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.

[Cenghiz]

I never had any kind of important emotional trauma in my past.. perhaps you didn't either, Desertman. So we won't be able to understand how someone experienced bad things IRL can feel when the scene is replayed, even in a game. We'd better keep the consent rule.

You don't need to see every detail to play the game, eh? Use your imagination IRL while you fade.

[Desertman]

Fade?

Oh I have no problem with fading. Thats just fine....But if someone dosent consent...you arent even allowed to fade and assume it happened. If the rule was...."IF they do not wish to view the scene played out you must fade"...I would be just fine....I never once said in my post that one must see every detail...I am a big fan of the fade option.

[Hymwen]

If you dont want me to take what I want from you...Get tough or fucking die...

Wow, I really hope that few people are of that opinion.

[Xygax]

Desertman:  The staff have repeatedly and consistently come down on the side of the "pansies" with respect to this policy, and I do not think that will change anytime soon.

People who might think they're up for anything haven't seen some of the "anything" I've seen people start to roleplay out.  We're not talking here about anime-style rape where by the end of the "scene" we find out both participants were really into it all along.  I have personally witnessed portions of at least a handful of scenes that genuinely disturbed me OOCly, and I wasn't even an IC "victim" in them.

I like Armageddon's edge, but there are some really dark places that the "consent rule" shields our players from, unless they wish to explore them.  It is still possible, after a brief interruption, to continue with any scene, if everyone involved is willing.  And the positive result of that brief interruption so vastly outweights the potential negatives of a mildly delayed or "jarred" scene that I cannot possibly see waiving it via some coded flag.

There aren't enough bits in ginka's RAM to express in a bit-vector the enormous variety of dark places that might be visited if some coded "consent toggle" were to be attempted.

Believe me, if there were, I'd have most of those bits toggled on.  But that doesn't mean I want to see the whole spectrum of possibility.  And I like having the opportunity to bail out before I do.

-- X

ps -- The "you can't rape someone at all if they don't consent" clause wasn't the issue the original poster brought up, by the way.  That won't be changing either, though.

[Desertman]

Oh I know it isnt going to be changed. I just wanted to voice my opinion on the topic. I had no intention of even changing anyone else's view points on the issue or swaying them in any way on thier stand. I simply wanted to be heard.

[Malken]

The question is.. At what point does it become "too much"?

You might think that rape and torture isn't such a big deal for you, others might think it is.. Then you can have your explicit flag on.. What keeps me from doing seriously disturbing things to your PC? I won't go into details, but let's just say.. What if I have a truly disturbed mind and my definition of rape or torture goes over what you'd expect from it?

What if I have some other seriously disturbing thoughts, and I see your explicit consent on, does it give me the right to do pretty much what I want to your PC, or do I have to follow a "common sense" raping and torture scenario that I hope you won't find too disturbing, or can I go full-japanese insane torture movie on you in details?

I still think asking the PC before, "I'm going to do so and so to your PC, do you agree or would you rather fade it?" is the better choice..

[Bebop]

Hrm, I really don't think consent flags or no consent flags would make much of a difference.  Just asking the person makes sure that they can't/most likely won't be e-mailing the mood freaking out because they weren't asked/forced whatever.  And starting out as a newb it takes a long time to learn the code.  I would guess many newbs would not be aware of that code starting out whatever.  I think it could be a good idea but it's just not really necessary.

As far as the consent rule, I'm all for asking consent.  The only thing I do not like is the fact that if someone says no you can not rape me, you can not tortute me then even if it is in character you can not do it.  It's kind of like saying no to a militia member for arresting you.  No you can not arrest me because I don't want to do prison RP, I'm not comfortable with that etc.  The rule is only supposed to be used when someone is completely emotionally inable to RP out being raped and having been raped.  Which I suppose I can understand some people might but at the same time if you can handle playing in Zalanthas it would leave me to believe that you wouldn't have such a hard time when you've come to except the harshness of the world.  It's kind of odd when someone would have you in that position and it would be IC but then you have to come up with some reason you wouldn't.

