Account Consent Flag

[Anonymous]

maybe slightly off topic, but I would so love if each person could set a consent flag on thier char, maybe even two of them, or one that you can add something to.

yes, two,...

set Consent rape off
set consent torture on

check consent pc

pc consent torture on.
pc consent rape off.

Me, I'd leave mine on at all times, just like I do mercy.
I'm an adult and understand its a game in which we all shoot for realism.
shrug. But the nice thing about it is, with the flags, most the time you would not even have to do the
ooc Everybody here give consent to rape/torture scene?

Hell, I'd even make it so that when somebody triggers "check consenrt" it logs everybody in the room and current consent status.

I hope X-D doesn't mind my making a thread about his idea but I thought it was so fantastic that I wanted to bring it up.

It would
-Remove the need to interrupt a scene for OOC banter.
-Keep people from abusing the consent command to keep their PC from getting into trouble, depending on how it was implemented.

If it was implemented similar to the review flag and wasn't something a person could toggle on their account (which makes sense because people generally won't be changing their stance on graphic roleplay from day to day) then it would keep people from saying NO to an OOC request for consent just because they were annoyed by a situation, which is something I've been suspicious of.

I don't know how others feel but I think this is a wonderful and elegant way to deal with consent and to minimize how much of a distraction stopping to ask for it can be.

[Cyrian20]

If you couldn't turn it off though and the people told you ooc'ly another way to rp it you could be like umm.. ok, can't turn it off though so we are stuck by the code on this rp. the current OOC lets do this yes or no approach is better. cause even with consent on you have to ooc them to see if you want to fade to black or rp it our. So either way you have to break character.

[Kennath]

I am glad staff someone saw this. I didn't think any staff took anything they saw on these boards seriously until now. I say do it. I try to argue both sides to myself but I can't find the other side, besides the fact that you dont want people to know that they dont want to be raped therfore pointless anyway. If anyone finds the other side, quote this and tell me.

[Kennath]

If you couldn't turn it off though and the people told you ooc'ly another way to rp it you could be like umm.. ok, can't turn it off though so we are stuck by the code on this rp. the current OOC lets do this yes or no approach is better. cause even with consent on you have to ooc them to see if you want to fade to black or rp it our. So either way you have to break character.

I say i'd like to be able to toggle like ANSI on the menu now that I read this post, with fade option

[Armaddict]

Erm.  What if you start having people purposely fishing through people with consent on?

That's my only concern.

[Angela Christine]

I've seen this done on MUSHes where the roleplay was based more in consent and co-operative storytelling than hard-coded stuff and  it seemed to work well.  When you fingered someone there would be a whole list of consent flags to see, something like "Sex: ?, Violence: yes, Death: no, Torture: ?, Rape: no".  I think the question marks meant it depends on the situation, you haven't universally conscented to or ruled out dealing with the ? items.  Of course Arm doesn't have a finger command, so I'm not sure where it would be displayed.

Angela Christine

[Maybe42or54]

ooc Permission to finger you?

ooc That is granted.

Finger target

Death: Hell yes Torture: Hell yes
Rape: Fuck no  Anything else: Fuck yes.

[Armaddict]

Finger target

That breaks the rape consent rule.

*snicker*

[Manhattan]

fist target

[Tamarin]

Gotta love comic relief.

[Rindan]

I personally like the idea, but I WOULD let it be changed mid game, and I would add the ability to make it a 'maybe'.  

If someone is having a shitty day and broke up with their boyfriend or what not, and they don't want to consent to getting raped and tortured, that damn well is there right.  Let them turn it off at a moments notice if they want.  If people do it just to dodge something that makes them uncomfortable, let them.

The only either piece would be to make it so that people can choose maybe, in addition to 'yes' and 'no'.  Maybe someone is okay with a little light torture by a templar, but really is not in the mood to have a raider camp have a go at their rich fat merchant.  I don't see anything wrong with throwing in a 'maybe' option where it just means that people have to ask for consent the old fashion way.  The idea is not so much as to prevent all OOC from happening around consent, just to minimize it.  So, if someone has their consent setting set to yes, it means that the templar in question can skip breaking OOC and get down to business.  The only other piece to this I would add is that no matter how someone's consent flags are set, they should <I>always</i> be able to OOC that they want to fade.  There is nothing wrong with getting cold feet.

