Consent

[Red Bull gives you wings!]

Forgive me if this has been suggested before, but why not implement a set of consent flags that players can set on their characters, and a command other players can use to test these flags?

That way the roleplay can proceed or be averted without an awkward OOC negotiation.

Have the flags all default to NO in case the player forgets to set them.

change consent torture yes
change consent rape no
change consent explicit yes

>
consent <character>
<character> consents to torture RP.
>

[Hymwen]

First of all, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to see what I will and will not agree to.

Second, the kinds of consent you mentioned are things that must be asked for no matter what, and that the staff strongly suggests not to play out, even if faded, unless absolutely necessary. And think about it, what if someone would normally have torture consent on, but has a really bad day and forgets to toggle it off, then someone walks up and tortures them?

Those kinds of consent settings are for those BSDM muds and such, where the goal of the players is very different from what it is here.

[Anonymous]

First of all, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to see what I will and will not agree to.

Second, the kinds of consent you mentioned are things that must be asked for no matter what, and that the staff strongly suggests not to play out, even if faded, unless absolutely necessary. And think about it, what if someone would normally have torture consent on, but has a really bad day and forgets to toggle it off, then someone walks up and tortures them?

Those kinds of consent settings are for those BSDM muds and such, where the goal of the players is very different from what it is here.

Perfecto!

[Red Bull gives you wings!]

First of all, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to see what I will and will not agree to.

Can add an option to hide the individual flag then, so things have to go through OOC if you prefer.

Second, the kinds of consent you mentioned are things that must be asked for no matter what, and that the staff strongly suggests not to play out, even if faded, unless absolutely necessary.

The staff strongly suggests not to play out? Do you have a supporting quote for this?

Actually, looking at the "Rules of Armageddon", only rape requires total prior verification of consent.

And think about it, what if someone would normally have torture consent on, but has a really bad day and forgets to toggle it off, then someone walks up and tortures them?

Use OOC to withdraw the implied consent then.

Those kinds of consent settings are for those BSDM muds and such, where the goal of the players is very different from what it is here.

There are BDSM muds?  :shock: Weird.

[Morfeus]

I don't like this (and I believe it was suggested before already). I don't like it simply takes this thing too general. I mean, I could have a bad day. Or things get worse than I would think. Or whatever. However I know OOCing might be annoying sometime, I think here it goes for a very good reason and I would rather see a bit of OOCness than risking to hurt a -player- together with his/her character.

EDITed to add: And not only that one could forget to turn it on NO if having a bad day. What about all that players who might forget to turn it on?  :twisted:

[Hymwen]

First of all, I wouldn't want any random person to be able to see what I will and will not agree to.

Can add an option to hide the individual flag then, so things have to go through OOC if you prefer.

I suppose it can be done that way, but in general, if the staff would consider the idea of a set of consent flag for sexual roleplay, I'd imagine it being very low on the priority list. The main interest of the staff is in making the game world as awesome as possible, and creating the best possible balance between realism and playability.

Second, the kinds of consent you mentioned are things that must be asked for no matter what, and that the staff strongly suggests not to play out, even if faded, unless absolutely necessary.

The staff strongly suggests not to play out? Do you have a supporting quote for this?

Actually, looking at the "Rules of Armageddon", only rape requires total prior verification of consent.

Actually, you got me there, I don't have a quote. I'm very sure I saw it somewhere, though it could have been another player saying it. I really can't remember where I saw it, it could be in one of the rape threads of the past, sorry for speaking on the staff's behalf without proof.

Also, although it may not be a written rule, I think it's common courtesy to ask for consent when engaging in any kind of sexual roleplay, and I'm pretty sure that this is practiced by almost everyone, unless it's very obvious that it's not necessary (such as if you've already planned it ahead of time, if it's a long-time partner, if the person you're getting jiggy with responds in a way that leaves no doubt etc.).

And think about it, what if someone would normally have torture consent on, but has a really bad day and forgets to toggle it off, then someone walks up and tortures them?

Use OOC to withdraw the implied consent then.