I think the truly good RPers though would just try to find some other creative thing to do with their victim (shrug but that's just me).  I can see both sides of it.  The great thing about the game though is that there is so much room for creativity.  Everyone can say one thing should be this way or that way, but I say just deal with each other person by person and if you're a good RPer (at least a creative one) you'll find a way to work around other people's limitations.

[Anonymous]

The question is.. At what point does it become "too much"?

You might think that rape and torture isn't such a big deal for you, others might think it is.. Then you can have your explicit flag on.. What keeps me from doing seriously disturbing things to your PC? I won't go into details, but let's just say.. What if I have a truly disturbed mind and my definition of rape or torture goes over what you'd expect from it?

Because as your chosen victim, I still have the ultimate control. I can tell you where to go using OOC. I can wish up or write the account if you won't stop. I can even just say "screw this" and cut link. Nothing forces me to endure it.

[Xygax]

The only thing I do not like is the fact that if someone says no you can not rape me, you can not tortute me then even if it is in character you can not do it.

Just to clarify, this policy only holds for rape.  You can still fade-to-black-torture someone even if they do not give consent for it.  You cannot fade-to-black rape someone without their consent.  The idea behind the policy is that some players do not wish to play out the aftermath of rape.  For whatever cultural reason, the aftermath of torture is easier to stomach, and so we still allow that (though of course even then the torturee can still choose to be stored if they wish).

-- X

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I used to be very much against the consent policy. I felt that it catered to emos and the like.

Then I started reading a little about rape victims in RL and how it seriously effects them. I'm not willing to lose a great player just because I think I should force my raping/sodomizing character upon them.

I don't like the idea that if they say no rape scene, it doesn't happen to them at all on any level, because that is just somewhat unrealistic, but, again, I am not willing to lose a great player or even a crappy player because they can't deal with the brutality of a rape scene.

Those of us who have not been raped probably can not fathom the emotions it would invoke in us, especially if you are already an emotional person.

So, I fully support the consent rule.

[ShaLeah]

I wasn't gonna say anything else... Meh.  Damn you all for sucking me back in!

Those of us who have not been raped probably can not fathom the emotions it would invoke in us, especially if you are already an emotional person.

There are those of us who HAVE been raped (and worse) who would be able to roleplay the aftermath without going through the virtual act but that is only because of experience.  You can't play a rape victim without knowing what it's like to lose that control completely.  Having been in game for a few years now and never having seen it, I hope, PRAY that I never do.  I still don't want the interruption of OOC if I have determined before hand what is and what is not acceptible for ME to witness.  Again, beating a dead horse, it's the jarring interruption in the flow of roleplay.
(and before anyone else says 'deal with it', I do, I have and will continue to do so tyvm)

So, I fully support the consent rule.

This is NOT about the consent rule or whether it should be changed or removed.  Doesn't anyone get that?

It's about putting a pretty color ribbon around it that you can change at your leisure.  Today yes, tomorrow no, next week new character yes, a month from now with another maybe.

Stop trying to make this about what it's not.

It's not about the consent rule being removed.
It's not about people being seen as pansies if they choose not to play something out.
It's not about how horrible rape and torture are.

It's about an option that gives the player the CHOICE to let people know AHEAD of time what they can and cannot stomach. And, as the consent rules state:
If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you uncomfortable, please OOC that they should stop.

The consent policy doesn't change. *sigh*  I done now.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

ShaLeah, you can stop losing your temper or I'll send Candi over there.  :twisted:

And I'll watch.

[mansa]

I would only agree to have it in if:

A) It defaults to NO every single time you log into your character

and

B) You can only check the status of anothers consent level once per hour, or more depending on your RANK within SPECIAL CLANS (i.e. templars can check 5 times an hour)

[ShaLeah]

Because I love you all:

http://www.digitalfilms.com/play.php?id=753242

Remember these?!

I like the old characters better but it works.

[spawnloser]

A few things:

In my experience, Halaster's reputation is NOT deserved.  He doesn't enjoy killing people, he just doesn't shy away from it.