The big advantage in my mind is the ability to avoid OOC banter.  As to CRWs second point about people getting out of consequences, I wouldn't try and touch it.  If someone wants to back out, they should be able to back out, period.  They still pay the consequences, they just don't have to sit through the graphic details.  If someone tells my guy they want to skip the torture scene, that is fine, but I am still going to OOC "Okay, I took off an ear and poked out one eye, did your guy talk?"

[HardCarbon]

If you couldn't turn it off though and the people told you ooc'ly another way to rp it you could be like umm.. ok, can't turn it off though so we are stuck by the code on this rp. the current OOC lets do this yes or no approach is better. cause even with consent on you have to ooc them to see if you want to fade to black or rp it our. So either way you have to break character.

  Some things are interesting to RP out.. some you just would rather not see.  In some cases its the RP leading up to the event.. in others the characters involved.  Personally I don't see a flag adding anything that would justify spending the time to code it....

[Fnord]

Sounds like an idea worth considering. My abuse sniffer says it might only be a problem with certain players. For example, you know a certain player's rape scenes are too graphic for you, but otherwise the general populace seems to rape just fine. It would be nice to have, say, 5-10 exceptions (via name or full sdesc), to customize your global flags if need be.

This is, of course, yet another place to mention the no-resist flag against the justice system, too.  

[Nao]

this could have four options instead of two... like.. yes no ask (which would be the maybe thing) and fade (accept the scene but fade to black). The no option couls only be available for rape and so on.

this could really help stop people from breaking character...

[bloodfromstone]

I get an amusing mental image of the local horny guy going through all the women's consent flags, only striking up a conversation with those who are ok with RPing out mudsex.

It's a fine idea, all-in-all, but I would be worried that some people would treat character's differently on account of their flags, and I don't just mean not plotting to rape them.

[sarahjc]

I like it, I think it would leave the uncomfortable issue of asking OOC consent.

And I like the four option flags that would work like no-save:

Yes
No
Please ask
Fade

[Agent_137]

It would
-Remove the need to interrupt a scene for OOC banter.
-Keep people from abusing the consent command to keep their PC from getting into trouble, depending on how it was implemented.

i don't see these as problems.

for #1:
big deal. it's OOC for a reason, as long as it isn't often and impotent, OOCs are fine and don't hurt anyone.

for #2
what the fuck is this? If you don't consent, that just means everything fades to black and you wake up and whatever was to happen HAPPENED. Saying "no" to consent doesn't prevent your character from getting raped, it just prevents you from having to see it in graphic detail.

Are people actually getting out of situations because they say No to a consent request? Doesn't that poke a big hole in the whole gameworld itself? I didn't think it was possible. Please confirm that it isn't.

[Agent_137]

oh. just read the ask the staff.

the op-out is only for rape. that's cool, i can dig that.

[Maybe42or54]

I said No I don't consent to a torture scene once.
They just killed me.
I held my own while I was subdued and unarmed for a little while, but then I died.

They probably would have let me go too. Damn consent to hell.

[X-D]

It's a fine idea, all-in-all, but I would be worried that some people would treat character's differently on account of their flags, and I don't just mean not plotting to rape them.

This and other questions people raised on abuse of the consent flag idea is why I said in my first post of the idea, that.
use of the check consent command, should automaticly log the consent status of everybody in the room...at the same time, it of course logs who used the command, if somebody is abusing it, it would be easily seen and easily dealt with.

Enter Ness wielding Mortal slayer..

[Larrath]

I don't know about a flag (sometimes people might not be in the mood and all that), but a command for automatic consent checking could be good.

It seems related enough to this thread (or might have even been included, I have a bad memory when I'm tired), but it would work like this:

Code Select Expand

> consent torture
Asking consent for graphic torture.


What everyone else sees:

Code Select Expand

Consent for graphic torture?  (y/N).
> Y


Back to consent asker:

Code Select Expand

Consent given.
If nobody is in the room, it will automatically give consent, and if someone in the room didn't respond within two minutes, it will automatically default for No.
This will have multiple benefits, namely with the case of unseen stalkers.  Using this command would obviously be logged so checking consent to see if you're alone in the room would be futile.  Also, it will be anonymous - nobody will know who asked and, more importantly, who refused.  Maybe that templar's PC bodyguard didn't feel like torture right now, etc..
Also, it won't be as jarring as going OOC.

Flags could also be arranged for this - always saying no or yes, or only if consent is for torture but not rape.
The basic flags could be Adult, Torture, Rape and maybe 'Other' in case it's needed.

