The elusive yes-first game.

Arkandel

In a world where you have countless of competent people volunteering to staff, anything is possible. The reality of the situation is that you usually have very few staff who are very overworked because most people just want to play and many who want to help with staffing shouldn't be allowed near a staff position.

Yeah, what he said. Most games wish they had a problem of having to rotate their STs to give even more a chance at the helm. More commonly they are all-but-begging STs to step up and please run something, anything.

Roz

@Arkandel said:

@Roz said:

In the context of this thread it's not staff's job to say what's ethical and what's not. Is rape wrong and illegal? Yes! So is murder. If you don't intend to ban assassins from a game why draw the line at one but not the other?

Not actually arguing against your non-ban, but I think there are pretty NUMEROUS REASONS why people draw the line at one and not the other.

Even factoring in the first six words of the line you quoted? If so, please elaborate.

I just mean that if your point is that you're not banning any IC actions of that nature, it's because you're not banning anything, not because there's no difference between the two and no reason to consider them differently. That's all I mean. I'm being obnoxiously derailing.

Apos

@Groth I does happen. I remember @Luna on The Reach having a bad experience with a four and a half hour scene that probably should have taken a fraction of that, if my memory serves. It's just whether you want to deal with scolding players into being reasonable on time or reverse 'bad' deaths from afks, idles, linkdeaths, whatever.

Ghost

I just don't think you can have a game where X population is trying to play the thematic spirit of the game, but Y group of people bullrush in, create a non-thematic faction, turn their faction into some kind of sex/harem RP, and all of the sudden your Civil War Combat era mush ends up with a "Space Pirates Who Love Statutory Rape" faction.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think a liberal, yes-first game would work. I predict it would be a clusterfuck without some enforcement, which will gradually change "yes first" to "ask first" to "here's our list of what isn't allowed" to "we are no longer a liberal, yes-first game and are going back to more common guidelines."

Arkandel

@Roz said:

Not actually arguing against your non-ban, but I think there are pretty NUMEROUS REASONS why people draw the line at one and not the other.

Even factoring in the first six words of the line you quoted? If so, please elaborate.

I just mean that if your point is that you're not banning any IC actions of that nature, it's because you're not banning anything, not because there's no difference between the two and no reason to consider them differently. That's all I mean. I'm being obnoxiously derailing.

Please, nit-pick all you can! I'd like to have holes poked into my pitch, that's the whole point of it.

I don't want to give the impression though that we'd not be banning any IC things. That's what that 'thematic' part of the very first goal is about; some things can't exist and shouldn't. Not having to police everything else spares staff a lot of the burden in CGen and, hopefully, makes it more significant when they do feel forced to step in so it sends a message. If my concept finally forced them to wag a finger at it... whelp, I must have really fucked up, you know?

On a personal note I simply don't like rating horrible acts. Rape is a heinous thing to do to another human being, it's a crime, it's wrong. But so is murder. So is torture. I don't believe it's in the purview of running a game to determine 'which is worse' - they are all nasty. That doesn't mean other people couldn't decide for whatever reason one is worse than others and ban it from their setting, though.

Three-Eyed Crow

@Ghost said:

EXAMPLE: On Battlestar Genesis, I believe, we had a char named Gars. Gars' PB was Linc from Tropic Thunder (Robert Downey Jr playing Kirk Lazarus who was playing Lincoln, an "Amos and Andrew" talking Mississippi black man from 1967 who was in the Vietnam war). The problem was, he wanted to play the character, but saw nothing thematically wrong with being a marine who, mid-firefight, would say things like "Come get some, n+gga! Huah! Mississippi Black Snake in your MOUTH, Bitch!" in a setting that took tens of thousands of years before Earth history, in outer space, where there was no Vietnam war, nor Mississippi.

Oh God, I remember this guy. He was also one of the many players who never seemed to accept that gender roles are not the same in the BSG-verse, and that female fighter pilots and Marines are commonplace and had been for his entire career. I was always surprised by how hard this particular idea was for a lot of people to grasp (including a not-insignificant number of female PCs who played stuff like 'altering' their uniforms to show more boobage, sigh).

Ghost

@Arkandel said:

@Roz said:

Not actually arguing against your non-ban, but I think there are pretty NUMEROUS REASONS why people draw the line at one and not the other.

Even factoring in the first six words of the line you quoted? If so, please elaborate.

I just mean that if your point is that you're not banning any IC actions of that nature, it's because you're not banning anything, not because there's no difference between the two and no reason to consider them differently. That's all I mean. I'm being obnoxiously derailing.

Please, nit-pick all you can! I'd like to have holes poked into my pitch, that's the whole point of it.

I don't want to give the impression though that we'd not be banning any IC things. That's what that 'thematic' part of the very first goal is about; some things can't exist and shouldn't. Not having to police everything else spares staff a lot of the burden in CGen and, hopefully, makes it more significant when they do feel forced to step in so it sends a message. If my concept finally forced them to wag a finger at it... whelp, I must have really fucked up, you know?

