Frustration: I have no goddamn clue how I'm going to do this popup show today.
Usually, there's 'setup day, show day, show/packup day'. This is all one day, condensed from 1pm - ??pm.
We've done one or two small things like this decades ago, but those were trunk shows at shops of varying sizes that invited us in. (I am old enough I remember when Macy's did this and we did them there for a few years, y'all. Can you imagine that now? Bwahaha.)
@ganymede Gotcha -- I definitely misread then. Sorry about that! (Show prep = brain scramble, and I try to shut up then normally, but... FAIL!)
I don't actually know how to deal with the 'argue the extremes alone' problem at this juncture, since it is essentially a duel between strawmen that insults the majority of sensible, respectful individuals by its very existence (sometimes, in both directions at once). This isn't the only subject it arises in, but ugh, does it get ugly in this one.
I mean, we already have answers for the actual extremes:
The people who can simply not accept these things existing in any form in a setting can play on a place that doesn't allow them, or allows only fantastical forms of these issues (fantasy, space aliens, etc.) if they're only comfortable with non-real-world forms.
The people who are genuinely bad actors (and are never so subtle or hard to spot as they assume they are; I've never seen one of these players not out their bigotry on channels, OOC rooms, or in conversations that get reported to staff) who want to indulge in actual OOC bigotry behind a character-shaped mask of plausible deniability should be shown the door promptly.
It's the rest of us that need answers, and they're hard to come to if 'if you accept this at all, you just want to demean women RL and call people offensive slurs right and left' or 'you just want the world rewritten to bubble wrap your personal sensibilities and everyone is sensitive to something' are the only positions people recognize as participants in the discussion. 
@kanye-qwest This is why, no matter how much you and I may not get along personally, I am 100% behind and in support of, and respect the work you have put into, the game world you created. It is absolutely and completely the kind of setting a lot of people clearly very much want, and appreciate for being the way it is. Personal bullshit aside, that is an objectively good thing.
I just don't think it's the only kind of game or setting that should be allowed to exist, or that people creating worlds, or characters, that are not constructed that way should by default be shamed, insulted, or assumed to be horrible people, because that is an objectively bad thing.
@ganymede said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
You may dodge the dichotomy, but that doesn't mean that others do.
I don't dodge it. It's not 'this is an inconvenient thing I'm going to ignore because it doesn't suit my paradigm'. I think it's absurd in its entirety, so I reject it in full.
...just like I'd reject a character that was so two-dimensional that an -ism (or collection of -isms) was their sole defining trait without hesitation. I'd do the same with 'is a marine' or 'is an artist' or 'wants to avenge their spouse's murder' or any number of other things that lacked any depth or nuance beyond that one trait or motivation -- and app staff should really not hesitate to do this.
Essentially, I don't think this is some unique issue that requires that dichotomy to exist, I think this is the same 'two-dimensional/one trick pony problem' we are all well familiar with manifesting in the form of a 'trick' that has the potential to be substantially more problematic and upsetting than some of the other tricks that make the rounds.
I don't believe in protagonists or antagonists as viable concepts on a MU*, period, regardless of any -ism either may or may not possess. They don't work outside of short-term NPCs, because a game is necessarily an ensemble cast.
A game isn't 'Iron Man 2', it's 'The Avengers'.
It isn't 'Misery', it's 'American Horror Story'.
It may contain any number of subplots in which individuals take on a protagonist or antagonist role, the protagonist in one may be the antagonist in the next, or each character in that subplot may consider themselves the protagonist, even if they are acting in direct opposition to one another. This third scenario is the most common on a game.
If someone's character is racist or sexist as a side-note or a background bit, then there's no reason why it can't be overlooked or ignored, or made to be just as aspect, not a center-piece. And if a character aspect is not a center-piece, then it can be ignored in interpretation.
(What you're describing relates directly to my preferred approach to this subject, but considering how many people screamed about that to high heaven the last time I brought it up like it was the actual end of the world, I'm not about to do it again.)
And this is the predominant fashion in which it exists: as an aspect or flaw, not centerpiece. Even if you are looking at most actual antagonist characters that have an -ism as a primary motivation for the character, it isn't the -ism that's the overtly antagonistic behavior, it's what that -ism motivates the character to do.
