Best posts made by surreality

I think, actually, this community is better with second chances than not. How many times have the legends of horror been allowed back on games? Enough that people freak out on the regular because it has happened.

The key is, you have to actually change if you want the second chance to work, barring the extreme corner case of 'someone really was out to get you for some stupid reason, you did nothing actually wrong, but fell victim to the rumor mill as somebody without a support network of any kind that made you out to be someone you're not'. (This has assuredly happened here and there, too, to various folks.)

Not changing and just going back -- even to another game rather than one that booted you -- to try again with the same shitty behaviors that made you unwelcome elsewhere isn't going to do it. You're just likely to get another place added to the list of places you aren't welcome.

We do already kinda have this as a 'page the GM' kind of thing, if someone wants to make a quiet exit without speaking up to all and sundry.

p GM=This is hitting an RL limit for me due to <X>. I'd like an out this round, via <Reasonably Possible Y, ex: 'hears a noise outside to investigate and will meet up with the party later', 'is knocked out and carried home by the others', 'gets an emergency call from Bob and must go', etc.> if at all possible.

Getting to play with someone I had a complete blast with ages ago (and haven't had a chance to catch on a game in over a decade), and sitting up wayyyyyyyyyyyy too late cracking each other up with random backstory ideas that somehow click too perfectly.

I missed, "I am giggling so much in this brainstorming session that I have laugh-tears" a lot more than I realized.

@Ganymede said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I used to think that staff victimized players. Now I realize we just victimize ourselves.

Even IC, the character I've been playing for the past year or so now (OMG, it's been more than a year?!) has come to the following conclusion:

"You're sometimes the hero of your own story. You're ultimately also its principle villain."

@Duke-Nukem

Some games are definitely more positive than others.

I don't, for instance, discount the experiences people have described about running into people who vomit sexist and homophobic commentary all over the place when they play -- I am just lucky enough to not be in those particular spaces.

That's one thing you will discover more and more; the cultural 'norms' for any given game are going to vary, sometimes quite a bit. There's very little that's truly uniform. The best bet is to browse around some and find spaces where you do feel the most comfortable. (Even good places will have their 'moments', but that tends to just be life.)

@Derp The 'a gaming group is not a replacement for therapy and shouldn't be used as such' is actually in that pdf.

"An RPG is not supposed to be a therapy session where people work out their real-life trauma (that's an unfair burden to everyone at the table, who probably aren't qualified to be therapists)." (p.3 sidebar)

The responsibility for well-being they're talking about is 'don't disregard the comfort of your players', not 'take on their emotional baggage as a replacement for therapy'.

The former is important. The latter we shouldn't be doing.

And if there are too many fae prostitutes, it can be resolved in the traditional way:

a hoedown.

(I'll see myself back out.)

@Paulie-Walnuts No clue, and I don't particularly care.

Not remotely relevant to the point in any case.

If the question is 'how would you feel about these two sex games being added to a parental control filter'? The answer is 'anything that is meant for an 18+ audience should be added to that filter, not just two sex games'.

It's not complicated.

@Seraphim73 Oh sweet merciful mother of wankery. (Which, I suppose, could be pronated or supinated as well, if we're getting technical about it... )

There are four kinds of people primarily identified as bad actors in the community, to my reckoning:

1. People who are wholly aware of the negative impact they have on others and give none fucks about the harm they do, and see no reason to change any of these behaviors. I feel these folks are owed precisely the same consideration they show others in that I have no sympathy for them when a hundred voices shout at them at once. They are very few and far between; I could likely count them on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left to spare. It typically doesn't serve any good to shout at them, however, because they revel in the attention, or use it as something to point at to cry about how they are the victim.

2. People out of control with no interest (or only lip service paid to the interest) in re/gaining it. This may be do to addiction, untreated mental conditions, extreme loss, health concerns, trauma, etc. These people do not have bad intentions on the whole. They are not innately horrible people. Normally, they're great. When out of control, they cease to care what harm they cause and piling on tends to escalate the problem dramatically, so, again, it's a bad idea to do. Most likely to attempt to avoid any attempt at admitting they did anything that could ever be held accountable for. (Ex: "I'm sorry I said those things. It wasn't ok, and you didn't deserve to be treated that way. I had a migraine and was taking my grouchy pain out on you." vs. "What do you want from me? I had a migraine.")