On a personal note I simply don't like rating horrible acts. Rape is a heinous thing to do to another human being, it's a crime, it's wrong. But so is murder. So is torture. I don't believe it's in the purview of running a game to determine 'which is worse' - they are all nasty. That doesn't mean other people couldn't decide for whatever reason one is worse than others and ban it from their setting, though.

By all means, don't police rape scenes and allow characters to forcibly rape other characters on a no-consent, yes-first game and see what happens.

If you're liberally not governing what kind of things can be done on the game, then (just as an example) you are potentially allowing a player who has real life rape trauma to come into contact with a player who has unrequested physically dominating rape fantasies, and that...will be a fucking mess.

@Three-Eyed-Crow Gars based all of his character's viewpoints on that of a paternal society-based 1967 Mississippi black man. Ugh I haaaated that guy.

Roz

@Arkandel said:

@Roz said:

Not actually arguing against your non-ban, but I think there are pretty NUMEROUS REASONS why people draw the line at one and not the other.

Even factoring in the first six words of the line you quoted? If so, please elaborate.

I just mean that if your point is that you're not banning any IC actions of that nature, it's because you're not banning anything, not because there's no difference between the two and no reason to consider them differently. That's all I mean. I'm being obnoxiously derailing.

Please, nit-pick all you can! I'd like to poke holes into my pitch, that's the whole point of it.

Haha, nah, I'm not even really poking holes in your overall pitch, just the one sentence. Hence me saying I'm derailing. (I probably wouldn't want to play on the game myself, because I just have different ideas of what I want to see on a game.)

On a personal note I simply don't like rating horrible acts. Rape is a heinous thing to do to another human being, it's a crime, it's wrong. But so is murder. So is torture. I don't believe it's in the purview of running a game to determine 'which is worse' - they are all nasty. That doesn't mean other people couldn't decide for whatever reason one is worse than others and ban it from their setting, though.

It's not really about rating horrible acts. The reason rape plots get banned some places is because of the very different ways in which people are affected by it and our society treats it. That is, you're way more likely to have victims of sexual assault -- likely multiple ones -- playing on your game, and more likely than not they either 1) didn't report it because our society sucks at handling these cases, or 2) did report it but experienced first-hand how shitty our society is at handling these cases. It's not really a matter of rating the horrible acts, but rating how comparatively horrible our society is at handling one of them in particular and how widespread the affect of it is. I won't say rape is worse than murder. I will say that our treatment of rape victims is way worse, and our treatment of rape as a narrative in art is also worse.

Ghost

@Roz You put it so more eloquently than I did. I salute thee.

Luna

I absolutely had players stall scenes like crazy! I've even been witness to them but wasn't involved so I checked the fuck out. Four and a half hours. For a scene in which I'm sure my character was dead meat. JUST KILL ME JESUS. I actually cried at some point because I was tired. I should have just disconnected and been like fuck y'all.

Arkandel

@Ghost said:

By all means, don't police rape scenes and allow characters to forcibly rape other characters on a no-consent, yes-first game and see what happens.

If you're liberally not governing what kind of things can be done on the game, then (just as an example) you are potentially allowing a player who has real life rape trauma to come into contact with a player who has unrequested physically dominating rape fantasies, and that...will be a fucking mess.

The entire point of treating players like adults and giving them the tools to play their own game is that they also have the responsibilities of adulthood. You can't have it both ways except for this one exception: if a player steps out of bounds OOC and stalks another, or doesn't take no for an answer, or won't accept the IC consequences of his actions, or tries to deny the right to fade-to-black ... etc... then it's absolutely staff's business to step in because those are things IC actions alone can't address.

Purely IC actions in this context are to be handled handled on the grid by characters in whatever way they deem fit. Capture and castrate him if you want, beat him up or kill him. Implicate him for the in-game crime of rape, call the cops and send the character to jail. Or if he's an IC creep but hasn't actually acted on it ostracise him, exclude him, vote him down until he's kicked from organizations, implicate him. Deal with it, what's stopping you?

I am not saying you are wrong - or right. Only that staff 'policing' scenes is no part of a game like this and if it's what a player expects from their staff then there are certainly more than enough MU* out there ran in a way which (claim to) offer it.

Groth

If you want to have a game where people behave like adults, you need to be very proactive about making sure everyone knows the OOC standard of behaviour and vigilantly kick out those who are unwilling to behave.

Arkandel

@Groth I quite agree.

Apos

I really would not want to put a sexual assault victim in a spot where they have to say, 'I am uncomfortable with any part of this RP and wish to fade to black any and all of it and just let a GM determine the consequences', but it is the logical conclusion of a (nearly) completely hands off staff in a yes-first type game. I think that you should probably be as painfully clear as possible in any fade-to-black policy. It's very surprising how many players feel pressured to RP out scenes they are deeply bothered by and they really, really need to feel that staff has their back. I wouldn't take it for granted at all that players would think first to fade even in scenes.

