around, that I would never ban TS on a game. I would probably not even ban a lot of the borderline content. But that's because I don't want to play with children, I am not sensitive to themes that other people might have valid reason to be uncomfortable with, and so on. I nonetheless support the idea that someone might want to allow kids on their game and thus need to ban it. I support that some staffer might really really not want to spend any of their leisure time dealing with sexual content, ever.
Beyond that, see above: claims of harassment. We know that in the ridiculous land of MU drama, figuring out who the actual victim is in any scenario is difficult, and just as often it's two fuckwads with 0 communication skills in an escalation loop. If I have to make choices in terms of what time I am going to put into doing how much for what players (which is always a factor, no staffer has infinite free time), I am going to prioritize believable claims by trustworthy people who take some responsibility for their own well-being. The same way I'm not going to ban someone with zero evidence because the 'victim' couldn't be arsed to log (or, you know, doesn't have one because they're lying), someone who's teeheeing sneaking around the game rules, but then is harassed, but... not seriously enough to admit that they're cheating but they still are seriously concerned about this other player? If they happen to be the one who falls through the cracks (someone always will) vs. someone who is more honest? OK.
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
The idea that a person being abused isn't worth the energy protecting makes you look utterly reprehensible. Who cares that they broke the rules? If you're going to ignore them, or punish them for reporting it to you, you're tacitly silencing people that need help.
Herein lies the crux of the problem.
Setting up a rule in the first place is to set a boundary of behavior. Violating that rule is a violation, regardless that the consequences of the transgression leaves a player vulnerable to harassment and possibly blackmail. Having a rule that is ignored circumstantially leads to infinite exceptions that eventually erase any efficacy the rule was intended to create.
In the absence of that rule, there is no transgression and therefore no risk of this situation. This weighs in favor of addressing particular behaviors as they arise in a manner that befits the situation. While some may decry the absence of any violation, it simultaneously recognizes the power of staff to address particular problems and the seeming-arbitrariness of decisions arising therefrom.
That said, harassment and abuse is a separate problem that can and should be addressed, regardless.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
I am not sure what you're trying to get across here.
I'm trying to get across the point that I'm not saying what anyone can or can't do. I'm saying it's stupid to try, and that there are inherent dangers with that position.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
Lets be clear, first off, with all the really hostile 'you' shit you're throwing around, that I would never ban TS on a game
It's a general 'you', but if you want to assume it's actually directed at you then... fine? You said the words "category of player not worth the energy protecting." Perhaps, just maybe, you want to work on your phrasing. Because that just sounds like you're going to dismiss any claims of harrassment from anyone that's broken a rule.
I'm going to use the 'zero tolerance' anti-bullying bullshit as my example. If both kids are going to get suspended for fighting, no matter what, then they're not going to report they got beaten up. You want them to report getting beaten up, otherwise you can't deal with it. Even if one is a perfectly content and apparently obedient little snot, you want the other kid to feel safe in making that report.
I'm afraid I'm approaching this from a real-world perspective, rather than a MU perspective. And I think anyone falling through the cracks is a goddamn failure, even though it's inevitable. Even a murderer deserves to be treated properly when they claim someone's trying to kill them.
He/Him
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
I'm trying to get across the point that I'm not saying what anyone can or can't do. I'm saying it's stupid to try, and that there are inherent dangers with that position.
people this is the point
there are inherent dangers with that position
Like real actual dangers. Right or wrong that it should be, this is the point.
@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:
that there are inherent dangers with that position.
I am not convinced, in the grand scheme of things, that a game with a 'No TS' policy is more 'dangerous' than one with even a 'have all the TS you want, of literally any kind' policy. Your argument is that the former makes it more 'dangerous' (insofar as any of this stuff is dangerous to any real degree) for a class of players who are inherently dishonest because they will encounter harassment while disenfranchised as cheaters.
My counterargument here is that a game with a clear TS policy will make things safer for the other portion of players, because clearly established policy empowers them when speaking with staff about instances of harassment that occur toward them and generally makes the course of action for staff much more clear cut. This is more of the Venn diagram stuff I was getting at above. I can't prove what group is larger, but I know which group I care about more in terms of cultivating (edit: and protecting) as a playerbase (hint: the ones who aren't cheaters).
You said the words "category of player not worth the energy protecting." Perhaps, just maybe, you want to work on your phrasing. Because that just sounds like you're going to dismiss any claims of harrassment from anyone that's broken a rule.
No, if they came to me with a complaint I'd take it seriously. After dealing with that, I'd punish them for breaking the rule they admitted to breaking. I have been consistently very clear that the players who couldn't be helped were the ones who were not willing to own up to what they were doing in order to seek help. See again 'modicum of responsibility for your own well-being.'
I'm afraid I'm approaching this from a real-world perspective, rather than a MU perspective. And I think anyone falling through the cracks is a goddamn failure, even though it's inevitable. Even a murderer deserves to be treated properly when they claim someone's trying to kill them.
I think you are (esp your school example, which is different in a lot of ways), but they're very different. While I empathize with and want to help with online harassment if I reasonably can, the stakes, modes, and tools available are very different.
You've mentioned 'I can do this and you can't stop me' stuff including out of band communication. At that point 'I can't do anything to help you, either' comes along for the ride. Not out of callous indifference but out of practical reality. If they're playing via other channels my role as arbitrator is already gone. I can't intervene on discord or email or if they're parallel RPing on shang. It's just a further example of how these are not scenarios where the staff can effectively act, and so I'm not sure there's any problem in staff taking a position that prioritizes the well being of players who are both following the rules and who they can much more meaningfully assist.
Plus, again, games with kids. There's no other choice there, right?
@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.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
It's not logical, or sensible, to avoid a minor punishment and continue being abused. But people aren't logical or sensible, least of all when they're afraid. A clear TS policy is required, yes. But not a blanket ban. It hurts more than it helps.
I kind of want to read transformers TS.
@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:
Are there any more games left that prohibit TS? Sounds like a bad investment idea on the part of the people who took the time to stand the game up.
Ostensibly, yes. I play on at least one where it's a halfway written rule. But those staffers are at least smart enough to know that they're never going to be able to enforce such a rule, so it's not treated like a Big Deal.