Also, people have moods.  At some times, they are willing to accept something and at others, they are not.  Having this flag system idea in would allow for a person to forget that s/he had set something yes, but aren't comfortable with it now...and now, all of a sudden, someone is doing something to this person's character that the player is not comfortable with.  The consent rules prevents this from happening.  People can be emotionally fragile beings and I do NOT want to see someone become uncomfortable with the game simply because the consent rules were bypassed in ANY way, including accidently and on the part of the person who is no uncomfortable.

Finally, on the matter of people understanding the emotions of someone that was raped, those of us that haven't been can NOT understand.  Those of us that have been raped should NEVER have to roleplay through those emotions, bringing something that was a traumatic experience back to torture these players even more.

I firmly support the way consent is currently granted and would not want it to change to something like has been suggested.

[Jherlen]

Here's my take:

Armageddon MUD is strong stuff. It's not a game for the weak at heart. The very fact that we ALLOW explicit scenes takes us a lot further than many other games go.

But if you want to widen the playerbase, you have to accept players who may not be into all that. Some players love mudsex. That's great. Some will take it further and be okay with BDSM/torture, some may even not mind if their PCs get raped. That's all good. But a lot of people want nothing at all to do with any of that.

If I was a new player and I was just discovering the game and noticed we had actual set flags for rape/torture scenes, I'm not sure what I would think. I'm fairly sure a lot of newbies would have a negative reaction to that. Even if we do allow those scenes between consenting parties, going so far as to code things into the game for them sends a message I'm not sure we want to send.

I'm for explicitly asking and receiving consent through the OOC channel each time you want to range into the realm of graphic stuff that some people may not like. (The system we have now.) Anything else, I think, is a weaker solution. If even one person out of 100 is having a bad day and forgets to turn off a consent flag, then gets stuck in a scene they don't want to be in, that's one person too many.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

While I can sort of understand where Desertman and others are coming from, I just have to ask- how much raping/getting raped were you planning on doing, anyway?
The consent policy shouldn't negatively effect your play very much, but it might positively effect some one else's play by an immeasurable amount.
Keep it as is, I say.

[Sanvean]

Still on the road till Sunday, so I'll be brief, but basically to me the problems with automating consent outweigh the benefits.  Accordingly, I strongly oppose the idea of automating it and have no plans to see any such system implemented.  Other people have spoken eloquently and well as to some of the reasons behind this point of view, so I'll leave it at that.

[Zacharai]

As a former rape counselor, I would not play Arm if it had weaker consent regulations.

[MoosesRock]

While the little movie was cute, it illustrates one reason I would not want a flag sent for consent.

I personally would not want every Joe/Sally my pc passes on the way to the Gaj to have that information at their fingertips. It's really none of their business. Regardless of how I set the flags, to me, it's entirely too much information about my pc available to all with little or no roleplay.

I don't find the few seconds and lines it takes to "OOC: Hey, mind if I tie you up and spank you? OOC: No, but I'd rather we take turns " all that jarring or mood breaking. I much prefer it to the alternative.

[amoeba]

I personally would not want every Joe/Sally my pc passes on the way to the Gaj to have that information at their fingertips. It's really none of their business. Regardless of how I set the flags, to me, it's entirely too much information about my pc available to all with little or no roleplay.

A extremely valuble point made here. It is also -far- too much information given about the -player- themselves, portraying to the world that they are uncomfortable with rape scenes.  This to me is an unneeded intrusion into their privacy. It is one thing asking for consent at the onset of an event. It is quite another displaying the player's preferences at all times, to all people.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of how I set the flags, to me, it's entirely too much information about my pc available to all with little or no roleplay.

Actually, it is not information about your PC at all. It's really information about you as a player.

But fine. As with many potentially worthwhile features, let this too die the fear of abuse death.

[X-D]

First, I have not read the thread other then page one.

But, I like the idea and have also suggested it before.

The complaint one person had about just anybody seeing what they will concent to is baseless since they will see it anyway if the ask.

Also, everybody always uses the "but what if they have a change of heart" or "what if they forget to set" reasons to not implament such flags. Including Halaster.

To this I say, Oh come on, this is SOOOOO easy to negate.

Simple 3 steps.

First log into account and have a consent on/off toggle.