I can see a lot more problems with initiating a rape/torture/whatever scene with someone who forgot to disable their consent flag and ended up in a very uncomfortable situation, than with simply asking OOCly first whenever you want to engage in something like that.

Those kinds of consent settings are for those BSDM muds and such, where the goal of the players is very different from what it is here.

There are BDSM muds?  :shock: Weird.

Yeah, um, so I've heard.


All that being said, I really don't like the idea of anyone attempting a rape scene without asking first (and having a very, very, very good reason why it has to happen) regardless of whether or not the victim has toggled on a flag, possibly in a distant past long forgotten. Maybe it's my own opinion and dislike of the idea that colors my criticizm more than is justified, but the whole idea of having a list of on/off switches for what is mostly considered Bad Stuff™ on Armageddon leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I personally think that this is something we definitely don't need and doesn't belong here at all, but since your idea is something that would only apply for people who wish to use it, I technically don't have a valid reason that it shouldn't be allowed. Honestly, the true reason I feel strongly against it is because of fear that your idea would turn the game in a different direction than what is intended, and attract people who come here not to roleplay in the game environment but to act out their dirty fantasies. I'm fairly certain that this would happen to some degree.

Edit: geez, I edited this post like 5 times

[ShaLeah]

I suggested this back when Zhaira was Immortal during a conversation on IRC.  She said the staff would never go for it.

I like the idea.

Placing these flags into effect with a simple "check consent <pc>" command would indeed stop that awkward (and mood altering) "ooc consent?" "no? okay so he rapes her brutally, we need to hash out the details, does she fight back? He has a disease and he's hugely well endowed so there'll be some tearing" etc etc etc.

Having that kind of option (and I do mean option, you don't have to turn it on if you don't want to) allows for a more spontaneous, realistic play.  That Templar caught you trying to pick the lock to his concubine's pad? Great!  He checks your consent, you're willing to let him torture you and off you go to brutal roleplay land!  Imagine YOU find someone in your apartment who passed out from Waying his buddy to come help him steal your loot, you check consent, he's got his on and viola! Ya get to do what any real Zalanthan would do if someone was trying to do that, at the very least cut off his hand, steal his picks and drag his ass outside so that people can steal HIS shit.

Having your consents on on all counts does NOT negate the fact that ANY roleplaying session can be stopped, IMMEDIATELY, by that OOC command.  All it takes is an "ooc sorry but I can't follow through on this roleplay, can we fade to black and discuss the details here?".

In my opinion this option would enrich my life as a roleplayer provided the same respect about THE SITUATIONS is kept in place.   My suggestions are thus:

1.  Separate consents for:  Consensual sexual situations, Rape, Physical Torture and Sexual Torture.
2.  Four separate options to choose from: No, Maybe, Yes, OOC - OOC meaning you MUST request OOC consent before you doing anything.  Maybe would depict the same thing but it would indicate the subject is open to maybe letting the situation flow a bit and will stop it if it becomes too ooc'ly unnerving or whatever.
3.  A detailed, updated help file discussing the addition of the option and the remainder of the CONSENT POLICY so that the dense realize that they HAVE to keep that policy in mind when choosing his/her characters actions.
4.  The ability to toggle it on and off at your (the PC) leisure, so that
    a) you can turn every option to OOC for day to day play and change it if things start getting hairy and you feel up to it and
    b) to prevent yoohoos who might go around checking consent before they try and pounce on you which brings me to:

My biggest, negative concern with an option such as this is that some idiot might see it as a buffet of possibility and try to take advantage of it.  I don't worry about the majority of the players I've interacted with, it's the new ones.  

As a community I don't think this would impact us negatively.  I can't say for sure how many "So and so didn't ask for consent!" complaints the Immortals get but I think leaving it up to the player is great.  Letting him/her set what he or she wants to do to make the flow of his/her roleplay smoother, without the use of OOC... I think THAT is a fabulous idea.

ShaLeah
- who's consent has always varied by character, interacting pcs and mood[/i][/size]

[Morfeus]

I don't know. I just imagined people checking consent status and making some opinion about character/player based just on this. Like: "Oh, he has NO torture? What a sissy!"

*shrug*

[Halaster]

I can't see this as happening and personally very much dislike the idea.

