Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries

[Tempest]

Who in the world are you RPing with, that you walk into a “Hey help me waterboard this guy” scene without being aware that is what the tone of the scene is going to be?

[surreality]

@Pyrephox That post deserves several hundred upvotes.

The 'turns the game into a PvP environment' thing re: 'willy nilly nonconsent' is something that's been tumbling around in my brain all morning, but I couldn't put it into words. You nailed it.

Part of the issue is that the majority of games that are nonconsent are also PvE -- and the nonconsent factor really does change this paradigm dramatically away from PvE and into instigator-favored PvP.

I am 100% down with the idea that staff-led/metaplot story, or elements of the game world (specific consequences for doing X in org Y, etc.) are not something that people should be casually noping out of, but this is, IMO, best suited to a hybrid consent environment. Namely, those things are nonconsent, but PvP interactions default to being consent-based.

If nothing else, in that situation, the people 'starting shit' or bringing down hammers are vetted to some extent and are going to have multiple eyes on them when they take action, which discourages 'rando wants to try to get away with something shady' significantly.

[Derp]

@surreality

In that vein, given that we're already posting policy snippets, have this (again, unfinalized) version:

Communication and Conflict

$GAMENAME is not about glitter, sparklies, and people singing kumbaya. PC’s are going to get into conflict, whether it be with monsters, with NPC’s, or possibly with each other. Players will also butt heads from time to time, for a myriad of reasons. To manage this unfortunate reality without unnecessary drama, $GAMENAME splits conflict handling into two sections, IC conflict and OOC conflict.

IC Conflict

The key to effectively managing IC conflict is to keep OOC lines of communication open. Ideally, even if the characters are at odds, whether it be a verbal argument, a fistfight, or a battle to submission or death, the two players are communicating OOCly through the entire scene. However, this does not always happen.

If you find that your character is in conflict with another character, immediately attempt to open a line of OOC communication with the other player. Determine OOC and IC intent. It is perfectly acceptable to talk a scene out before playing it out, and doing so can often lead to better RP for all. All actions in game should in some way benefit the story, and so determining the desired outcome ahead of time is beneficial to all involved. This also helps us, as staff, determine when a desired outcome breaks our rules of Player Conduct.

Any player that finds themselves in an IC conflict with another PC is permitted to call on staff, or on a judge, for assistance in resolving PC conflict. Players are encouraged to resolve verbal-only conflicts with other PC’s via OOC communication with the other player or players, but if a Judge is required to keep the lines of communication open, players should not hesitate.

OOC Conflict

Whenever the lines of OOC communication go awry, conflict immediately becomes OOC in nature, and the approach to handling it must necessarily change.

If you would be understood, seek first to understand. Try to see where the other player is coming from. If all sides can do that, it is usually possible to work out a compromise in the interest of all parties. Keep an open mind, and remember that someone is not necessarily wrong, just because they disagree with you or are saying something you would rather not hear.

If this does not work, or the lines of OOC communication are completely closed, players should seek staff assistance at once. Waiting for more evidence, talking to one’s friends, etc. seldom helps solve the problem. Collect your evidence using the in-game tools and open a line of communication to staff, without delay.

[surreality]

@Derp That's really only necessary if it's described as a PvE game. If you're making a PvP game, yeah, that's a good way to handle it, or as good as any is going to get.

[Derp]

@surreality

I don't actually subscribe to the delineation, because I don't think those are the only possible ways to do it. Games have conflict. Period. Assigning a PvE tag to a game gives player unnecessary license to stir up drama with other players because they know that the options for retaliation are limited. Assigning a PvP tag to the game gives the players the impression that other players are their primary targets.

I think that most games are a mix of the two, and attempting to bar any sort of player conflict leads to strange results, but openly advertising as a free-for-all is equally ludicrous.

[Pyrephox]

@Tempest said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Who in the world are you RPing with, that you walk into a “Hey help me waterboard this guy” scene without being aware that is what the tone of the scene is going to be?