Consent on means that when you enter the game world you will be in limbo untill consent flags set for that session.

Consent off means you will log in same as we do now and your consent flags will all be set to no. Meaning people either have to ask OOC (YUCK) or simply keep things clean.

Consent can be toggled off any time in game, but not back on unless you log out.

This is the way I would go about it, a bit of work maybe, but simple in form and function, failsafe.

And of course, A spoken OOC would always overide.

Also, I would make it a sep command to see flags, just for these people all worried for some reason that people will see the flags (still don't get it and really sit on the side of SUCK IT UP!) and have the command log, least then if staff wants they cen contact the person and explain why they don't like them using the command 37 times a minute.

[Morfeus]

I simply do not want anyone who looks at my char to know what I'd play out and what not. And I do not want to know that about others as well, unless I need to know it (eg. I am going to torture their character).

[amoeba]

The complaint one person had about just anybody seeing what they will concent to is baseless since they will see it anyway if the ask.

This is not baseless and let me explain why.  The difference between a flag and explicit concent is more extreme and personal.  Yes, they will know if they ask, however that case is limited in scope.  It only applies to the one extreme case where where an attempt is actually made.  A flag however is perstaint, it travels with the player and can be looked upon at any time. It denotes to anyone who cares to look as to an OOC preference of the player. Tell me anywhere else in the game that the player is required to leak OOC information about themselves to the mud population.  In practice having a flag requires that you do that, not toggling it on implies consent, so the player is screwed either way. To be blunt, it is no one's business how a player feels oocly about it until the need to ask consent arises.

I'll be honest, currently I'll not let it get to consent.  One example, I had one occasion with a player of mine where she was presented with a situation where this might have occured. (yes I'll admit, I have played a couple of female characters) If the scene had progressed to the point where I thought the people would have attempted it, I would have simply premtively attacked, either to their deaths or my own characters.  I have no desire to play into these scenes.  And I tell you, I have no desire to wear a damned, scarlet OOC flag at all times in order to serve at the convience of a limited number of players who don't want to "break character".

edit: toned down the rhetoric.

[Cenghiz]

I don't understand what's the big deal with 'OOC Consent given? - OOC Sure/Nah.' This does ruin the scene? Then won't checking the preferences ruin the scene too? It's OOC you know. Same thing.

I don't want this feature at all. What if there's someone who doesn't want to see torture with fire but is OK with being whipped to death? So we'll add a whip_torture flag and a fire_torture flag? Also, for example, I can afford being raped while I play a female or being raped by a woman. But I'm homophobiac. So I don't want to have any type of homosexual sex scene graphical because I find it gross for my taste. SO we need to add homosexual_sex and heterosexual_sex flags, too. Then also homosexual_rape and heterosexual_rape.. That will keep on.. cuddler_torture, crushing_torture, piercing_torture, dildo_rape :oops: ....

I don't want 87 consent flags.. I want to ask and be asked instead with the OOC command.

[X-D]

It does break the scene.

I've been in enough to know.

And really, I simply don't see a problem with the flag, specialy if the people who don't like it can simply toggle it to no or ask.

Code Select Expand

consent room
female elf flagged consent torture yes, consent rape yes.
male dwarf consent torture yes, consent rape no.

Fine, we can continue without a scene break with graphic torture not involving sex.

Code Select Expand

consent room
female elf flagged consent ask.
male dwarf flagged consent torture yes, consent rape yes


At this point you need to ask, no change from now, and to the people who don't want to be giving away player information, guess what, still the same as now.
But at least you may get lucky and not have to break a scene asking, I'd be happy for that chance, no matter how small.

[Briarfox]

I have to say I agree with those who do -not- like this idea. My reasoning is my consent changes with those around me. I would never -ever- consent to anything explicit or brutal with a stranger because you never know if the other person is even of age. I realize there are players on the mud under the age of 18 but I do also realize that even in role-playing, anything of a sexual nature with someone beneath that line is very illegal in some states and is punishable by law.

