Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries

[onigiri]

While I am personally delighted by these ideas for commands to help isolated players get out of uncomfortable scenes, part of me is unsure whether current games out there will implement them, and whether staff would just depend on their use not to take further action on questionable cases, but just go 'well, the command gets them out of a bad situation, we don't need to arbitrate further.' I am constantly baffled by the lack of concern that seems to persist on so many games.

My own case in point: I just commented on Empire State Heroes' thread with a warning that I'm absolutely certain DownWithOPP (who, like Rex, is another famous predatory case) is currently on their game, and without directly naming anyone, gave a pretty substantive clue where they need to look and figure out the sameness in pose writing and behavioural quirks. From that, I had a few current players on the game DM me to confirm the identity (they all knew who I was talking about), and admit that he's already driven off female players, and was complained to staff though he has never been told to leave.

Though I do not personally play there, and am some strange MSB voice, I was still hoping one of the active staff members on this forum would at least DM me to ask about this. No one did.

And it's dispiriting. When I've opened and administrated games, I've received pushback for being OK with pre-bans on players that I know have demonstrated long records of predatory or abusive behaviour, and I allow them zero opportunity to repeat anything on any space where I have final say. I've had it argued that it's more 'fair' of me to allow them a chance to join, and then be banned when they commit some actionable offence. But this stretch for fairness ends with someone being preyed upon, or hurt.

When it comes to these cases hiding their identity, I personally find they have a harder time hiding their behaviour over whatever stretch of time, and MSB has been an invaluable resource for me to put two-and-two together, and realize problem cases to deal with proactively. In which case, I have and will pre-emptively strike before they can do something that merits a warning or ban.

I've found this hobby in a whole to be very demonstrative about 'what is fair.' And staffers are very, very demonstrative to have their games look 100% fair, because, yeah, any threat of bias can sink games fast. I think that kind of culture has allowed repeat predatory behaviour to thrive, because if you get 100 chances on 100 new games, do you ever need to change? I just don't understand how some people who behave so reprehensibly are given so many chances.

[Jeshin]

I'm not sure I understand the issue.

At any time someone can go ooc Oh there's a storm rolling in

Then they DC.

How is that functionally different than +nope or ooc Yeah we're not doing that or ooc Can we FTB or ooc I've paged staff for guidance? Almost every game in the hobby including non-consent games (even dirty MUD non-consent games) have a form of FTB/Handwave/Skip it for things like rape (if it's even allowed) or torture or graphic depictions of things. Isn't this entire thing just codifying and giving a user permission to do it?

Isn't this +nope/xcard/conversation proposing a policy that informs the player that yes we will permit you to FTB/Handwave a scene without censuring you? Which brings up abuse but every mechanic or policy in the world not just on MUs has the *exception unless you abuse it. There's children tales (the boy who cried wolf) that teaches at a very young age do not abuse the implicit trust you are given or else.

EDIT - Minor additional note here...

One of my personal peeves is that people come to MSB and post about gripes like oh soandso did this thing I was uncomfortable with. Then that person goes hey uh I didn't know and they talk it out after a name and shame. At least this proposed system puts people in a direct conversation (even if it has to include staff) before they get put on blast on MSB and have to reach out and explain they didn't mean too or they didn't know it was being taken that way etc etc.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Jeshin Some people don't feel comfortable lying. Some games will go ahead and do the thing to your character while you are offline.

[Jeshin]

@Kanye-Qwest

Meandering thought post, but to clarify.

I am making the argument that because the function of +nope (or the proposed system in this thread) is already available. There isn't a 'new' risk being introduced. It is merely staff informing their playerbase that yes you can do this without being censured. So it is pro policy discussed.

[Ghost]

@onigiri I think you're pretty "on the nose" with that.

What I find interesting about the MU community is the repeatability of behaviors. I'm not just talking about people like OPP, but also repeated behaviors involving layers of OOC drama/accusations, cheating, racing to be in charge of everything, making Mary Sue characters, etc. The MU community definitely isn't growing by leaps and bounds, so it should be no surprise to people that any given game will attract the same % of players, thus repeating their same behaviors and tendencies.

Take it a step more granular: Let's focus on players who are on MSB and responding to game announcements. This would rule out MUDers, people who focus on sites like Mudconnect. At that point you're dealing with an even smaller population of players checking out the same games and bringing their tendencies, bad habits, and old grudges to the next game.

What you end up with is a life cycle of MU games with social dynamics that function more like a virus migrating from host to host.