I still clearly remember setting a scene in a Victorian-era game in a bookstore, where my character was trying to get a particular occult book from an elderly shopkeeper, who thought she shouldn't worry her pretty head about such nasty things. The other PC proceeded to try and turn it into a graphic torture scene of the shopkeeper to find the book.

You'd be surprised how fast a scene can go from okay to //what the fuck are you on//. And that's without the people who want to go from zero to KINKY SEXYTIMES in two poses. I still remember the time when a male PC I played started a scene with someone at his office; someone he'd been pleasant and mildly flirtatious with, and she started to just strip right there for no discernible reason. When his reaction was not 'let's get it on' but 'you know I work in a cubicle and also WHY?', she was completely bewildered.

[Pandora]

@Tempest Sometimes the directive 'by any means necessary' can go from 0 to 100 real quick. We're not here to judge, we're here to troubleshoot.

[surreality]

@Derp That's why I like the hybrid consent approach described.

The 'person stirring shit who isn't willing to take consequences' factor is easy enough to resolve with boot to ass. (Them being shown the door.)

Sadly, the people who just love to dish it out, but can't/won't take it (or any form of consequences) without playing poor persecuted victim are not in short supply. The only real way to deal with them is eviction.

[Ganymede]

I may have missed something in topic drift, but I thought that the red card was to prevent a scene moving forward due to a player feeling uncomfortable about the direction that RP is going based on how it may affect their PC.

Then we started talking about FTB policies, which are slightly different. I always looked at an FTB as saying “what happens happens, but I’m not playing out what happens, even if I might roll with it happening to my PC.”

Am I having another senior moment?

[Derp]

@Ganymede said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

prevent a scene moving forward due to a player feeling uncomfortable about the direction that RP is going based on how it may affect their PC

No, that was what lead to the (slight) topic drift, in that some of us were saying that this system gives players too much control over what happens to their PC, and that there are other systems in place (such as FTB) that can alleviate some level of discomfort without leaving room for abuses of control by people who refuse to accept anything bad happening to their character in worlds where that is a distinct possibility.

TL;DR -- "Prevent a scene from moving forward because someone doesn't like something" is too much, and for the rest of it, those things already exist.

[Caryatid]

@Pyrephox said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

You'd be surprised how fast a scene can go from okay to //what the fuck are you on//. And that's without the people who want to go from zero to KINKY SEXYTIMES in two poses. I still remember the time when a male PC I played started a scene with someone at his office; someone he'd been pleasant and mildly flirtatious with, and she started to just strip right there for no discernible reason. When his reaction was not 'let's get it on' but 'you know I work in a cubicle and also WHY?', she was completely bewildered.

Oh no, was that Venice visiting Thomas in his newspaper cubicle? I remember she visited him and it sounds like something she'd have done to fuck with his head and if so I AM SORRY.

[Warma Sheen]

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Derp Yes, that is a huge help, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable unless there was a list of 'nope, not happening' (ex: rape, child rape, etc.) listed as 'can't be thrown at people without permission'.

'Anything lasting longer than a single scene' is pretty important; hopefully this will include things like 'this mentally fucks someone up for life' in practice.

Why do people keep glossing over / ignoring this?

It seems like this would solve a huge majority of problems. This doesn't have to be a MU wide setting. It can be specific to each player. Many of the situations complained about can easily be put into a yes no list for each character. Characters have +finger information, +info, +prefs, etc. They can easily have a yes/no list of problematic situations that they allow or have deny. Then the responsibility is on the 'offending' person for trying to push something on someone that has already been denied.

If that's not enough, you can add that code red command to let someone know they're pushing something that's already been denied. Then the onus is on the guy that was inconsiderately entering gray territory without bothering to check the other person's settings.

The list can be as long as anyone wants. It can have an area for write in answers. It can be defaulted on each bit as all nos or all yeses as staff prefers. Every player can be required to set them in chargen before approval so no one feels looked down on for marking something off limits. None of this would be difficult to code based on what I've seen from coders.