The biggest reason is that someone may forget what their consent is set to, and then has a change of heart but then goes through a scene they don't want to.

While having to briefly go OOC and ask for consent for each scene might be slightly jarring.. tough.  Get over it. It ensures that everyone is consenting and no one has forgotten.

[ShaLeah]

While having to briefly go OOC and ask for consent for each scene might be slightly jarring.. tough.  Get over it. It ensures that everyone is consenting and no one has forgotten.

Just like we forget what our ldescs are set to or our walk/run/sneak status or our nosave.  Just like anything new, it'll take getting used to.

It's not "briefly" jarring, for most things like rape and torture they're massively jarring, they're a 3 mnt long OOC about fleshing out the details alone let alone having to wonder how you would react to the thing that just "happened".

When it actually happens and you're left with that shaking, sobbing, gut wrenching sick feeling to your stomach it adds to the realism. It IS real for that moment.  

I'm all for adding more realism and I'm a big girl, if something is too much for me or I don't wanna play I gather up my shit and leave the sandbox, I guess not everyone is like me.


To see Halaster say

I can't see this as happening and personally very much dislike the idea.

really disappoints me.

Edited to avoid yet another response to the same thread:

I suppose it can be done that way, but in general, if the staff would consider the idea of a set of consent flag for sexual roleplay, I'd imagine it being very low on the priority list.

The flag shouldn't be considered for SEXUAL roleplay, that's the mentality that is putting stigma on it I think. It's for explicit roleplay.

The main interest of the staff is in making the game world as awesome as possible, and creating the best possible balance between realism and playability.

I think adding this feature would do both of those.

... I'm pretty sure that this is practiced by almost everyone, unless it's very obvious that it's not necessary

If it's practiced by everyone and everyone is mature enough, knowledgeable enough and aware of the CONSENT policy then adding this feature wouldn't change that, would it?  Are you implying that adding this would make the people who follow the rules now break them?  

I can see a lot more problems with initiating a rape/torture/whatever scene with someone who forgot to disable their consent flag and ended up in a very uncomfortable situation, than with simply asking OOCly first whenever you want to engage in something like that.

Scenario now:
The torturing/raping asshole asks, out of character, "Consent?"
The Victim says, out of character, "No."

Scenarion with consent flags.
check consent victim (all consents are yes)
tell victim (grabbing !victim by the hair and pushing !victim to the ground) Your Templar is going to regret the day he crossed ME... you're about to pay the price.
The Victim says,  out of character, "Whoa, not feeling comfortable here, fade to black"

At -least- with the latter scenario the Victim got that jolt of fear that put him into the frame of mind of victim.

All that being said, I really don't like the idea of anyone attempting a rape scene without asking first (and having a very, very, very good reason why it has to happen)

(By today's standards) Evil doers don't NEED a reason to rape/murder/torture/steal/maim, they just DO, it's who they are.  Consent they need, a reason?  Not at all.
I haven't heard of anyone creating a rapist and I haven't played a victim to one and it's definately a scene I would have to think twice about playing so needless to say MY character's 'rape consent' will be off unless I choose to change it.

the whole idea of having a list of on/off switches for what is mostly considered Bad Stuff™ on Armageddon leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Will there be consent applied to a Templar throwing someone into the arena? Killing them in jail?  Will there be consent requested to force that aide to become more than an aide? Is that mekillot gonna stop and say "Consent to kill you?".  Come on guys, the consent policy governs this and remember:

http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?rules
1.  Role-playing is central to the environment--it is not considered an
option by the creators of the world, it is a strict requirement. If you
do not want to role-play, please go elsewhere.

2.  Life is hard. There are no free lunches on Zalanthas. There aren't even
free drinks of water. It is likely that your character will die, and if
you are not clever your character will die very fast. Only (and we mean
only) the very fittest of all live long enough to retire in comfort at
the end of their careers.

3.  Sometimes people are nasty. There are no rules against being extremely mean to others that your character may meet, be it cheating, stealing, killing, swindling, or otherwise making a fool out of. The sole
exception to this is termed 'the rule of consent', and is outlined
both in "help consent" and in point 5, below.