Still, people fall back on time-enduring tropes because there's a reason they survive: they are simple, over-valued, and as American as apple pie.
None of these things are remotely something that is a uniquely or originally American phenomena, c'mon now, that's more than a little ridiculous to even suggest. They're world-wide human bullshit that did not suddenly emerge out of nowhere when the Declaration of Independence was signed. They existed long before it and they exist all over the world throughout all of human history. Does that make them cool or OK? Obviously not, but come on. If it was that simple, people could just set a game in Victorian London or Ancient Rome and voila, utopia at last!
@insomniac7809 said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Well, ideally it's an IC view not shared by players. But we've all seen people who play creepers, who use the IC screen to try to legitimize creeping on women across the screen. Right?
Rarely do these players play something 'creepy'. They play something they think is going to appeal to their target audience, and then they start working the creepy bullshit in, like turning up the heat on a frog in a pot until it's boiling.
The ones who actually go there -- the Rex/Ashur/Sovereigns -- are pretty much universally unwelcome in the community on games run by anyone with even half a lick of sense. Similarly, anyone espousing hateful or predatory views OOC tends to get bounced these days with impressive speed.
This is the first answer to resolution on this issue, no matter what 'allow', 'disallow', 'allow with consent amongst consenting players', 'some other option' approach any game environment takes on the IC content on the game: these things must have no place whatsoever in the OOC environment of the game, and that line must be held consistently, firmly, promptly, and without wishy washy hesitation about not wanting to deal with conflict by the game's administration.
There are some people who don't want to see hateful, hurtful, ugly words targeting people like them used during their pretendy funtimes.
Which is reasonable.
The only thing I'd say here is that it's somewhat reductive to suggest that the only manifestation this is likely to have would be the use of slurs being slung around. There's a lot more that can happen that's pretty horrible, too, obviously. Mostly, this is a case of 'limiting language is not going to solve the issue' and it's not going to stop people from encountering issues.
You can also run into a completely non-sexist character that spouts off, "Son of a bitch!" or "Motherfucker!" when they hit their thumb with a hammer who'd get slapped by a policy with this kind of focus -- I'm a woman RL and I absolutely do this RL (my poor thumbs, metalwork is seriously not for me, y'all) -- while the sexist character that tells their female employee, "I don't think a woman is suitable for that promotion. Too emotional. Sorry, dear. Could you make sure to get me a fresh coffee on your way out?" would slide by. Not ideal.
There are some people who want to use those words and use the character as a shield.
Which is true, but should not be assumed as the default. Really. This is actually inappropriate. This is fundamentally no different than assuming any other trait or action a character demonstrates is indicative of the player identity, motivation, and integrity.
This same logic has been applied in the past to claim absurdities, 'They were playing a woman, they're not a woman, they are therefore a deceptive monster trying to make me be homosexual RL!'
Sounds opposite or different? It isn't. It's just a different permutation of the problem of making assumptions about a player based on the character, and one way it can go profoundly wrong in hurtful ways, when no one is actually doing anything remotely wrong or improper at all. The 'character gender' attitude described above exists in tiny pockets today, but it was the norm not so long ago. We have grown as a community enough to recognize that it was foolish and damaging.
There are some people who just think the barrier for proving they aren't in the second group needs to be higher than logging in from the other side of the planet and apping a character.
I have never seen a reasonable 'purity test' proposed. (I am literally cringing typing 'purity test' because I find this premise so awful, but there's no question this is what this amounts to.)
I have seen consistent insistences that the only actual 'purity test' possible that is valid is: don't play anything like this in the first place. And that's bullshit.
The reasonable purity test is that the player adheres to the letter and spirit of the 'law'/policy on the game in regard to bigoted behavior, whatever that may be. (Again, IMO, the only reasonable policy is: no, bigotry is not OK OOC on any level, period, the end.)
I do see a pretty big gap between hating shav'arvani or the goddamn metahumans vs. insisting that using the n-word as a comma is just historically accurate, guys.
And here's the problem again: those are not the only possibilities. The longer we keep characterizing people with a different perspective as one of these extremes, actual solutions are not possible because understanding and even comprehension of another's view is impossible. Reductionist thinking like this ultimately only serves to reduce the chances of any positive or productive outcome, because most of the people in the community exist within that very gap which has effectively been rendered null.