Seems like all that makes staff intervention much easier by eliminating bad situations before they start. If people can't be trusted to speak up for themselves or for other people to not to be crappy to others, then this would probably just push the problems elsewhere rather than eliminating them, but there's a chance it could help.

Just make it a thing.

[Pandora]

@Warma-Sheen Not to nitpick, but code red would ideally be STOP NOW, CEASE AND DESIST. What you're referring to would be more code yellow, which would ideally be WE'RE HEADING INTO BAD TERRITORY, CAN WE DISCUSS BOUNDARIES BEFORE WE CONTINUE.

[surreality]

@Warma-Sheen I have a full setup for this wiki-side; it just hasn't gone into use anywhere yet.

Part of the issue people keep ignoring even more is that there are bad seeds on both ends of the spectrum, in favor of complaining about their favorite flavor of bad seed to be annoyed by. The folks who refuse to ever have anything bad happen to them are shit; the folks who want to push uncomfortable extremes on others when they know the other party is especially grossed out by it or it's a major world taboo/etc. that most people are opposed to are also shit.

The real tragedy to all of this is that this is all crap we should have learned in elementary school recess. We know we're being assholes in some fashion if we do these things. It is not a mystery or a surprise. Ignorance is only an excuse for the most delusional, self-centered, or (beyond the hobby average) socially awkward souls who have absolutely NO idea of how to engage with other human beings (which is rare as hell, unlike a general level of social anxiety or awkwardness).

It annoys me that we need any of this, because... see above. But. We need things. We need things to help handle it all, be it to empower people to speak up or disempower bad actors from behaving badly. The biggest tool will always be staff action; things that help draw clear lines for staff to make solid judgment calls with less nebulous territory (like 'I have had it listed I am not willing to engage in RP involving the subject of child abuse, and this person went there anyway, and continued to press after I pointed this out') help.

Are there still going to be situations in which this is not going to go the way of the 'no child abuse' person? ABSOLUTELY. Like, say, a PrP that says up front 'contains elements of child abuse'. Duh, right? This is really not hard. Slapping a label on a game is less effective than slapping that label on a scene or plotline. Allowing people to engage or avoid on this level is also extremely useful in preventing difficulties for those with sensitivities and those who wish to run things on tense or edgy subjects for people who are able to comfortably engage with that material.

[Warma Sheen]

@Pandora Whatever. Use either. Both.

[Jennkryst]

This thread has a few more instances of 'we should not help group A who are often overlooked/in need of help, because it might also help group B who might manipulate the system/benefit when they shouldn't!' than it probably should, and is drifting closer to Politics territory than anyone wants me to bring up.

ahem

The ideas behind a lot of these are good. I'm not a monster, but I play one online, so while I will do chin-strokingly evil things, I try to get the boundaries set in advance, check in periodically through the scene, and all that jazz.

And even with all the advance prep there, I STILL somehow manage to feel like a piece of shit when I accidentally go somewhere that wasn't said was off-limits, but I also didn't do the regular check-in about.

THAT'S RIGHT, I'M MAKING THIS ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!

Or maybe not, and I'm just like. Posting a warning.

Like @BlondeBot says, all the code and policy and systems in the world won't stop every problem that can happen. Ignoring all of the bad-actors, this sort of thing can happen to people even when all parties are acting in good faith.

But more/new systems can allow for additional ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and can also provide other ways of resolving the issues that come out of it.

[Pyrephox]

@Caryatid said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Pyrephox said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

You'd be surprised how fast a scene can go from okay to //what the fuck are you on//. And that's without the people who want to go from zero to KINKY SEXYTIMES in two poses. I still remember the time when a male PC I played started a scene with someone at his office; someone he'd been pleasant and mildly flirtatious with, and she started to just strip right there for no discernible reason. When his reaction was not 'let's get it on' but 'you know I work in a cubicle and also WHY?', she was completely bewildered.