4.  Complaints of unfairness will not be given an audience. If you think
your character's situation was unfair, too bad. Live with it or don't.
See point 2 above.

5.  The sole exception to the above is what we call 'the rule of consent'.  You can be as mean and nasty to other players as you like, but they do have some measure of control over how graphic the depiction is. If someone is emoting to a degree which you find bothersome, you can OOC for them to stop, and to presume that the action took place offstage.
This is intended for adult situations, such as torture or rape, which
some players may not wish to witness in vivid detail. If you engage
in a graphic scene that another player did not consent to, and if that
player complains to the account, you will be banned. For more details,
see the helpfile for CONSENT.

6.  Despite all of this, there are virtually no limits to what can happen,
barring the ludicrous. If your character sets up a mercenary company, he/she may one day lead an army of loyal soldiers on an assault of one of the great city-states. As a magicker your character may one day become a fabled elemental being. Burglars may reach levels of affluence beyond imagination, and merchants may likewise become so rich as to own their own merchant house and dominate the world's economy. The limits are truly whatever you can imagine occurring.

Honestly, the true reason I feel strongly against it is because of fear that your idea would turn the game in a different direction than what is intended, and attract people who come here not to roleplay in the game environment but to act out their dirty fantasies. I'm fairly certain that this would happen to some degree.

Twinks don't normally last on Armageddon.  Seeing as commands like "kill" and "steal" are visible to Immortals "check consent" would be as well so if we have Joe Shmo creating a rapist and then checking every single woman's consent and basing his choice of victims on THAT ... yeah, that would be a problem.  But we have people who attack linkdead folk, we have people who steal from sleeping characters, hell, one of my characters was murdered in the middle of the Byn sparring circle, a place where there are tons of people!  Sadly, idiots are gonna happen but that doesn't take away the fact that:
a) Turning consents ON is the player's choice and
b) Saying "Enough" is still a player's choice.


Adding this doesn't take away the consent policy, it adds to the realism of the game.

[Halaster]

To see Halaster say

I can't see this as happening and personally very much dislike the idea.

really disappoints me.

Sorry you feel that way, but if you're going to be dissapointed because staff members don't like some ideas and voice it, then.. get used to dissapointment.

[ShaLeah]

To see Halaster say

I can't see this as happening and personally very much dislike the idea.

really disappoints me.

Sorry you feel that way, but if you're going to be dissapointed because staff members don't like some ideas and voice it, then.. get used to dissapointment.

It disappoints me because of your (deserved, maybe not deserved?) reputation for blind killing.  I don't see how you can appear so gung-ho about the brutality of bloodshed but really dislike something that would enhance that.  I find there is duality in that frame of mind.  I was more disappointed in your foreshadowing of it not happening.

[Morfeus]

In my opinion:

If the agressor is to go OOC and ask for the consent, it is s/he who is OOCly responsible.

If the victim is to turn flag on/off or scream OOCly to make agressor to stop, we are going to make the victim responsible, not the agressor.

I believe if one wants to play an agressor, he should take OOC responsibility for making sure he is going to hurt only the character, not the player behind it.

I believe that making the player of the victim responsible is wrong. I am probably taking it too far, but it looks to me as if we make victim of rape responsible because s/he did not yell loud enough, allowing the agressor to defend himself with words "But if s/he did not want to play that game, s/he could had fight back harder!"

Just in my opinion of course.

[Marauder Moe]

The difference between rape and murder (and what I believe the reason for the strict consent policy) is that someone who plays this game may have actually experienced it, and having it happen in-game might be very traumatic.  No one playing this game has ever been killed, however.

I personally don't believe consent should be determined any time before just prior to the event.  For many it may be just a gut feeling rather than something they can logically consider long before.

Also, you should never put the responsibility solely on the victim to be the first to break character and request FTB.  The pressure not to interrupt the scene might keep people from doing so even though they're uncomfortable with RPing what's going on.  Having the initiator ask for consent relieves that pressure.