Arkandel

@Apos said:

It's very surprising how many players feel pressured to RP out scenes they are deeply bothered by and they really, really need to feel that staff has their back. I wouldn't take it for granted at all that players would think first to fade even in scenes.

That's a fair point. How would you make it more crystal clear that if anything happened they'd be backed? I.e. other than stating the usual stuff (which exists in almost any sane game I've been on) about fade-to-black and whatnot... what else can be done?

Apos

@Arkandel I was thinking about the same thing, since every MU I've played has had a similar blurb about it at least mentioning in passing about players should never feel the need to RP out anything that makes them uncomfortable. In terms of help files, it's awkward but might be necessary to specifically mention examples of things players can -and should- fade to black on if they personally have a problem with it. It's also awkward for flow but not a terrible idea to require any player of an antagonist to specifically ask if the victim's player is comfortable with continuing or if they'd prefer to fade to black. That kind of policy might scare off the creepier sorts that are most likely to stomp on fade-to-black rules, since all you need to know is whether they checked first, and puts the onus on players.

But most importantly I'd say just a prevalent staff culture, like any staff storytellers specifically (and very pointedly) asks if players would prefer a fade to black on any sensitive scenes rather than waiting for players to be forced to voice their dislike. While it might come across as a little awkward and disruptive of flow, I think it might save a whole hell of a lot of drama before describing something that truly offends a great player.

Just a couple ideas off my head, a little awkward but might help.

Ghost

@Arkandel said:

@Apos said:

It's very surprising how many players feel pressured to RP out scenes they are deeply bothered by and they really, really need to feel that staff has their back. I wouldn't take it for granted at all that players would think first to fade even in scenes.

That's a fair point. How would you make it more crystal clear that if anything happened they'd be backed? I.e. other than stating the usual stuff (which exists in almost any sane game I've been on) about fade-to-black and whatnot... what else can be done?

I think it's important to remember the high number of MUers who have no RL social outlets and cling to games for social acceptance. This is why so many players will roleplay a scene that makes them uncomfortable, yet just go through with it, because sometimes there is a RL need of a sorts attached to the hobby.

I don't think there is any other good answer other than establishing guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior on any game. Due to the risks of minors playing the game as well, people should absolutely avoid scenes involving rape and other forms of sexual assault.

I don't think that is a lot to ask of a player base.

I mean -- shit -- if you can't ask your player base to not roleplay fucked up things like sexual assault, molestation, or other forms of rape, then this basically becomes a fucked up hobby, right?

I, for one, would never roleplay on a game, even if staff backed me up where there were no rules governing whether or not my character could be gangraped ICly. I don't log in for that shit and it's fucked up. Period.

ThatGuyThere

Ok you say players should handle the issues like removing problem characters ICly? How do you propose to make your pie in the sky game better about avoiding the hell that is trying to PK someone for whatever reason that most games currently make it?
Pretty much no game but full consent one ban pk, but have you ever tried to do it? I have not but just a quick looks at the various policies for it places gives a head ache. And that is all before the scene where it happens and then the OOC drama fall out from it?
Why does staff need to police the game when the players are adults, is sadly being adult does not magically make one not a jack ass. In fact being an adult really just gives folks the awareness to be better at hiding it if they so choose.
Yes first games can work but I doubt one would opened to the general public.

Apos

@ThatGuyThere I know what you're saying there, though I think a game like this would probably have fully coded combat so a GM wouldn't need to be there for it. That means you would need a GM for any complicated plot of catching someone that's never on the grid (which frankly a lot of twinky/metagaming players will do if they think they are threatened), but it is not so bad for most fights. I played on a MUSH with fully coded combat and yeah the plots of 'I want to assassinate a character that never leaves their room' never, ever went anywhere, but a lot of characters got PK'd just due to players having access to combat commands.

Ghost

So if we are all adults and IC rape should be handled by IC means, then I could...say...

Create a character and, over time, focus on law and police contacts/allies and a broad collection of IC patsies that were willing to take the fall for me. While harvesting xp and spending it for the top weapons, physical and combat stats, and an IC army of bodyguards, my character could then, feasibly, rape every single character on grid and use my army, money, contacts, and Allies to either derail the investigations, avoid jail time, send one of my posse to jail in my stead, and through dice, roleplay, and theme, perform these roleplay acts against anyone willing to scene and/or unwilling to log off despite how fucked up the scene is.

...ugh, I felt weird typing that. I would never play that character, but I feel it is an accurate example as to why some things simply can't be held to "ehhh keep it IC" standards.

Staff has a responsibility to protect their player base from predatory players, and the only way to do that is to establish expected guidelines of roleplay, conduct, and some realistic trigger rules.