Oh no, was that Venice visiting Thomas in his newspaper cubicle? I remember she visited him and it sounds like something she'd have done to fuck with his head and if so I AM SORRY.

Nope! It was on Thomas, but it wasn't anybody I really knew OOC. Or IC, for that matter, which is one of the things that made it come out of nowhere.

[Derp]

@Jennkryst said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

This thread has a few more instances of 'we should not help group A who are often overlooked/in need of help, because it might also help group B who might manipulate the system/benefit when they shouldn't!' than it probably should, and is drifting closer to Politics territory than anyone wants me to bring up.

ahem

The ideas behind a lot of these are good. I'm not a monster, but I play one online, so while I will do chin-strokingly evil things, I try to get the boundaries set in advance, check in periodically through the scene, and all that jazz.

And even with all the advance prep there, I STILL somehow manage to feel like a piece of shit when I accidentally go somewhere that wasn't said was off-limits, but I also didn't do the regular check-in about.

THAT'S RIGHT, I'M MAKING THIS ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!

Or maybe not, and I'm just like. Posting a warning.

Like @BlondeBot says, all the code and policy and systems in the world won't stop every problem that can happen. Ignoring all of the bad-actors, this sort of thing can happen to people even when all parties are acting in good faith.

But more/new systems can allow for additional ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and can also provide other ways of resolving the issues that come out of it.

Part of it for me, frankly, is pretty direct -- I think that the lines that some people try to set are patently ridiculous.

But more importantly, I won't do this for specific reasons. Primarily, that I think it's too easy to be abused, and that there are other tools that accomplish the same thing.

Secondarily, because letting people set freeform limits like this interferes with the story that I want to tell and the world that I want to build.

I'm not building a game to make everyone comfortable. I am building a world and telling a story, and inviting people to come be a part of that game and that story. They can choose for themselves whether or not to participate.

The limits of what is or is not allowed are clearly stated in several places, including in the Terms of Service that you have to agree to before even continuing into the actual game area.

Do I respect that people have boundaries? Of course. I encourage them to make them firm, in many areas, including the requirement that there be OOC communication. I also require that actions taken be in some way in frutherment of the game as a whole, and not merely used as a means of self-aggrandizement.

But beyond that? The boundaries for what can happen IC are set in the world's rules, not by the individual, and everyone is playing according to the same terms, and I don't have to deal with a confusing mishmash of individual preferences and trying to lace things together into a coherent narrative, thus detracting from the one I actually want to tell.

You have choices. You can read what is offered and decide whether you're in, or not. I fully well know that the game I run isn't for everyone. I don't hold any grudges against people for opting out. There are some uncomfortable themes presented. We make that very clear, right up front. I'm open to suggestions and try to be flexible, but I'm not that damn flexible. I'm here to run the game that I want to see run, and offer it to the players that are interested in the game as it is presented.

[Lotherio]

@Pyrephox said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

I would rather keep ten "but I didn't want to go to jail" players than one "I'm going to threaten you with cutting off your RP with everyone or damage your OOC reputation unless you play this out" player.

Just wanted to repeat this. The I don't want to go to jail players might be a little annoying for some folks, but the other one can really damage a game/kill off a player base whether one realizes it or not - like a small playerbase and limited staff, it could be a dead game before staff realize what happened and who the one player is that's trying to pull that off. Worse, and to the point of the thread, used on someone unfamiliar with the tools/life skills to get out of that situation (policies, involve staff, walk away), its damaging to the player and kills off potential growth in the hobby if someone is preying on new players (and lets be honest, new players to hobby are big targets if said behavior). I supported it when someone brought up the idea of X-Card, saying an alteration to fit the medium would work, I support it now. I may look into code to handle +request to staff if I get time.

[Kanye Qwest]

@BlondeBot said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

Fostering a culture isn't a thing that's done easily, unilaterally, or a one-and-done deal.

No, it isn't, but it is doable and should be done.