3. People who had a crap day. May be longer than a single day, but it isn't a persistent state like the above. Usually they will feel awful about whatever occurred during the lapse. Piling on and hanging it over their heads forever is garbage past the point at which they realize they screwed up and make an attempt at amends. This is a really good way to ensure people get much less willing to accept culpability for their mistakes or admit it when they make them.

4. Tripped over a land mine. ...pretty self-explanatory. This is where dogpiling bullshit gets especially vile.

Of these four, I only consider the first two to be bad actors. The second group has some chance of being otherwise; the first, not so much.

The irony is, these people aren't the primary targets of dogpiling in the community. Those are:

• Someone expressed a view I dislike.
• Some agreed with someone I dislike/disagreed with someone I like.
• Someone likes something or someone I do not/dislikes something or someone I like.

^ All of this is irritating to a fault for how junior high it is.

@Sunny said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

ETA: The reason I have not addressed the topic of being concerned that the hobby is going in this way is that I have no way to express my objections to 'we care about harm to human beings now' being a problem in a fashion that is appropriate outside of the hog pit.

In fairness, I remember the infamous Rex/Sovereign thread. I remember just how many people were utterly incredulous that someone like him even existed and that this shit was actually real, not whiny hyperbole from women being too emotional or histrionic, which is how people treated these reports for nearly twenty years. (And, again, plenty of places still do.)

The Rexes, Ravauns, Jeurgs, DownWithOPPs, etc. do tremendous damage, and frankly, it's invisible to a lot of people that are not in their target demographic.

It is way easier and more comfortable to believe the complainer is just oversensitive.

Guess what: they're really not. These people are around, and they are real. They will grief, threaten, bully, neg, demean, play victim, etc. all specifically in order to get the things they want out of people in ways that make people doubt themselves or the validity of their discomfort. They'll call you a 'bad player' if you're not down for that rape scene, or being forcibly impregnated. They'll insist 'you agreed to dark and that's dark, you have no leg to stand on in your objection'. They'll try to force the issue through code. They will proactively contact staff in some cases to say 'so and so is starting drama' when you tell them NO, or act like they are so fucking magnanimous if you say 'NO' to their egregious bullshit and they don't press the issue -- "THIS TIME".

I'mma go calm down.

Even if W/C/nWoD is not my cup of tea, it should be interesting to see how this adapts to Ares over time. Definitely ambitious, and I'm hoping it works out well!

I think the main thing I'd suggest is not being afraid to tell Bob McDoesAlltheThings to slow his roll(s).

Similarly, don't be afraid to tell someone to repose if they charge on ahead and do something that would/should require a roll (which is typically also done in pursuit of 'does all the things' or other forms of spotlight hogging).

If there are consequences to the 'charged ahead' issue above, there's always the option of 'mention potential consequences, offer to allow them to repose'; sometimes this can drive the point home a little better when you're dealing with a glory hound.

I read it as 'do not use the game space to actively promote a specific social agenda OOC through constant chatter about it, whatever that agenda is.'

I am 100% behind that. I would not want these arguments on any game I'm running, because that is not the purpose of the game, full stop.

That doesn't mean you ignore acts of bigotry or shitty player behavior because it's based in an *ism. It doesn't mean your players can't talk about their spouses or mention that they are whatever combination of stuff they are. It doesn't mean someone isn't allowed to say '<specific seasonal holiday greeting for that specific day 'cause holy crap are there ever a lot of them this time of year>' when they pop on the game that day, whatever that holiday is because it might identify their religion.

Do these things. Staff, support people doing these things, whatever someone's trait combo is.

Lecturing about the validity of <thing> is necessary in environments where <thing> is not properly supported or respected. If any gender/orientation/religion/etc. is feeling disrespected in your space you have a bigger problem than this and that's the one you need to address. Typically, by the time your players feel the need to lecture someone, it's gotten bad, and you should have said something a long time before that.

I believe in the 'owner's living room' model in this regard, and I see it like this: my living room is not someone's advocacy or activism soapbox unless I grant them permission for those activities, because that is not the purpose of my living room (aka 'the OOC areas of my game'). I also do not believe in allowing people in my living room to be made uncomfortable based on their gender/orientation/religion/etc. because someone is behaving like an asshole about that thing; that asshole is significantly less welcome in my living room than soapboxing is.

The one issue I have with the suspect flag is that it's a double-edged sword.

On the plus side, you don't get other parties caught in the crossfire.