It's my belief that all people who open a game can develop code or ideas that will be exciting on DAY ZERO, but ultimately understand a few key things:

1. Very few MU games last 3 years these days
2. When it comes to specific people joining a game, it's a WHEN and not an IF.
3. The intention is to open a game that is fun for staff and players, and its lifeline hinges on controlling the active population on a game. If you can maintain dozens of regular logins? You're fine. Most players are hesitant to join games with only 3 bits logged in

It's my logical assumption that staff have to rule when it comes to problems based on a few key things.

1. How will this affect the game's reputation?
2. Where does the majority lie?
3. (x)Have I received enough complaints to risk a public incident that can affect 1 or 2?

I believe your instance is at (x). Most MU owners aren't Willy Wonka. They don't open these environments for better or for worse out of pure love of creativity and wonder. They do so with the understanding that it's worth it until it isn't. So, because of that, I'm not surprised to see a game NOT rushing to communicate with a non-player based on outside information, especially after negative press surrounding that whole Spider-Man thing.

Until something changes, all these games can hope to do is survive as long as possible until the same issues cause it to lose popularity, and the population bleeds off nomad-style to the new game.

[Pandora]

If thou art comfortable using OOC Whatever then by all means please do so. This thread is not about those of you/us for whom this is already working. This thread is for the people for whom the current system is not working.

Once upon a time, the NYC metro lines (back then called the subway) were all in greyscale on a white background. This worked fine for almost everyone. The maps are now color coded with icons and it's the same damn map but many people are like OH, this is MUCH EASIER to navigate, yay!

This is the new subway. The redcard/metrocard of OOC barriers. The 'this isn't really anything new, but someone out there lost, confused, and anxious might find it just a tiny bit friendlier to use' and if you don't really care about this hobby being a little more friendly that's fine, but don't act like your opinion is the only one that matters.

[Apos]

It's not exactly coincidental that the most problematic members of the community gravitate towards new players that are unclear on what is and what isn't permitted behavior in the community, and are a large reason why games that don't have strict enforcement have such high churn rates with new players.

[Pandora]

@Apos Preach. Problem players love to create dependency in new players, with their 'Let me show you the ropes' spiel; it's a form of grooming for sure. Problem is, many perfectly well-meaning players have the same behavior and we encourage this behavior in newbie-helpers, so it's hard for new players to tell who is being welcoming and friendly, and who is seeking to use and abuse them.

[onigiri]

@Ghost I definitely don't disagree with you.

I know problem cases love to disguise themselves, and that internet anonymity is a thing that can quickly favour people who work covertly/isolate people/conduct their questionable business on the down-low, but at the same time, I am sure we are a very incestuous, insular hobby. We are a considerable group of people, perhaps, but with so much crossover that I think just having a basic mode of communication (like MSB) allows us to reasonably track the bad eggs.

I guess there's just that side of me that is surprised that more people don't.

And I totally get why -- those are the reasons you posted. No time, no inclination, no taste to get involved with 'forum gossip' that's not directly happening in their game, and -- yeah -- no desire to have the playerbase diminish if a problem player gets booted and all his/her friends go with it.

Example: I had an apper on a game. Behaviours began, and it was brought to me and other staffers -- and not just by actual players on the game -- that this apper had threatened the life of someone in the past. The accusation was taken seriously, and work went to confirm the apper's identity. It was confirmed without a doubt, and the apper was banned. Hilariously, one of the apper's friends showed up a while later to berate the choice of 'not giving the apper a chance, and how our monumental unfairness reflects on the game.' Our response: whatever, bye.

I can see the case where some games might respond more anxiously, and knee-jerk the 'oh no, we lost two prospective players maybe, and now there might be trashtalk about our game.'

Some games may not care, and some games may just care too much.

[Ganymede]

@Pandora said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

If thou art comfortable using OOC Whatever then by all means please do so. This thread is not about those of you/us for whom this is already working. This thread is for the people for whom the current system is not working.

Okay, okay.

So, for those of you for whom the system is not working — I don’t know who everyone is — what would you like a command to do?

What concerns do you have? How does the current toolset, if any, make you feel?

I’d personally like to know.

[onigiri]

@Apos Agreed.

I don't get this much, personally, because I usually app games with a few friends (and sometimes a lot of friends), or with friends there with already established roles. Right out from the gates, I have people I trust who are willing to show me the ropes, and within the safety of a group, I'm usually not targetted.

I am positive the prime targets are new players who app alone, and are largely dependent on the kindness of strangers to win them a place among the PB. And the outreach one must do to get others to care about your character attracts predatory types easy.

[Pandora]

This post is deleted!