[jmordetsky]

I think the flag idea is great. The ability to have a yes/no/maybe is fantastic.

However, with the new (or sort of new rule) you'll need different levels for fade, and for not at all.

Torture: Yes.
Rape: No.
Sex: Yes - Fade.

You could prompt on maybe's.

[joyofdiscord]

I think the idea of a flag which people may feel bound to, which they might forget to change at every moment based on the situation round them, and which other people could -yick- check, would be pretty cumbersome and counterproductive.  It would have to be overriden by OOC anyway, since people have to be able to withdraw consent if the scene goes further then they originally imagined.

Larrath's idea, however, I think is absolutely fantastic.  Just have to give it some additions.  Make it a special room flag so anyone could also break consent at any time.  

This would also take care of the problem of unawares happening in (they get a message when trying to enter the room, giving choice of not entering at all, proceeding and giving consent, or proceeding and breaking consent (maybe?!? the char should ICly be able to enter, but the player shouldn't have to consent... it would be reasonable, but there are some absurd situations imaginable: a stealthy slinking in to spy on your lovemaking and for some inscrutable reason breaks consent, alerting people OOCly to his presence quite jarringly... this would just be foolishness though.).

Also, a slightly randomized delay on the command itself so people can't "jerk off/shit/piss alone in an alley" to test the consent delay to discover if they're being shadowed.

[Maybe42or54]

I like it.

Put the questions right after your Background submission.

(insert background here)
~

Do you consent to IG Torture? (Y/N/P_ Help <letter>)

Help P

You request that the other player prompt you for each and every possible torture scene.

Help Y

Help N

Y
You have consented to Torture IG.

Do you consent to sexual scenes IG? (Y/n/p_help <letter>)

Y

Beware: You must get OOC permission to Rape another PC, regardless of Fading to black or not.


Might scare some people off though.

[Larrath]

I think it will be fine.  Also, it could perhaps label the room somehow, like add an asterisk to the room name?  That way people coming in will know it's a consent room.  And people shouldn't do very graphic things in taverns and busy streets anyway, so that's no problem.

We should avoid a cumbersome interface - I think a simple Yes/No prompt or a Yes/Fade/No in case of rapes would do nicely.

[Agent_137]

I don't understand how any of this makes things easier than they are.

Larrath's idea isn't bad, but I still don't see a huge advantage to merit it.

Templar says, OOCly: Faded or graphic torture?

Templar says, OOCly: Faded or graphic adult scene?

Templar says, OOCly: Faded or graphic naked sommersaults?

Templar says, OOCly: Consent to rape, and if so, faded or graphic.

Amos the rinthi says, OOCly: Graphic.

Sneaky the stalker says, OOCly: Faded, please, sorry.

Templar scans.

Amos scans.

Sneaky the stalker says, OOCly: WTF i'm mailing the mud you twinks.

Yea, that's about the only situation I can imagine larraths' idea would give a great advantage over how things are now. That's not enough of an advantage, in my opinion, over current options.

As for flags, flags are annoying to keep up with, and the time they save working things out before a scene won't really make up for their hassle. So, i don't think flags are very useful unless you're getting into fade/no fade situations daily.

[Larrath]

Yea, that's about the only situation I can imagine Larraths' idea would give a great advantage over how things are now. That's not enough of an advantage, in my opinion, over current options.

That's a big advantage.  First of all, nobody ends up being that spoilsport that fades on a scene five other players consent to.  Second, yes, it's very good for hiders.  Also, it's less OOC communication, and that's always a good thing really.

[Morrolan]

I like it.

Put the questions right after your Background submission.

I don't think putting it in the initial character submission is a good idea, because it would terrify new players.  And not in that good Zalanthan way.  For new players who aren't entirely familiar with the IC/OOC distinction for their characters, this could be really disturbing.

Morrolan

[Maybe42or54]

Very Good point.

Like a good prompt then?

Everything is automagickally set to "Ask."

You get IG and type "Consent" and press enter.

Do you consent to Torture?
Yes (enter)
Do you consent to Rape?
Ask for each scene. (enter)
Do you consent to adult scenes?
Yes (enter)

Have a very Zalanthas day.

(then the prompt is over)

[IntuitiveApathy]

I think the idea of a flag which people may feel bound to, which they might forget to change at every moment based on the situation round them, and which other people could -yick- check, would be pretty cumbersome and counterproductive.  It would have to be overriden by OOC anyway, since people have to be able to withdraw consent if the scene goes further then they originally imagined.