On the very non-trivial downside, you're going to see one half of a lot of conversations. You're not going to see if the reply to, say, a 'awwwwwyiss that PB is hawt I wanna TS!' sort of page is met with silence, a 'fuck off!', a change of subject (ex: 'I think they suit the look of this character and I've always liked the actor's work, but I didn't choose them because I want to TS with them with anyone ever'), or a 'fuck me now!'

This is often very relevant, and can be hazy as hell when you're only seeing one side of a conversation. Someone continuing to pursue under each of those circumstances has a very different interpretation, and it is not always going to be clear from just one side of the conversation.

Another might be, say, the innocent party saying, 'I have a scene with X but can meet you later' -- super common -- and an observed reply of 'I don't get along with them (notice lack of X being identified here), so I'll see you later.' Outside of context, this can look like a completely harmless exchange -- someone being live and let live re: someone they don't get on with and agreeing to meet up later as suggested -- or it could appear to be something more like 'I don't like that person so see ya later, I'm out'. The latter definitely has a very different vibe. (ETA: Also, with X not being identified, it could be interpreted as part of a bashing routine against someone who isn't even the person mentioned -- or, worse, missed as being precisely that for the same reason.)

So, while it's a handy tool, it is VERY important to be aware of this limitation. Those are just two examples, and I'm sure people could come up with plenty more. We already have a lot of communication issues in this hobby, so this is worrisome in a very real way.

@Groth In a normal period of time? I leave my house about once or twice a month, typically for medical appointments. I talk to precisely three people online -- barely ever. In person or on the phone, only my husband and parents. My husband works out of state for the majority of the week. We do one trip annually, through which I spend the entire time freaking out. That's been 'the norm' for roughly a decade.

I actually know exactly what I'm talking about, but nice job trying to tell me you know my circumstances better than I do.

I think it's hard to pin down real demographics in a visually anonymous medium.

Some games, people are all up in everyone else's RL business and know these things -- most common on smaller games with a small number of people who know each other fairly well or interact often.

Some people would rather not share this information, period.

Some folks don't engage OOC at all if they can help it, here, on the game, on discords, etc.

And MSB represents a small number of people in the broader MU hobby, even if it's 'just MUSH/MUX/Evennia/Ares games' and not RPIs and MUDs.

Plenty of people on various games I've been on assume I'm male -- mostly the adult games, and the reason cited is typically, 'but women are all subs and enjoy humiliation!' Uhm, no, darlin', no. (If I heard about how I was definitely a dude playing women one more time because I didn't giggle or smile enough, I might have broken a knuckle on the monitor.)

I've guessed at unknowns and been wrong plenty. People have done it to me. So I'm really reluctant to make assumptions here about the over all makeup of the hobby.

I think -- as Generic White Girl #367, so apply however many grains of salt you feel appropriate -- we're better off, if we want to improve things, assuming people of all races/religions/genders/etc. are present in the hobby, and we should consider their comfort levels as the default.

Being a healthy, inclusive space is the best invitation and advertisement.

@bored The glamorization of organized crime in film and television, too, among all ethnic groups. And I really couldn't say which is worse here: the demonization of the ethnic group by suggesting they're all in organized crime, or the glamorization it. Both of these things are one of those third rail topics that send me into death glare territory.

I partly blame this conversation having happened about a hundred times (not even an exaggeration, gods help me):

Person: "OMG, you haven't watched The Sopranos?"
Me: "No."
Person: "But you're Italian! And it's about being Italian!"
Me: "...no, it's about organized crime, and tries to normalize and glamorize it. It is not about 'being Italian'."
Person: "But aren't you even part Sicilian?"
Me: "...and still not part of organized crime, nor is any member of my extended family."
Person: "...oh, I get it, you have to say that."
Me: "..."

Yeah, like... don't tell people that story on Shang. You'd get requests.

I had -- note the past tense here -- a long-standing habit of having characters sarcastically spitball some absurd bullshit in an entry pose, like... walking in while finishing an argument on a phone, or grousing to an assistant about how they were at their wits end because they're trying to find/do some patently ridiculous thing.

On Shang, I had to stop doing that.

Because, in the prep for a party/festival thing, I posed in complaining to the person helping me about 'how the character had to insist we were not going to literally spit and roast someone to eat alive at the party' to another coworker.

At which point someone in the public space I entered started to ask if I would please please please please please do this to them and wouldn't leave me alone for two weeks begging me to do it every few hours, despite me telling them NO repeatedly.

...so, uh, yeah. Cautionary tale, y'all.