@farfalla said in TS - Danger zone:
@Pandora I definitely am! Your "displeasing" post is still incomprehensible and dumb, though.
My sincerest apologies that you're incapable of comprehending plain English; please feel free to continue not having anything of substance to say in turn.
@farfalla said in TS - Danger zone:
@Pandora What is your point? I can't even tell what I'm supposed to be displeased by. Is your argument that... we shouldn't ban certain types of behavior on games, because some people want the facade of non-con RP but won't say so, so we'd better make sure they can get their heart racing unexpressed desires over the expressed desires of other people to not be explicitly pressured and creeped on? Or is it that because you can't entirely eliminate pressure or coercion or non-con behavior, we shouldn't try to disallow any of it? Or that we don't have the "right" (whatever that means) to establish content rules and guidelines on games?
I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, tbh, but it really seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
You're boring.
@mietze I agree with this post, but lest anyone run with an incorrect assumption here, my comment about being babysat was not about anyone noping out of something or deciding ahead of time that they don't want to do something. It was about the idea that everything has to be vetted and mapped out OOCly ahead of time or else you're a bad person.
@Rinel Logging into a game with strangers is a conscious choice and the decision to do so should be made with the consideration of the fact that you cannot control what other people choose to type, and whether or not you are in the correct head-space to deal with the fact that people are going to type things you disagree with, from mild annoyances to Mayday alarm bells.
You can be vulnerable and still maintain responsibility for yourself and your choices, to say otherwise is to rob people of their own sense of agency. It is not the job of the internet to babysit you. There is a difference between 'I did not like that, please don't do it again.' and 'I did not like that, you are a horrible person & I will now proceed to tell everyone to cancel you because despite not breaking any game rules, you've upset me and must pay.'
The difference between what I said and what Mrs Reagan said is that I am not denying anyone their hurt, I am denying anyone the right to decide that the way to avoid being hurt is to disallow everyone from writing anything that could possibly hurt them.
The difference between being held at gunpoint in real life and being held at gunpoint in roleplay is that in one, you are flesh and bone and in danger. In the other, you can log off and go make a cup of tea. You do not have to roleplay anything, ever.
I have no interest in pretending people aren't coerced, I don't know where you got that idea. Even pre-obtained consent can be coerced from someone trying to be a good sport, or desperate to be liked, or anxious about ruining someone else's fun.
This won't please some people to hear, but I'm not in the business of holding my tongue.
There's a lot of grief heaped on people who don't seek OOC pre-consent for RP of questionable topics, and this fails to address the fact (not supposition, but fact) that there are and always will be players that want these types of RP to be spontaneous, that want to be able to say 'No, no' while thinking 'Yes', that want to be able to safely experience the thrill/horror/joy/disgust from their well-lit bedroom desk hidden behind an anonymous screen from which they can walk away at any point if they so choose.
I'm not arguing against the idea that it'd be healthier for them to be able to OOCly say 'I want X', I'm just saying that for some, that takes the excitement out of it in ways I'd imagine are similar to if a scary movie flashed a warning on the screen to let you know a jump-scare is coming. The same way the ominous music is a low-key warning something is about to happen so you might want to cover your eyes and peek through your fingers, most RP of a 'problematic' nature tends to have a build-up to it during which you can measure and weigh your options and decide if this is right for you.
There is no one-size-fits-all for consent in fiction, what's important is to know your own limits/boundaries and enforce them to your own level of comfort. No one can force anyone to RP anything. I repeat, no one can force anyone to RP anything. They may try, but your keyboard + mouse + mental well-being are in your hands, literally.
@farfalla Not looking at peoples' descs is a good way to wind up whitewashing people's characters of color, to miss character disabilities, to miss someone's MAGA t-shirt, someone's neo-Nazi tattoos, someone's 'I Beat Breast Cancer' pin, and so on.
I'm not saying you have to look or care, I'm just saying descriptions aren't just there as empty fluff, a lot of meaningful character information won't come up in every single pose.
If your character hits on a character related to them, you'll discover pretty quickly whether or not they're into that sort of thing. If you come on too hard, you may find out much more vehemently than you'd like, so my advice is to keep it IC and treat it with the level of cautious exploration that such a taboo subject warrants.
Same with hardcore BDSM elements, it's fun to slowly build up to these relationships or conversations IC & again - if you come on too hard and fast from 0 to 100 on this, you'll likely find yourself on the wrong end of creep accusations because that's the nature of the beast, so treat the subject with all due caution.
Rape is harder for me to comment on. I don't like talking to people much OOC, and since most characters are not looking to be raped, it's generally an OOC desire & thus I don't have any actual experience here.