I don't think there's a problem with games that choose to exclude them.
I don't think there's a problem with games that choose to include them.
I think there is a problem when members of the community insist that all games must be one of these things or the other, and the other alternative is unacceptable.
I think there is a problem when members of the community insist that players engaging in themes without these elements are 'thin-skinned fantasists' or 'whiny children who want to live in bubble-wrap world'.
I think there is a problem when members of the community insist that players engaging in themes with these elements are 'glorifying bigotry' or 'must be into that RL, too'.
This is because both of the above attitudes are complete and utter nonsense, and we should all be smarter and more mature than (either of the) that(s).
@faraday I don't tend to see a character on a MUX as a protagonist or antagonist, but instead as parts of an ensemble cast -- as in, not one with stars and supporting roles, but one in which everyone is part of a whole, with the same (OOC) default importance to the story. How much they end up in the spotlight tends to be a factor of how much initiative they take to end up there. (This doesn't mean there's nothing special about them any more, it's that it's a group of special individuals each special in their own unique way.)
I try to steer clear of the hero|villain/protagonist|antagonist dichotomy in general, since the hero to one is the villain to the next, and so on, and not only in the sense of the villain who doesn't realize his plan to better mankind is monstrous or the reluctant anti-hero sort of way. More in that most characters, like most people, tend to be most interesting when they have strengths and flaws of ideals, personality, identity, morality, etc.
In a sense, I don't see allowing these types as a form of 'allowing antagonist PCs' -- I don't think that's what you're suggesting, either, really -- but as 'everybody on grid's got a grey soul, and some are brighter or darker a grey than others at different times and in different circumstances'.
@arkandel There is simply not enough facepalm on the planet all of the multiverse earths for that.
@rebekahse said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Games set in crappy/oppressive worlds have flourished before, but it seems like there was some seismic shift over the last few years where everyone got worried they'd be labeled some sort of '-ist' and now everything's sanitized and pretty boring. People don't seem to leap to OOC accusations of the player behind a character being a murderer when that character kills a bunch of people, and I'm confused why we seem to have decided that's self-evident but a character being a sexist or a racist is legitimate cause for OOC concern.
I think this is well put.
The unfortunate thing is, it isn't a completely unreasonable fear -- or, rather, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable fear at all any more.
There's more than a few instances around the board in recent months in which it's been said outright that anyone wanting to play in a setting like this, or play a character with any of these traits, is somehow celebrating these traits, getting off on them, or that it's a reflection their real world views in some fashion.
I never actually thought I'd see that happen, but it seems to be surprisingly widespread. Sometimes these views are expressed very vocally and aggressively, which may make them seem more common than they actually are -- the loudest voices in the room principle at work, more or less -- but it appears to be a prevailing view.
Normally, I'm pretty 'live and let live' about these things. Games can allow this, disallow this, or strike some balance in between, and so far as I'm concerned, that's all well and good; people will naturally migrate to the games and settings that support their preferred play style and comfort zone, and everybody's happy. To me, that's just common sense, live and let live, etc. and it should be the end of it.
It's hard for that to be the end of it, though, when there are endless discussions about whether something is acceptable subject matter period, anywhere, ever, for any reason, even among players interested in exploring those themes peaceably and consentually amongst themselves in a way that's very vocally damning of the actual players/people behind the screen as being necessarily horribly flawed people for considering these themes, settings, or character concepts.
ETA: It comes back to the fundamental assumption that all games should cater to all players, essentially. They shouldn't, in my view. Players should seek out the games that support the fun they want to have, whatever form that fun takes.
Welllllllllll... technically, most people had some general bathing regimen while on land, even if it wasn't anywhere near what we think of as hygiene today.
Access to fresh water while at sea made this something to put on hiatus until someone got back to land.
So if y'all are off on an extended sea voyage, yeah, by the time it's over, clothes will be standing on their own by the time you take them off, and possibly running away from the new and terrifying smells their removal will have uncovered. 
Otherwise? Well, not great, but not that horrifyingly horrible.
@aria My brain does similar things, especially with road signs passing too quickly.
I live near too many 'Penns-'things for this to not be giggling to myself in the car a whole lot, since my brain is convinced we pass the Penis Grove Winery at least once a month or so.
