Dom/Sub imbalance on MUSHes

Ganymede

Statements like this are, I suspect, where what you may be attempting to communicate is failing miserably.

It seems very clear to me that @Lithium's failure to communicate, if any, has been exacerbated by your and @Apos's inability to listen or carefully read.

I can see why that would be frustrating.

Groth

@surreality said:

simple lovey-dovey dating fluff. (And yes, I have actually run across a player on a game who wanted nothing more than to find a girlfriend there with which he could have a child -- these things happen.)

Girlfriend and boyfriend creates a family together RP is surprisingly popular. There's almost always one of those couples regardless of which game you're in.

surreality

@Ganymede Thus far, she's effectively communicated that she's reading a great many things that have not been said, without any translation re: where she's getting it from.

I'm not inclined to play psychic.

Ganymede

@surreality said:

Thus far, she's effectively communicated that she's reading a great many things that have not been said, without any translation re: where she's getting it from.

I'm not inclined to play psychic.

I don't recall her asking you to play the psychic, yet you seem compelled to respond in the absence of, as you put it, basis.

Has anyone asked for clarity? To clarify? No. It may be unreasonable to expect anyone here to demonstrate basic communication skills, but your credibility as someone who is "educated" in anything is undermined when it is abundantly clear that wires have been crossed, but one communicates as if they are not.

Sunny

@Lithium

@Sovereign was talking about people OOC. Messing with people OOC, and that being okay. That is significantly different than IC. There is no comparison to be made between the two, even though 'they're consenting adults' has been applied to both. It's not the same thing, even remotely. That you're conflating the two is probably why you're having a problem getting your point across.

Apos

@Ganymede Nah you're just being obtuse. I don't see how I'm missing anything. Both you and her said you feel that negative portrayals can harmfully reinforce stereotypes, like you listing lawyers or whatever as an example. I said that's fine. I said her way of presenting it was unhelpful and not constructive, and it was and is.

surreality

@Ganymede Yeah, I did, actually, ask for clarification. Specifically to try to determine where the disconnect here is coming from.

Because I'm seeing none of this 'hostility toward education' or 'vitriol'/etc. that's being claimed, just a lot of histrionic talk that slings around a lot of insult in the process, which is less than helpful.

Ganymede

@surreality said:

Yeah, I did, actually, ask for clarification.

If you did, I didn't see it or comprehend it.

surreality

@Ganymede
@surreality said:

@Lithium I don't disagree that it's a possibility, so I'll ask you to quote what you're getting that impression from -- as right now you're arguing against something I've not said.

And I'm seeing a whole lot of that sort of thing. There's quite a bit of dramatic 'reading into' going on that is gloriously unproductive. When people respond to things I haven't said as though it's relevant to the argument? Yes, finding out where in the blue hells that response came from is helpful, since the response is actually to something that's being assumed or read into, rather than something that has been stated and actually read.

Right now, it's reading as, "You disagree with me, so you must be uneducated and hostile toward education!" which is pompous crazy-talk.

Ganymede

@surreality

Let's say it is crazy pompous talk. So what? I'm pretty sure many, many readers say (but don't state) the same thing when I put a message up. It does not need to be called out; it's out already.

I don't think it's unreasonable to act unreasonably when one is finding it difficult to communicate. As I go back over the old posts, the original dispute arose between Mietze and Lithium, and revolved around whether such RP is objectionable if it only pertains to IC subject matter between two consenting adults. And then someone -- Lithium -- had to evoke Sovereign, and here we are. (I feel like Commander Shepard now; yay!)

HelloRaptor had a point when he eloquently dismissed himself from the board. We have become a community that is more conscious of how it communicates, and has eschewed the hyperbolic for a more sedate form of communication. And there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, this is what I have done in real life.

But, as with real life, I have also learned to let some shit go, especially where I know, should know, or suspect that punching with words will make the communication problem worse.

So, I heartily recommend that gloves go up.

surreality

@Ganymede I can understand that perspective -- and it is actually well-put.

I also agree the earlier point that it's potentially a discussion worth having, even if I think it's likely to come down to the usual 'people are going to be morons, and we can only hope for the best' answer we usually do.

It's just rather impossible to have that discussion if people are arguing right past whatever is being said, and arguing with what everyone thinks is being said, instead.

lordbelh

Where this discussion has gone reminds me of when Tyler the Creator was banned from entering the UK because of the material of some of his rap lyrics. No doubt the content of said lyrics are downright disturbing, but that was the point. He was doing the whole thing from alter-ego perspectives. Still, the argument ran that the lyrics fostered hatred and glorified violence.

Anyway, to quote his response:

What about the people who will make music in the next five years? Are they gonna get banned? Why don’t they ban authors? Writers who write these mystery books about people getting raped and sabotaged and murdered and brainwashed – why don’t they ban them? There are rallies of neo-Nazis in parts of England. And then you’re telling me I can’t come there because of some bullshit song, but you got motherfuckers with swastikas rallying down the street actually promoting hate?

(note: bolded by me, and also a notable irony is that the rules that allowed the ban were meant to stop terrorists.)

Anyway. I will RP out the most twisted and vile things imaginable, but I do so in the understanding that this is fiction, and I hold myself no more morally accountable for it than I would the creators of Se7en (incidentally one of my favorite movies).

mietze

I think the real disagreement is whether people can RP something inaccurate to the ideal (or worst in the case of abuse) and do so without being ignorant ooc or contributing to bad things happening RL.