I do not see how asking for consent OOC would alter the mood of the moment ICly unless there was unhealthy boundary between character and player. When you go OOC, your character and the moment they are in are on hold, what you do/say/ask OOCly isn't going to change a thing ICly. So I do not see how attempting to use the argument of going OOCly to ask consent would be fruitful or even tangible in this discussion.

[jcarter]

Some day, cops will be posing as the busty, honey-haired underage girl.

And then this will happen:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=knqkSFUqZ84

I AM A HIGHLY SKILLED TEMPLAR THAT GAVE AN ORDER

[Empress]

I'm not completely against the idea, but I think having to OOC works better.  I was recently involved in a torture scene where I had to give my consent, and  I agreed to it thinking it wasn't even really necessary to ask, but by the end I was more horrified than I have ever been after watching any movie.  I think by the end of it I was almost crying.  If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I could take that scene and I would not give my concent.  I could probably handle 90% of all torture scenes but I would never agree to that situation again.

[John]

I'm not completely against the idea, but I think having to OOC works better.  I was recently involved in a torture scene where I had to give my consent, and  I agreed to it thinking it wasn't even really necessary to ask, but by the end I was more horrified than I have ever been after watching any movie.  I think by the end of it I was almost crying.  If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I could take that scene and I would not give my concent.  I could probably handle 90% of all torture scenes but I would never agree to that situation again.

I'm sure you know but just to remind people, you can OOC at any time "okay, a bit too much for me. Can we fade?"

Just thought I'd remind people.

[Cenghiz]

I met with one who was late at saying 'OOC Let's fade...' and had to live the scene. As I said, I never had such emotional scars and I feel good with nearly anything. But as I observed, usually the victim is in no condition to say "OOC Too much, fade.".. I also obserevd the experience, even words on the screen may be emotionally wrecking for the victim.

It happens even when consent was already given. I don't want anything making it happen more, not for myself, but for the others.

Maybe 'OOC Consent?' does ruin the scene for some -What a lack of concentration?- but the other way may ruin a day/a few days of the victim with an emotional trauma.

Again I want to comment, since I myself cannot understand why such scenes maybe hurtful but it's only because I'm an emotionless immoral bastard. I know a lot of people asking for consent flags also do not understand. Yes, we do not understand, but we can symphatize -help me with the spelling damnit- .

The magickally controlled creature made up of fire says, out of character:
    - "I give no consent."

[John]

I met with one who was late at saying 'OOC Let's fade...' and had to live the scene. As I said, I never had such emotional scars and I feel good with nearly anything. But as I observed, usually the victim is in no condition to say "OOC Too much, fade."

AFAIK no matter what you can always OOC and have it echoed to everyone in the room (exception being when getting thrown in a room no-one else is in, but AFAIK there's no graphic torture scripts, so you'll be getting no bad echoes anyway). If you find a state that you can't OOC, bug it and wish up.

[Nao]

Most of these problems could be circumfered by adding an 'ask' flag instead of the 'yes/no' options, you get 'yes/no/ask first' options, with asking being the default set.

I still think we're fine as it is, though.

[Cenghiz]

When you're emotionally depressed, you can find it hard to type "OOC I give no consent.", John. Nothing ever distracts OOC and we all know it, thanks for reminding.

What are we arguing already? It won't be done at all, thanks to the imms.

[John]

When you're emotionally depressed, you can find it hard to type "OOC I give no consent.", John.

Aaah okay. I wasn't too sure what you meant. Thanks.

[Gorilla J]

Admittedly, I haven't yet been in a position where any of the consent rules would apply, but I have to say it's one thing about Armageddon I haven't liked from the start.  I despise the fact that, just because it would bother someone OOCly, my character's actions can be forced and my will overruled by another (obviously, I'm talking about the rape thing here).

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

[MorganChaos]

Admittedly, I haven't yet been in a position where any of the consent rules would apply, but I have to say it's one thing about Armageddon I haven't liked from the start.  I despise the fact that, just because it would bother someone OOCly, my character's actions can be forced and my will overruled by another (obviously, I'm talking about the rape thing here).