I don't think people forgetting about their flag settings would be an overly terrible situation - as you said, people could override with OOC if they'd forgotten or changed their mind or what have you anyway.

Anyway, I like the flag idea very much - maybe attach it the reporting info to assess -v or make a new one like assess -c or something, it'd be very easy.

[Cale_Knight]

I don't like this idea. I have zero problem with asking or being asked for consent. It takes three seconds and has never seriously jarred me from a scene.

[X-D]

Cale_knight

You don't like it, as in, dislike, or basicly nul?

Your statement sounds more like you don't care simply because asking ooc does not bother you, but this is no kind of arguement against the idea.

Now, myself, 5+ years ago, I'd have said the same thing, but, the longer I play, the more OOC bothers me, and I tend to feel that many other players are the same way...Hell, when I started...Oh so VERY long ago on arm, it was not uncommon to see imms poof-in and poof-out, and OOC conversations would be held in fountain square in tuluk...alot, later, even in flints.
Now, I've gone for more then 20days of play without ever going OOC...and I like it that way.

[Maybe42or54]

I use OOC atleast 3 times a day. Gotta have mudsex. Even if it fades to black all the time.

I don't have a problem with it either way right now.

[Cale_Knight]

I guess some part of me doesn't like the idea of ooc information about me as a player just hanging out there all the time for everyone to see.

It doesn't bother me all that much, and I'd just set everything to "please ask."

But I also know I'd be constantly forgetting to check other peoples' toggles. Or I'd think to myself "Slave Dingybottom has had torture set to 'ok' for the last month," and just not ask, possibly causing problems.

Since the toggles wouldn't be static, I think they might cause issues where none exist right now.

I'm not necessarily against the new idea, I'm just for the current system as it stands.

[SpyGuy]

I'm for this idea, if only that it lets you initiate a scene without having to ask for consent.  But at any time I feel its someone's right to say "We fade to black now."  In cases of mudsex, torture and especially rape you never know if the person on the other end is in private at the moment or at a public terminal, or whether they just don't want to have to go through RPing that at that time.

Consent flags = good.  Help avoid breaking IC to start a torture/whatever scene.

Consent flags being the final judge of whether a scene can go on = bad.  Regardless of whether someone has consent_torture on or not shouldn't mean that they can't say "I don't want to roleplay through this, fade to black."

[UnderSeven]

I'm not entirly sure this is such a good idea.  I think in some cases asking consent and having to is a good thing.  Even if you are willing to play out various scenes, I know the arguement is it will interrupt rp, but maybe that's good for stuff like graphic torture.

[Anonymous]

I'm not entirly sure this is such a good idea.  I think in some cases asking consent and having to is a good thing.  Even if you are willing to play out various scenes, I know the arguement is it will interrupt rp, but maybe that's good for stuff like graphic torture.

Nothing says someone can't use the OOC if things are just getting too creepy for them.  However if something like this helps avoid most OOC communication in the middle of a tense scene I can't see how it isn't a good idea.

[Cale_Knight]

Now, myself, 5+ years ago, I'd have said the same thing, but, the longer I play, the more OOC bothers me, and I tend to feel that many other players are the same way...Hell, when I started...Oh so VERY long ago on arm, it was not uncommon to see imms poof-in and poof-out, and OOC conversations would be held in fountain square in tuluk...alot, later, even in flints.
Now, I've gone for more then 20days of play without ever going OOC...and I like it that way.

It should also be pointed out that even if a player's consent_sex and consent_torture flags are set to "never," players will still have to go OOC to say "Alright, this is going to be a torture scene, but we'll ftb because you have the flag toggled. Do you break?" And so on and so on.

So really, this wouldn't cut down on ooc conversations except in the few cases where rape is an absolute "never under no circumstances not even ftb."

[Rindan]

It should also be pointed out that even if a player's consent_sex and consent_torture flags are set to "never," players will still have to go OOC to say "Alright, this is going to be a torture scene, but we'll ftb because you have the flag toggled. Do you break?" And so on and so on.

So really, this wouldn't cut down on ooc conversations except in the few cases where rape is an absolute "never under no circumstances not even ftb."

