Posts made by Ghost

@Auspice It is TOOOOTALLY reasonable to warn, disclaim, or outright avoid themes of rape, domestic violence, torture, etc.

I think when striving for an "R" rating, everyone knows what it takes to avoid making hardcore xxx porn or Human Centipede

@surreality So, on a reasonable level, how would it be my responsibility to mitigate (on behalf of another player), potentially triggering themes related to sex, violence, crime, and dark imagery, when said person with triggers has chosen to find entertainment on an online role-playing space with complete strangers, where the central theme (WoD, example) is horror, crime, violence, sex, and fear?

So if a player with PTSD chooses to enter the funhouse with the sign that reads DANGER: THE THEME OF THIS FUNHOUSE INCLUDES THEMES OR VIOLENCE, SEX, HORROR, FEAR, DEATH, EVISCERATION, RELATIONSHIP DRAMA, LOSS, AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHO COMES AND GOES, how are the other people in the Funhouse in any way responsible for their choice to enter a potentially triggering environment?

Tennis doesn't have these themes.

Maybe the people with massive relationship triggers, fear triggers, abuse triggers, winning/losing triggers shouldn't be relying on online games with complete strangers, games with triggering themes no less, for fun in search of horror or relationship rp.

It is the responsibility of each player to determine their ability to remain objective on these playspaces, and it is their responsibility to determine, given whatever diseases, issues, or triggers they may have, if the funhouse is a proper environment for them.

It's not my fault if I trip a trigger on accident, and while I sympathize with people's personal bullshit (because we all have some), it's not their responsibility to cater to mine, either.

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

To tell someone they are not welcome in this hobby if it is possible for this to happen to them is as ignorant as telling them they shouldn't participate on these games if they have ADD, or OCD, or depression, or anxiety... the list goes on and on.

No, there is a difference.

It is wholly reasonable for someone to to have empathy if a trigger gets, well, triggered? All kinds of people have all kinds of personal shit. That's a universal concept that everyone can understand and empathize with. If I run a scene and it squicks someone out? Hey, I didnt mean to squick you, that sucks, my bad. is reasonable.

There's a fine line about 10,000 miles wide between, say, running a violent gunfight scene (within acceptable use) that might trigger some Afghanistan-grade PTSD, and a GM forcing surprise rape RP upon a character. Call it a favor or something that should be standard, whatever word works best for you, but so long as we paint within the lines of agreed upon behavior and content, the responsibility of how that content is dealt with on a personal level is not the responsibility of other players.

Let me be perfectly clear.

I did not suggest that players who might be susceptible to being triggered should be told that they are not welcome in the hobby. Scratch this from any realm of intent.

My stance is this:

If a player is incapable of separating themselves from IC content to such a degree, then they have a responsibility to decide to accept the risks of triggering, agree to the behaviors and content when they type +accept, or move along.

It is not the responsibility of every other player, effectively strangers on the internet, to be responsible for every other player's triggers and ability to separate IC from OOC, levels of obsession, or other things that are unhealthy in this hobby.

So, in short, telling someone that if they have the "potential of being triggered then they're not welcome" is way different from saying: "If these games tend to compromise your ability to remain objective, behave in line with conflict resolution or behavior guidelines, or result in emotional responses that are upsetting to yourself and others, then it isn't a requirement that you play these games any more than it is a requirement that other people are subjected to your personal problems."

@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Where is the correct balance point between the players' responsibility to maintain the separation between the fictional content and their real life trigger points, and the game/plot runners' responsibility to flag such material?

What is the correct response by the latter to the former after such a triggered response? Even assuming the best of intentions such things are bound to happen, so how should staff handle an upset player?

How do we achieve both (1) and (2) without discouraging people from running things which aren't either inoffensive or completely black and white? Or is it better in certain games that controversial themes are never ran, and staff plots/public PrPs are always 'safe'? If so, when?

1. I think the term reasonable applies. With so many content policies, the only real responsibility a game/scene runner has is to keep scenes within acceptable use. Easily, 90% of the responsibility of a player to maintain separation. These games are not lives and these characters are not themselves. People should not be subject to someone else's inability to cope with creative playspace. But, reasonably, the game runner/gm needs to stay within the (key word here) agreed upon lines. If a player cannot maintain their level of separation, they should not play these games. Period.

2. The triggered needs to behave reasonably. Its not everyone's responsibility to cater to every trigger that exists. People need to understand that a virtual minefield of triggers will not sustain, and if there were any content allowance concerns because of some all important trigger, then the triggered should review with staff as part of their decision making process before applying. Once in, understand that in very few situations is an action designed to trigger you, and if it is within bounds of policy, the gm/runner may not be doing anything wrong at all. So the triggered has a responsibility to behave. They may excuse themselves from the scene, discuss with staff if certain content is within acceptable use, but very rarely is a personal-attack response warranted. On the same hand, a reasonable GM should include details of potential content or themes as a favor to players. Many games allow for rating, but never, ever should being triggered result in an attack. We are all adults. We need to maintain order and ensure said triggering isn't being used as an offensive weapon against staff or other players.

3. We must all strive to encourage in others the ethic to separate IC from OOC. We can post content warnings on events, which is no different from an MPAA or ESRB rating for other content. We can watch for predatory players, both triggered or people pushing fucked up rp on others, and we can remember the term reasonable when making staffing decisions when it comes to players who have lost their objectivity or use a minefield of triggers as a means to control others. In the end, we can be reasonable, set reasonable content warnings and policies, respond to things we don't like in a reasonable manner, and handle any issues with an eyeball on what should be reasonably expected from any given player.

@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:

@Booriley Was this meant for the Apology thread?

The apology thread has a 50% chance of just turning into a shooting gallery for bitter cunts.

TANIS

@Booriley I think it's cool you took the time to do that. Publicly no less.

Epidermis.

.
..
...
....
Necrosis.

Fuck yo' Succubus. I got a PLATYPUS

Friday the 13th comes out at the end of the month.

If people wanna get together on PS4 and have a Jason vs. MuPeople hangout, I'd be game.

Incubate

Interrogate

MASTURB-

-WATERGATE.

Exfoliate

EXPELLIARMUS!!!!

Daniel Day Lewis.

PRIMAE NOCTIS!

@Thenomain hardcore up vote, there.

@Roz I'll agree to disagree. I'll also be chill. Let's give it 24 hours and if you wanna chat and straighten out the wrinkles, let's take it to message chat.