@surreality said in Good TV:
The scene that always makes me cringe?
The Babadook, when the kid starts screaming in the car.
I had to watch that movie in 5-10 minute installments, because that sound would set off an instant, piercing headache. Not just 'omg that noise!' but 'holy shit actual physical pain, I have to turn this off'. If people ask me about this one, and if it's good, I feel obligated to ask them if they have any noise sensitivities to warn on this when I say 'yes, it really honestly is, BUT... '
(Newt, Aliens, same thing. Thankfully I know that movie well enough to know when to hit mute, and damn do I race for the button in a mad scramble.)
I had seen it online. It later turned up in a local art theater for a festival as a one night show. It is literally the only movie that, when my husband asked if I wanted to see it, the convo went roughly like this:
Husband: Hey, I heard there's a really good indie horror film coming to the Theater at Nemours. It's got really amazing reviews, it's supposedly really good, and friends of mine said it was amazing.
Me: Oh? That sounds great! What movie is it?
Husband: It's called The Babadook.
Me: OMG FUCK YOU GO DIE IN A FIIIIIIIIRRRRREEEEEEE!!! <horrified expression>
Husband: <laughing his ass off> I take it you've seen it?
Me: This is a movie composed entirely of Newtscream.
Husband: Fuck that noise!
Me: Literally!
Husband: Literally.
The scene that always makes me cringe?
Pan's Labyrinth, face go smash. I did not see that coming and it was jarring as all hell.
One of the reviews for that movie was: "What a magnificent, beautiful film! I wish I had never seen it."
I so deeply understood that review once I did.
(And I still love the shit out of that movie and have absolutely watched it again.)
@dontpanda Honestly, I can empathize.
My parents live in the house next door to mine. 'Just dropping by' without notice was pretty egregious for years.
They'd just come right in, and literally walk into my bedroom to wake me up to bother me about whatever, even when I was long since in college and They Knew I Might Not Be Alone.
This eventually shot them in their own collective feet, when my mother just sauntered the heck in and found me sleeping with my then boyfriend, dead to the world, both of us fully dressed in totally proper PJs and everything...
...at which point we awoke to her shriek of uber-Catholic terror and the sound of her retreating footsteps as she fled the house, complete with flailing jazz hands, as we stared at each other, wondering what in the actual fuck just happened before collapsing back to sleep.
Now, this was ultimately pretty funny, and they never just barged into the house again (or my bedroom even, goddamn!), but what they were doing was super invasive and absolutely not at all OK. They had ignored all polite notifications of boundaries and me telling them this was not OK, and even my mother's shrink repeatedly telling her this was not reasonable behavior for her to be engaging in.
If my mother hadn't scared herself out of the house, there definitely would have been some a whole lot of yelling.
So I can empathize, rather a lot.
@templari I dunno about you, but I'm kinda mostly horrified that Twilight might have been right about something.
I don't actually know how to live in that world.
@ixokai @Templari NOOOO! NOT THE VAMPIRE SEX CONVERSATION!!!
...the real question is this: when vampires MU*, do they write lots of boredom TS in their downtime? Like, just chillin' in the haven, waitin' for the sun to go down, ain't got nothin' better to do...
@templari We used to have a Chia Head we would wrap and regift to various family members back and forth on whatever the next available gift-giving holiday was as a joke, but then she went and lost it. 
@templari I am tempted to wrap every one of them individually. For real. In all different sizes of packaging.
Fill their living room with boxes... of boxes.
That would require more effort than I'm into at the moment, but the temptation, it's there.
@faceless I seriously am going to wrap the rest of them up in a big box in shiny paper and ribbons for Xmas so we don't go through this next year, for real.
(She uses 2/year when we go to Florida, to keep her fancy tiny shells in.)
Bonus facepalm factor:
ETA:
Bri: <squints> Are those the motherfucking floss boxes on top of her gluten free stuff?
Me: <deadpan> People drown in the ocean all the time, that's all I'm sayin'.
One of the most interesting things re: Trek as a setting is that it's 'utopia', but there are still abundant problems.
They're just different problems.
One of the most common being, 'how do you relate to a non-utopian society, or one with a vastly different idea of utopia than yours'.