That is a good point.  Perhaps a better way would be to make it so that there are only two toggles, either automatic consent is on or it isn't.  If it isn't on, you ask and you can either fade to black or play it out.  If on the other hand you have it turned to on, play will just precede until someone OOCs for it to stop.  Basically, the only use would be for people who are confident that they will consent to anything can simply flip it on like nosave.  If a templar decides he is going to do something nasty to you, he types check consent and it comes back with either a yes or a no.  If everyone in the room is toggle to consent, then he doesn't have to slow down to ask.  If anyone is not toggled on, he has to OOC ask how people want to handle it.

Personally, if a templar captures me and I have a feeling I am going to have some pain in store for me, I would probably just toggle my consent on so that when the torture comes we don't even need to bother going through the motions of OOCing.  If I could avoid having to hear;

"OOC Hi!  My character wants to torture you ; )  is that okay, or do you want to fade?"

I would.  It certainly isn't a big deal, but it would be a fun little feature that I would probably make use of to avoid a little extra OOC in tense situations.

[UnderSeven]

I think I've finally figured out what I don't like about this idea.

Basically my problem is this:

If such a flag exists, there must be a way for players to check it or there is no point in having it.  The people who are interested in such scenes are likely to only get involved in making them happen to people they know the scene can be done with.  Therefore I would fear that people might start looking for flags that meet their desires and a lot of 'exclusive' rp amongst groups who are interested or willing to do different things (such as rape rp).

Personally I am not in favor of this change.

[Bising]

What if you normally have your consent flags set to yes.  Then, while you're at school, or at the library, you decide to log on for a while, and forget to change your consent flags, while a teacher or librarian is standing right near you.  Bad.  Things are fine the way they are.  Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

[Maybe42or54]

I think I've finally figured out what I don't like about this idea.

Basically my problem is this:

If such a flag exists, there must be a way for players to check it or there is no point in having it.  The people who are interested in such scenes are likely to only get involved in making them happen to people they know the scene can be done with.  Therefore I would fear that people might start looking for flags that meet their desires and a lot of 'exclusive' rp amongst groups who are interested or willing to do different things (such as rape rp).

Personally I am not in favor of this change.

There is my stance. Why RP with Lord Borsail? He doesn't have his mudsex flag turned on, or torture. No fun there.
Joe schmoe doesn't have his flags on, but I want to kill him, so I'll just spam kill him. Don't want it to look like I am torturing.



Quick question.
Is molestation of Pcs included in rape? Or what?
I love to grab me some virtual ass.

[Armaddict]

UnderSeven, that's what I tried to say in not so many words, but I think I got ignored

[Anonymous]

I think the staff is going to notice someone who goes around spamming the consent command in the middle of scenes that don't call for it.

Regardless this possible minor abuse is not a good reason to ignore X-D's idea in my mind.  If people are going to get into a clique they are going to get into a clique, one way or the other.  And it will probably be done using GDB PMs or AIM IM's which are a lot more suitable for such a thing.

[Larrath]

I think consent should only be checkable for the entire room, and not individual players.  Peer pressure about consent can really suck - a lot of people get pissed and it hurts the mood.  Instead, it's better if there's just a prompt to the room whenever someone checks consent.

Code Select Expand

> consent torture
Asking for consent for torture.
.
.
.
(For room) Consent: Yes.

If someone doesn't want to, they can still OOC.

Consent isn't something people should be singled-out on, and it's hard to decline consent in a room where four other players already said yes.  People shouldn't have to choose between being the spoilsport or having to stand content they don't want to.

[Maybe42or54]

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Consent isn't something people should be singled-out on, and it's hard to decline consent in a room where four other players already said yes.  People shouldn't have to choose between being the spoilsport or having to stand content they don't want to.

Having a command that let's people check for flags removes the peer pressure from the equation since you've already set your limits and you aren't being asked again.

There is less peer pressure with X-D's idea.  Because the scenario goes like this:

Rapist PC corners a target PC.
Rapist PC types 'consent target'
Rapist PC sees 'Rape: No.'
Rapist PC emotes beating the target in the head and moves on.

Where's the peer pressure?  The use of the command to check for consent presumably wouldn't echo to anyone but the one using it so a PC whose player wants to avoid rape and/or graphic emotes and had their account flags set accordingly would never know that their counterpart wanted to get down and dirty.

[Agent_137]

pah peer pressure. it's a fucking game, and you don't know these people.

feeling peer pressure is ludicrous.


personally, i prefer to make the decision on the fly, dependent upon my current situation. let it be.