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

I am seriously not trying to be rude here, but there have been SEVERAL posts by people here (me, including) detailing at length how we feel about things, our experience with them, and what is helpful about some of the solutions posed. What you are asking for has had several HUGE posts made in the past few days in this very thread speaking to that precise issue. I don't have the spoons to go into it again, and just quoting my post a second time at you isn't really mildly constructive. The question posed has been answered here repeatedly.

[eye8urcake]

@Sunny said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

The form of abuse you are most concerned about is not the same as the kind of abuse people in this thread are most concerned about.

There is no happening on a game that is worth traumatizing a real human being, full stop.

So @surreality had a lot to say here, but I really want to call this out. THIS IS THE POINT.

Yes, there are people that absolutely can abuse this sort of system, but what are they going to accomplish with that abuse?

Being irritating.

This sort of system is not being discussed to address irritation, it is being discussed to address harm.

ETA: The reason I have not addressed the topic of being concerned that the hobby is going in this way is that I have no way to express my objections to 'we care about harm to human beings now' being a problem in a fashion that is appropriate outside of the hog pit.

ETA2: Who seriously cares if someone uses +nothanks to get out of a rape scene if they aren't actually traumatized? WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?

BC players are promised opportunities to RP rape on the fucking tin, yo.

ETA: This is sarcasm, just in case that's not clear.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny

I felt the need to forcibly pull the topic back on point here. There have been many suggestions and ideas, and criticism of the same.

But if you feel your point has been made, that’s fine. And if there’s nothing more that needs to be said, so be it.

But if something more is to be suggested, then I welcome that.

[Sunny]

@Ganymede

My point has been made, in terms of the value and my feelings, yes. I would like to continue with the point of the thread which is to discuss options for what we can do about it. It should not be this hard to have a conversation. I am tired.

ETA: Like, all my fire for the topic got used up in trying to explain why it's even OK for us to talk about this. Hopefully @Pandora will pick the torch back up, but I don't blame her if she doesn't want to, either.

[Pandora]

The point has been made, people for whom different measures could be beneficial have spoken, people have criticized the point and the measures suggested, people have made suggestions & one game has even made what I'd consider a positive amendment to their existing policy after consideration of the conversation in this thread. People have engaged with what I'd consider almost universal good faith, whether in favor of or against the ideas brought forth, and that's always cool to see.

Code like this can't exist in a vacuum and so I don't expect any game to plug-n-play the idea without first considering their game culture, existing measures, and whether it's worth it time/effort-wise for them. If the thread has at least made people take a moment to consider what more can be done to help players defend their boundaries in text-based games, it's a win for me & we don't have to beat the horse to death trying to come to a community-wide consensus - there isn't one, and that's okay.

[Apos]

If it helps to think about whether code arbitrating something like this is a good fit, I'd say games that are specifically designed to be competitive versus ones that are collaborative have very different priorities, and this is much more suited to the latter.

For a game designed around being competitive, the most central aspect of the game environment is fairness and consistency in creating a level playing field. People have a much more difficult time being invested and pouring in their effort without a guarantee it will be treated equivalently to every other player. This means that players in general are very suspicious of any means to alter an outcome based on personal preference. A lot of MUD players, with entirely coded, mechanical outcomes, would never, ever be comfortable on a MUSH where a GM arbitrates outcomes because of this.

For collaborative games, we're much more interested in fostering environments that allow shared stories to thrive, and for that the comfort of players is critical, and vastly more important than perfect game balance. Someone that's a raging asshole can actually be pretty healthy for a competitive environment in some circumstances, where even someone that is merely unconcerned about whether a shared story is fun for other people is detrimental in a collaborative one.

So I kind of think it's a little bit of the wrong question when talking about collaborative story environments like MUSHes to ask, "do we need a tool like this" and it might be better to start a step further and ask, "what's are the best approaches in making sure people feel at ease in withdrawing from RP that makes them uncomfortable without any disruption to them or shared stories?" And I think that question is the critical one for any game runner in making sure no player is sitting through squicky RP that creeps them out because they don't want to be considered a problem and they don't want to feel like they are screwing up other people's stories.

[surreality]

@Apos said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Someone that's a raging asshole can actually be pretty healthy for a competitive environment in some circumstances, where even someone that is merely unconcerned about whether a shared story is fun for other people is detrimental in a collaborative one.

[Pandora]

OOC raging assholes are pretty much never a good thing. Please, all raging assholes avoid any MUDs I am associated with, we do not need or want you. Quiet Storm Assholes and below, please.