[Larrath]

Consent is not something that should be automated using flags.  Sometimes people can forget, and this can lead to players having to suffer some very uncomfortable flashbacks from RL situations.
This is why rape is so highly limited by the Consent rule - nobody wants to make a player have to suffer emotional trauma again.

I suggest a middle-ground using a neutral command:  "Consent", in order to automate the asking procedure, to protect people from peer pressure, and to help people hidden in the room that don't want to OOC.

Code Select Expand


(Asker POV)
> consent
Do you want to ask consent for: violence, consentual sex or rape?

> consent violence sex
Asking the room consent for: violence and consentual sex.
.
.  <--- delay is up to 2 minutes.
.
Consent NOT given.


(Askee POV)
Do you consent for: violence and consentual sex?  (yes/No/fade/discuss)
> N


And then people who don't want to be bothered by consent requesting can just set up triggers.  It also help in a situation where there are 4 players in a room where 3 give consent and the 4th doesn't feel comfortable asking for a fade.

[Cale_Knight]

No automation whatsoever.

The reason we ask for consent is because these are touchy subjects, and any kind of system is still an OOC mechanism which is going to be just as "jarring" as anything else.

I think things are fine the way they are.

[Maybe42or54]

I did like the idea, but I thought about it and I don't now.

OOC: I don't want to RP out being Tortured.

The other guys oocs: You had your flag set on! It's too late now.


For all you passive people out there, this wouldn't be a good set of commands when you are being attacked by the aggressive people OOCly.

[ShaLeah]

My point is that consent is a two way street and placing these flags into play, while not a priority obviously, should not deter you (the player or attacker) from following the consent guidelines.  It's merely a tool to enhance, not degenerate the roleplaying experience.

The subjects it would cover are real worl taboo but try to avoid placing your real life beliefs into the game for a moment.  Nobody is taking the responsibility away from the attacker and placing it on the victim, our characters are the ones in this world, not US.  It's putting the responsibility on THE PLAYER, which is what we have now.  Some of us are pretty sure what we can deal with in game, some aren't.  For those of us who are sure a consent flag would enhance the game, for those of us who are unsure an "always ask consent" flag will ALSO enhance the game.  As a player or initiator it is your choice to ask before, if you believe you need to ask before every situation regardless of flag, do so.  

Adding this option wouldn't, shouldn't, overrule your common sense and the rules that are already in play and the negative response to this suggestion is leading me to believe that THAT is what people think.  That suddenly, after applying such an option, everyone will lose their common sense and their good Arm gaming habits.  Maybe I just have more faith in our player base than most do. Heh.

[Xygax]

It's not "briefly" jarring, for most things like rape and torture they're massively jarring, they're a 3 mnt long OOC about fleshing out the details alone let alone having to wonder how you would react to the thing that just "happened".

When it actually happens and you're left with that shaking, sobbing, gut wrenching sick feeling to your stomach it adds to the realism. It IS real for that moment.

This is precisely why I hope we never relent on the policy as it stands now (and I am at least partly responsible for recent changes in the policy that leave it worded more forcefully than before).  What we're doing here, though it often feels very much like an alternate reality that we insert our characters (and somehow pieces of ourselves) into, is also still just a game.  Some people don't want the game to be about shaking, sobbing, gut-wrenching sick feelings, even if they may have previously consented to being involved in whatever.

An interesting parallel for me, for example, is Howard Stern.  I love listening to 99% of the Howard Stern show on the radio (and also watching it on TV), but when they have Jeff the Vomit Guy in and a skanky porn-star gagging herself to spew on him, and then half the staff hurling in a Stand By Me style cascade of projectile vomiting...  well, I just have to change the channel.  I'm cool with all sorts of other explicit content, but some things I'd rather fade to black on.

On Arm, you should always have the option of fading over something that's too graphic for your tastes, and our policy requires that that happen BEFORE the graphic stuff appears on your screen.  I sincerely hope that policy doesn't change, and I most definitely won't be the implementor of any coded feature that weakens it.

-- X

[Dalmeth]

It disappoints me because of your (deserved, maybe not deserved?) reputation for blind killing.  I don't see how you can appear so gung-ho about the brutality of bloodshed but really dislike something that would enhance that.  I find there is duality in that frame of mind.  I was more disappointed in your foreshadowing of it not happening.