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

I think you're going to learn not to do this one quickly. You can probably get in trouble for this, killing someone because they didn't give consent. I see absolutely no reason why this wouldn't be the case. It's not a matter of deciding your character's actions, it's a fairly simple matter of what the player wants to deal with. There's plenty of other things you can do besides rape. If push really comes to shove you can probably roleplay that they bribed you out of it and ask the imms for the coin. I'd hope they'd be understanding on something like this.

[Gorilla J]

Admittedly, I haven't yet been in a position where any of the consent rules would apply, but I have to say it's one thing about Armageddon I haven't liked from the start.  I despise the fact that, just because it would bother someone OOCly, my character's actions can be forced and my will overruled by another (obviously, I'm talking about the rape thing here).

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

I think you're going to learn not to do this one quickly. You can probably get in trouble for this, killing someone because they didn't give consent. I see absolutely no reason why this wouldn't be the case. It's not a matter of deciding your character's actions, it's a fairly simple matter of what the player wants to deal with. There's plenty of other things you can do besides rape. If push really comes to shove you can probably roleplay that they bribed you out of it and ask the imms for the coin. I'd hope they'd be understanding on something like this.

In a world like Zalanthas, from what I've seen, if you have someone in a position where you could successfully rape them you could most likely kill them as well, with just as much justification.

[Anonymous]

If having to change your character's behavior to account for the rape rule is that bothersome to you I suggest not making characters with the capacity for rape.  I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion.

[Gorilla J]

If having to change your character's behavior to account for the rape rule is that bothersome to you I suggest not making characters with the capacity for rape.  I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion.

I don't think it's any more reasonable to expect me to not want something forced on me than it is to expect the unwilling consent-withholders to sit down and accept what's being forced on them.  Everyone has the right to choose what they want to see; I'm fine with that, and think it's great.  But I dislike having anything forced on me for OOC reasons, as opposed to something coming about because of the IC world.

Eddited because rereading it I can barely understand what I myself wrote: Basically, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the rapist to be forced to change their character because of someone's OOC wishes, yet on the other hand allow the victim to dictate the situation regardless of the other person's OOC wishes.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Gigantic J wrote:

I don't think it's any more reasonable to expect me to not want something forced on me than it is to expect the unwilling consent-withholders to sit down and accept what's being forced on them.

If you think that's unreasonable, imagine how the person being forced to witness a rape feels.

[MorganChaos]

If having to change your character's behavior to account for the rape rule is that bothersome to you I suggest not making characters with the capacity for rape.  I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion.

I don't think it's any more reasonable to expect me to not want something forced on me than it is to expect the unwilling consent-withholders to sit down and accept what's being forced on them.  Everyone has the right to choose what they want to see; I'm fine with that, and think it's great.  But I dislike having anything forced on me for OOC reasons, as opposed to something coming about because of the IC world.

Eddited because rereading it I can barely understand what I myself wrote: Basically, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the rapist to be forced to change their character because of someone's OOC wishes, yet on the other hand allow the victim to dictate the situation regardless of the other person's OOC wishes.

I think avoiding creating a character with the capacity for rape is a fine suggestion, and a complete solution to this.

[Gorilla J]

If having to change your character's behavior to account for the rape rule is that bothersome to you I suggest not making characters with the capacity for rape.  I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion.

I don't think it's any more reasonable to expect me to not want something forced on me than it is to expect the unwilling consent-withholders to sit down and accept what's being forced on them.  Everyone has the right to choose what they want to see; I'm fine with that, and think it's great.  But I dislike having anything forced on me for OOC reasons, as opposed to something coming about because of the IC world.

Eddited because rereading it I can barely understand what I myself wrote: Basically, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the rapist to be forced to change their character because of someone's OOC wishes, yet on the other hand allow the victim to dictate the situation regardless of the other person's OOC wishes.

I think avoiding creating a character with the capacity for rape is a fine suggestion, and a complete solution to this.

Once again, I do not feel it is a fine solution to have me change myself and my characters to accomodate someone who will not afford me (for whatever reasons) the same courtesy.

But, luckily, I don't have any plans on raping anyone.  I'd be pissed if it came up and I was forced to change, but my own inherent morals in the real world would prevent me from allowing any of my characters to, even if the situation called for it.