TS is not some magical alternative RP that is bound by different rules of engagement than any other type of RP, and the sentiments that people express to that effect seem to be rooted in what I would consider the negative form of slut-shaming.
If for example someone didn't TS ever, but really enjoyed combat RP to the extent that they sought it out almost exclusively, hounded other combat-leaning characters to spar as soon as they logged in, abusively trash-talked people, IC or OOC, that didn't want to fight them, started whisper campaigns alleging people were twinks or cheaters any time they lost a fight, etc - all of these behaviors would be a sign of someone being pretty damn annoying with a higher-than-acceptable level of IC/OCC crossover.
But for some reason, we treat people with this level of crossover regarding TS as monsters, while people who crossover for other reasons (combat twinks, gold hoarders, power-grabbers, etc) as mere annoyances.
It's human nature to invest at least some measure of self into roleplay characters, and being 'into' the erotic smut you're writing between two characters isn't something to be ashamed of so long as you are not casting any aspersions or leveling any expectations on the other player, same as with any other type of interpersonal RP.
I know MSB/Wora has a nasty history of kink-shaming people having their harmless fun on Shang, and that's cool and I'mma let y'all finish - but please do that shit in its own thread without derailing this one. It's called 'Firan Secrets', not 'lets poke fun at Shang character concepts yet again'.
@Tinuviel said in Firan Secrets:
@Pandora said in Firan Secrets:
It's too bad he grew up; being able to fuck people is what fucked him up, I think.
Sounds like pretty much any post-adolescent male.
I don't ascribe to the idea, even in jest, that males as a whole are brainless slaves to their testicles. It takes active choices, for which people must be held accountable, to become abusive assholes.
I like it when game creators are coding-capable enough to automate the system and I don't have to juggle dice when all I came to do was RP.
Where I play, music/video is integrated into the client, so if you're running a scene, say a party for example, you can enter Youtube links via an ambient command for everyone to hear (or mute, if they so choose). This says more about the scene itself than the lofty ideals of the character, which feels a bit less like a wank-fest.
@Kestrel said in Do you care about other people's music?:
@Pandora said in Do you care about other people's music?:
Please never ask me to listen to anything though, I can't get those 2-5 minutes back so the answer will always be no, and I will resent you for making me crush your fleeting hope.
No. Luckily I don't like you and can deny you anything without guilt.
@RightMeow Ikr? It's almost like the name Pandora existed before the streaming service or something.
I could not care less about anyone's playlist, and I'm pretty sure I've never even skimmed the ones I've come across on people's wiki page, and I don't even notice them usually unless it's a site that allows people to auto-play their music, and even then it's just to immediately stop the song.
That said, share away, it's literally hurting no one.
Please never ask me to listen to anything though, I can't get those 2-5 minutes back so the answer will always be no, and I will resent you for making me crush your fleeting hope.
I realize that in this thread at least your stance is more anti-pedophile than pro-child-protection, which is a perfectly valid stance but no one here seems to be advocating for pedophilia in the slightest. But for you and anyone else curious, if you view the page source on Cyberrun's homepage, you'll see:
<meta name="rating" content="restricted">
<meta name="rating" content="adult">
Now, of course, the onus is on parents to make sure that they have some sort of parental blocker on their child's computer that will catch on these tags - or better yet, that they're monitoring their child's internet-usage personally in some form.
For anyone curious about how sites like Google use these tags
Cyberrun is flagged and filtered, Net Nanny approved. It also has CyberRun is an adult game, you must be at least 18 years of age to play. on its home page, something most MUs do not, likely to avoid looking like a den of sin and depravity. Joke is - all MUs that haven't outright banned TS are dens of sin, depravity, and mudsex with strangers - any of whom might be children.
On Cyberrun, all of a character's channel & private communication in-game, IC & OOC, is stored in a window that cannot be closed separately from the main game window and it has a pretty sizable buffer, so any parent interested in what their wayward child is doing online cannot be stymied by their child quickly closing and re-opening the game, a la most of the telnet clients that play host to MUs.
There is something to be said for transparency in the bid to keep actual children safe. A conversation about what steps any game, from Cyberrun to My Little Ponies MU to games in the process of opening, can take to further ensure that parents and internet porn-blockers can stay one step ahead of children wandering into adult play spaces would be much more mildly constructive.
@Ghost I'm glad you're a good person and not a pedophile, and I'm also glad you're not the person who decides the definition of pedophilia, or what people can or cannot write. I hope you're as fervent about protecting actual children, none of whom are harmed by 2 adults writing bad smut while pretending to be 2 adults wearing bio-engineered teenage skin suits.
@Pandora Yes. I said if you want to talk legal talk, the age of consent is irrelevant and the only legal angle I could think of was the production of pornographic material featuring children. That's not my stance, I don't care about the legality.
?