As I have stated or tried to many different ways, without comparing anyone to a known and admitted ooc predator, people play all sorts of things for a wide variety of reasons, people with similar RL experiences may choose very different comfort levels with it in RP, even knowledgable people choose to not portray things in RP with best accuracy. I don't believe that to mean that these people who don't RP out best practices of parenting, consent, behavior in response to stress or frustration, ect are by the fact of doing so adding to the atmosphere that causes such things to happen RL.

The issue of mushers getting together (which yes, can and does happen---a lot) and their expectations of RL vs what they have played out on a mush is IMO a different issue. Regardless of how you RP with someone online, even if your play has ONLY incorporated best practices IC I really hope that the players meeting exercise some common sense safety guidelines. I know some people who have gotten into unsafe situations even though they knew the best practice rules and exercises them in their online play with each other, and thought they didn't have to be cautious when meeting in RL. There are a ton of people who talk the talk but are still /bad/ people out there.

What I was perceiving (and I do not think I was the only one), was a shaming of people who choose to engage in certain types of RP because nobody properly educated would ever want to play out anything different. Maybe the miscommunication started because lithium meant to restrict that solely to D/s play, but because the topic has expanded to abuse in general, I thought that they felt that way in general? However this is a pretty common argument and friction point on mushes, the Who would ever want to play X unless they're stupid/stunted/ect? thing.

So it may be that we do see mostly eye to eye on things, just not on whether D/s play should be in a different category of expecting the community to portray it healthfully/accurately and if that makes people extra specially bad people if they don't.

I think @lordbelh is doing a lot better job of communicating about that than me though.

Groth

On a meta level, I don't think anyone should be too surprised about the lack of healthy D/s IC relationships in RP. After all it's my understanding is that healthy D/s relationships are signified by the fact all parties are aware they're playing roles in a kind of game with rules that everyone has agreed to play by.

However when you're part of MU* style RP, all those things are shunted back one level. While your character might not get a safeword or frankly a say in anything and might be enslaved 24/7, the players meanwhile might be communicating with eachother what their likes and dislikes are and most people are really great about respecting the right of anyone to cut a scene whenever they're uncomfortable.

That's the most important part to me, to keep any relationship functional, IC or otherwise, you need to have good communication and as long as you have that, I can't see anything wrong with roleplaying abusive relationships. What worries me a lot more is when I see people engage in abusive OOC relationship stuff as discussed in the Jealousy thread.

Pyrephox

@Groth Same here. I'd much rather see us focus on encouraging players to treat each other with respect, rather than spend time judging the kinds of scenes they like to play, so long as they play them with people who have informed consent and are also enjoying them.

lordbelh

@mietze said:

I don't believe that to mean that these people who don't RP out best practices of parenting, consent, behavior in response to stress or frustration, ect are by the fact of doing so adding to the atmosphere that causes such things to happen RL.

Moreover, once you start limiting yourself to best behavior, you must have a definitive canon of what that is. Those most eager to set those standards tend to be the ones you absolutely least want to.

What is a healthy enough D/s relationship? (Though I have no part in that RL subculture, I bet you like in every other subculture there are plenty of different Absolute Truths and finger pointing at Doing It Wrong.) Is that gay character unrealistically TOO gay? Your character is black, why does she speak white? Are you trying to white-wash black culture? Or the flip side, are you doing unacceptable cultural appropriation and inauthentic stereotyping by trying to mimic a cultural lingo not your own? (I've seen seen high horse derision of 'stupid and wrong stereotype' delivered against someone portraying his own fucking culture.)

Yeah, there are obvious Wrongs, but I'd rather have a few idiot concepts and wrong-play than elevating anyone to moral arbitrators of rightness of play.

mietze

And for the record in no way have I thought or talked about Lithium as a villian. I don't think that, nor have I. We just disagree, and probably just BY degree.

Thenomain

@lordbelh said:

Those most eager to set those standards tend to be the ones you absolutely least want to.

Rule of Staffing #3.

TNP

@Ganymede said:

As an analogy, think of how a gay man may be concerned with PCs mincing and fellating in public on a game.

I can deal with the fellating but the mincing always irritates me.

Arkandel

To me it's fairly simple.

In an adult game - and any say, World of Darkness MU better be adult-only - then the expectation are your players can make their own choices. Staff is not there to parent them, they only need run their game.

If any element of the game is actually disruptive to its theme and direction then sure, intervene. If you're trying to run a sober political vampiric sphere and some players want to furry it up, come dressed up as furries and do furry things in your Elysia then yeah, you have the right to intervene.

But let's leave ethics out of it unless someone complains they are being harassed, abused or otherwise mistreated. Otherwise it's not anyone else's business to tell people what is right or 'healthy' for them; if it was then an honest look at how much time of our lives has been collectively spent staring at white letters on black screens would probably call for an intervention, too.

I've plenty of peeves about what people do with themselves. Oh, plenty. Some are personal and some are objective ones backed by science and everything!

For example I don't like smoking, it's an unhealthy habit. Yet the day I start butting in and telling you you need to stop smoking you should tell me to mind my own damn business, because you'd be right. And if I came and told you that you shouldn't roleplay smoking because it... promotes... something? Then you'd also be justified to make fun of me because that's a hilarious thing to say.