[Medena]

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

In a world like Zalanthas, from what I've seen, if you have someone in a position where you could successfully rape them you could most likely kill them as well, with just as much justification.

You are new Gorilla J and so I am really trying to say this as nicely as possible.  Good RP'ing doesn't allow for us to do things IC'ly for OOC reasons -- whether this means allowing our character to fall off the Shield Wall because they don't know it is there even though we do or refraining from killing the mean looking warrior just because -we- know he is a newb.  

While it is true that there could be just as much (or as little) IC justfication for killing someone as raping them, this does not hold true if you were doing it for OOC reasons, ie. because they didn't give consent.  There is a certain amount of trust involved with RP'ing. I trust you to stay in character, you trust me to do likewise. There is also a trust that we have in general for our fellow players and through it we build a community in which we have respect for each other's wishes and choices. If someone doesn't give consent, in the rape scenario, you just gotta move on like those few seconds didn't happen and then truly do what your character would do.

[FightClub]

Yay for rape, boo for conscent.

-FightClub approves Gorilla J

[Marauder Moe]

You think it's rude, then, for rape victims, or anyone otherwise OOCly disturbed by rape, to withhold consent (and force your character to change his actions) instead of changing themselves to deal with it?  

*scratch head*

[FightClub]

You know what, I don't see why a logical person would like rape *gasp* Holy shit, what'd he say? Yeah sure the fuck-me's very much enjoy it, yeah sure you've got some pretty screwed up kids out there.  But knocking out of a rape scession, is like knocking out of combat with a scrab because you think it's too vivid, need to draw the line -- yeah I know there are some youngins on here, sure their eyes need to be protected, but we shouldn't alter ic for ooc motive, just because Jane or Joe isn't comfortable with it.  I've seen an all consuming trend as of late to block out every single derogatory action that happens against your pc, it's becoming silly.  So yeah not even sure if I'm along the line of this topic, but there's a rant enjoy.

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

In a world like Zalanthas, from what I've seen, if you have someone in a position where you could successfully rape them you could most likely kill them as well, with just as much justification.

You are new Gorilla J and so I am really trying to say this as nicely as possible.  Good RP'ing doesn't allow for us to do things IC'ly for OOC reasons -- whether this means allowing our character to fall off the Shield Wall because they don't know it is there even though we do or refraining from killing the mean looking warrior just because -we- know he is a newb.  

While it is true that there could be just as much (or as little) IC justfication for killing someone as raping them, this does not hold true if you were doing it for OOC reasons, ie. because they didn't give consent.  There is a certain amount of trust involved with RP'ing. I trust you to stay in character, you trust me to do likewise. There is also a trust that we have in general for our fellow players and through it we build a community in which we have respect for each other's wishes and choices. If someone doesn't give consent, in the rape scenario, you just gotta move on like those few seconds didn't happen and then truly do what your character would do.

And just to vouch for Gorilla J, he might be new here, but he carries better rping skills than the majority of the players I've seen here.  I've been left in awe in the multiple times I've rped with him, and no he's not a raging rapist.

[Gorilla J]

Really, if it ever happened, and I had another PC in a position of submission where they were at my mercy..if they decided my character's actions for me, and forced that on me, I'd most likely be rather annoyed and simply end their life.

In a world like Zalanthas, from what I've seen, if you have someone in a position where you could successfully rape them you could most likely kill them as well, with just as much justification.

You are new Gorilla J and so I am really trying to say this as nicely as possible.  Good RP'ing doesn't allow for us to do things IC'ly for OOC reasons -- whether this means allowing our character to fall off the Shield Wall because they don't know it is there even though we do or refraining from killing the mean looking warrior just because -we- know he is a newb.  

While it is true that there could be just as much (or as little) IC justfication for killing someone as raping them, this does not hold true if you were doing it for OOC reasons, ie. because they didn't give consent.  There is a certain amount of trust involved with RP'ing. I trust you to stay in character, you trust me to do likewise. There is also a trust that we have in general for our fellow players and through it we build a community in which we have respect for each other's wishes and choices. If someone doesn't give consent, in the rape scenario, you just gotta move on like those few seconds didn't happen and then truly do what your character would do.