Eh, last I heard, Halaster was known for killing people outright, not taking the  time to make it into a fullblown event.  Friends dying left and right is brutal.  Torture and rape lean more towards the sadistic, and I say the current restrictions are just great.

[UnderSeven]

I'm against this idea too.  

Mainly because I don't want people to choose to or not to rp someone based purely on what you are willing to do in a scene.

[Red Bull gives you wings!]

There definitely is a duality of thought on the mud. Killing and murder are commonplace in Zalanthas. So is torture by various hideous means (with lots of NPCs as evidence). People get thrown into jagged pits or the arena without a second thought. Dessicated corpses are piled in front of an ample water source. Maimed children decorate the streets with evidence of brutality and starvation.

But touch a boobie out of line and everyone goes nuts.

It doesn't reflect what the reality of Zalanthas would be, but rather the sensitivities of our modern society.

Well, so be it then. The whole jarring effect can be avoided by just never going down that path.

[ShaLeah]

I guess I am failing to see how offering players that option "weakens" the consent rule.

I've stated my opinion and preference and respect everyone elses stand on it, whether I agree with it or not.  Pointing to things this option does NOT do, however, I can't condone.

It does NOT weaken the current consent policy in any form.
It ADDS to the realism which is one of the reasons -I- am here.
It doesn't FORCE people to partake in something graphic they don't wanna deal with.
It does NOT give a blanket go ahead to anyone to do horrible things.
It does NOT stop you from asking for consent ahead of time.

It does nothing but give those who are okay with ANY kind of roleplay to say so ahead of time, give those who aren't okay with certain kinds of roleplay ever the say so ahead of time and most of all it encourages the smooth ebb and flow of a well played scene.

Explain to me how this is bad, how it weakens the consent policy, how it hinders roleplay, how it opens the door for players who have been playing dark roles for years to suddenly throw everything they know away.

Is it necessary? No, absolutely not.
Can we live without it?  Absolutely.
Would it make the world worse?  I don't think so.
Would it make the world better?  I think so.
Will it be implemented?  Probably not.
Does that mean it's a bad idea?  Absolutely not.

[Xygax]

The consent policy requires a break in the flow of an explicit scene to ask consent.  Removing that break weakens the consent policy.  You see that break in flow as a bad thing, I see it as a good thing, and so we must agree to disagree.

-- X

[Desertman]

I usually try to keep my mouth shut on the forums and only speak up when I have something nice to say, or something that wont offend anyone because once you get the reputation of..."That rude guy"...you are forever knows as "That rude guy".....


But on this one I just have to say that in my personal opinion I have a great dislike for the consent rule. Zalanthas has always struck me as a world where everyone is starving, thirsty, and just in general really rotten people for the most part...The kind of people who would open up your belly with a sid blade for a half a cup of something to drink. I know not all folks are this way, but when you go to Allanak and see rotting corpses of starved people laying in the streets....You can no longer deny that Zalanthas is a tough, gruesome, and just down right rotten place.


That being said......I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to exist in this type of world (And by playing you consent that you do want to exist in this type of world) shouldnt be too damn surprised the first time some big hairy fellow bends you over a chair and starts going at your nether regions like a sex starved mul gladiator. This man would rip your head off to drink your blood just because he is thirsty....They dont care about the sanctity or your poor little crotch.

Torture...Bah, I have been tortured more than once and I have to say it was extremely fun every time....I would personally like to see it more often in a society where people kill each other over travel cakes it cant be that out of place.


The main issue here is....And I hate to be "that" guy.....Anyone who has issues with consent are a bunch of panzy's in my opinion....It is my personal opinion that if you cant play with the big dogs.....Stay on the damn porch. We arent all fairies and rainbows here bub! We are the toughest, meanest, most selfish, self centered, blood thirsty, mistreated, hated, unloved mother fuckers that have ever breathed sand-laden air...If you dont want me to take what I want from you...Get tough or fucking die...Thats the name of  the game... :twisted:

Right...*cough*....Ummmm....have a nice day.