I may be new, but I'm hardly stupid.  I full well understand the concept behind it; nevertheless, I adamantly maintain my position.  If my character was going to hurt someone, they could full well decide killing them would be a viable option; they could settle for rape, but if that wasn't allowed, death.  Or permanent disfiguration, if Mr or Mrs Squeemish would rather have their appendages sliced off as opposed to a little woohoo.  

I trust others to remain in character; forcing me to change due to your OOC preferences is not staying in-character.  If someone doesn't give consent, then yes, I would act like the rape prelude didn't happen; and then I would move on to whatever was going to happen instead.

[MorganChaos]

Gorilla, we understand the point. You're just going about it with all the wrong attitude, and getting a little defensive, it seems, which really isn't necessary.

Personally I'm going to resolve that I can't change his attitude and that it'll change with time as he plays more.

-MorganChaos is capable of being gentle, dammit

[Gorilla J]

You think it's rude, then, for rape victims, or anyone otherwise OOCly disturbed by rape, to withhold consent (and force your character to change his actions) instead of changing themselves to deal with it?  

*scratch head*

And yes, Moe, I do.  It's quite rude to force me to change something I had planned and would be realistic for my character to do just because you don't like it.  When I'm allowed to have my guy fly because I had a traumatic walking experience, or be invincible because I once cut myself and thus have nightmares about being injured, I will say all's fair and not be bothered by it.

[Dalmeth]

Well, the fact is that the staff has a rather firm stance on this issue, and they aren't going to budge.  I for one support them.

[Jherlen]

I'd suggest you'd feel differently if you'd experienced rape yourself or knew someone who had, Gorilla J.

All I'm going to say is I'm glad that that mentality isn't shared by the people who made the consent rules.

Roleplaying comes first in this game, but I don't think it needs to come at the expense of personal feelings and trauma-inducing scenes on the players.

[elvenchipmunk]

If you want to continue discussing about rape (again) I, personally, would suggest taking it to another new thread, or finding another of the thousand out there containing this same debate. The consent rule about rape was put in for a reason. It's a courtesy for people who are uncomfortable. Any further discussion I think should be taken elsewhere, as this thread will just be locked if it continues here I'm sure.

As for the automatic consent flag that was suggested by the OP, I see no reason for this. There are many reasons in here that express how I feel (could forget to turn it off, not know it exists, your friend might've turned it on as a prank etc.).

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Marauder Moe]

I trust others to remain in character; forcing me to change due to your OOC preferences is not staying in-character.

Edit for clarity: Sometimes you have to break character.

If someone doesn't give consent, then yes, I would act like the rape prelude didn't happen; and then I would move on to whatever was going to happen instead.

That's fine.  No one said that if a victim doesn't give consent to rape you have to let them go.  However, you essentially said in your original post on this thread that if someone did not give consent to rape you would

1) Be OOCly annoyed with them.
2) Take it out on them ICly as a result of that OOC annoyance.

Neither of those are healthy attitudes.  However, if your character's original plan was to leave the victim in an alley when finished, then do that.  If the plan was to kill them, then do that.  Don't get mad at the player for not wanting to play it out, though.

[Gorilla J]

I'd suggest you'd feel differently if you'd experienced rape yourself or knew someone who had, Gorilla J.

All I'm going to say is I'm glad that that mentality isn't shared by the people who made the consent rules.

Roleplaying comes first in this game, but I don't think it needs to come at the expense of personal feelings and trauma-inducing scenes on the players.

Maybe not a rape, but a very close second when I was a wee lad.  I still feel this way.

[Xygax]

This thread has left me feeling that we should simply outlaw IC rape all-together.  Clearly there is a vocal minority of the population who cannot cope with the nuaces of the rape rule as it has been presented and AS IT WILL REMAIN.

If you cannot accept the rape rule as it is and AS IT WILL REMAIN I emphatically suggest that you wander off to play another mud.  We do not need players who cannot abide by this rule.

Any further threads on the matter will probably be removed or monitored/censored heavily.  This one is locked.

-- X