Consent Flag

[boog]

I consent to all things all the time out of a matter of principle.  Give me a flag!

This. But probably because I'm mentally fucked up somehow. I just think it really stretches my writing skills to have different situations offered to me. Like random writing topics in English classes.

Perhaps there should be a flag for people who are more queasy about it, rather than those who openly consent to any sort of situation and wish to play it out? Me, personally, if I'm going to consent, I'm going to probably consent all out. It'd be silly to OOCly ask for an okay, only then for the player to all of a sudden (unless it was a RL emergency or their spouse was reading or something, harr) cop out after being sliced, impaled, whatever'd, up.

flag consent FTB
You have now been flagged to make all graphic scenes of violence, torture, rape and otherwise fade to black.

[Barzalene]

The reason the consent rule is in place is to protect players from being disturbed by situations that take them out of there comfort zone. If you are not disturbed that is nice. I would rather incovience you with inconvient consent conversation, than risk a flag misunderstanding causing someone emotional pain.

[valeria]

I don't really think this is a good idea, but...

stuff

No offense intended toward an idea that was very well put together.  However, I would find this even MORE immersion breaking than a simple 'OOC Consent guyz?'  But then, I don't have any problem with the way it works currently.  ANY way for me to be checking someone's OOC preferences is going to break my immersion.  And the way it is, makes it so that you can take into account all kinds of variables before you decide to consent to a specific scene, without people just assuming it's okay to tear your eye out and eat it because you forgot you had on 'consent to moderate torture'.  Which is very subjective anyway.

[Sephiroto]

I don't think it is an issue so much with breaking immersion, but with the fact that consent convos are personal and jarring in comparison to coded checks.  I liken a coded consent check to checking your stat or score and don't see it as a bad thing.  I give kudos to any reasonable feature that helps players avoid OOC communication during roleplay, even if it doesn't cover all cases.

Personally, I don't get involved in those situations often at all, but I'd love to waive my consent automatically so that the "ooc" command never needs to be used in my regards if I ever happen into such a situation.  I understand that this isn't for everyone, particularly those who may change what they're comfortable with on a whim, but I think it shouldn't be hard to add a few lines of code to help out those who WANT to use such a feature.  So, you don't want to perma-waive consent...then don't.  You can always OOC whether or not there's a code, but you can't use a helpful code feature that doesn't exist.

[brytta.leofa]

Another...thing...about an automated solution is that you could ask users their birthday when they create an account, and then prevent them from giving certain types of consent until their volunteered age is above some threshold.

Just sayin'.

[brytta.leofa]

And then we could replace our accounts with Facebook Connect.

[Mazy]

The reason the consent rule is in place is to protect players from being disturbed by situations that take them out of there comfort zone. If you are not disturbed that is nice. I would rather incovience you with inconvient consent conversation, than risk a flag misunderstanding causing someone emotional pain.

I agree, but I also see where everyone else is coming from.  This is a bright and clever idea.

When reading the rules over again, I realize a bloody truth that this mud is hardcore, brutal, and generally unconcerned with the player's characters being abused. The little clause known as consent gives players the right to circumvent roleplaying some worst case scenerios which are a daily reality in the dark fantasy setting of Zalanthas. Yeah, it would be convinent for players to be able to view a consent flag. I still stand against flags, because it's basically the same as asking yet would give an obfuscating response. >consent all, in my opinion however, WOULD clearly state a person's stance, but if they run around with it on, it might encourage others to use this OOC tidbit to their advantage. Not only that, but consent flags themselves are an OOC interruption really. Consent settings are a good theoretical. In the end, you just can't please everyone, and you just can't rape everyone who isn't happy with you either.  

[Gobbleneck]

It could be easily abused.

Code Select Expand

>change ldesc is sitting here, naked
The tressy woman is sitting here, naked.

The tall muscular man has arrived from the south.
You notice the tall muscular man glance your way.

>Consent status
Your forced sexual consent is on.

The tall muscular man runs over to you, pulling his pants down.
The tall muscular man roars and grabs you!

>Consent 1 off
Your forced sexual consent is off.

The tall muscular rapes you.

>ooc I didn't have consent on

The tall muscular says in OOC: "WTF"

>ooc No I didn't.  Maybe I should send in a complaint.

You notice the tall muscular man glance your way.
The tall muscular man runs north.

[Mazy]

Gobbleneck understands my argument! <3

[Sephiroto]

Another idea:  "consent <type> <duration>" such as "consent sex on" or "consent torture 60" with 60 being the number of minutes if not permanantly turned off or on.  So, you consent for the given time then the option turns off at the expiration.

It could be easily abused.

Even the emote command can be abused....  As players we trust one another to regulate ourselves and act accordingly.  As I said before, this is an issue of principle to me.  We don't get to argue that we forgot to change "nosave fall/arrest/subdue", so I see no reason to get bent out of shape if someone is taken advantage of when they clearly flagged themselves as accepting of such.  At least with things like torture/rape/sex you can always OOC for it to stop, unlike hard-coded effects from having saves turned on/off.

If someone isn't reasonable to stop a situation after an OOC like "Please stop the rape now or FTB, I forgot to change my consent settings..." then no amount of OOCing or Flagging with regards to consent is going to stop them in the first place.

I see no reason to prevent the inclusion of a code mechanism that can help people because some people are uncomfortable with it due to the ebb and flow of what they're comfortable with.  If you don't want to accidentally get diddled while having a flag on, then don't use it in the first place, I say.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out after this final statement: I never want to use the OOC during gameplay with another PC unless there is no other way to fix something gone wrong or communicate necessary information.  Consent is one of the top reasons for the OOC command use during RP, aside from typo corrections and Helper'esque assistance to other players.  If staff can implement a tool to help avoid any of those three instances then I'm all for it and consent should be the easiest of these three to fix.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Another idea:  "consent <type> <duration>" such as "consent sex on" or "consent torture 60" with 60 being the number of minutes if not permanantly turned off or on.  So, you consent for the given time then the option turns off at the expiration.

It could be easily abused.

Even the emote command can be abused....  As players we trust one another to regulate ourselves and act accordingly.  As I said before, this is an issue of principle to me.  We don't get to argue that we forgot to change "nosave fall/arrest/subdue", so I see no reason to get bent out of shape if someone is taken advantage of when they clearly flagged themselves as accepting of such.  At least with things like torture/rape/sex you can always OOC for it to stop, unlike hard-coded effects from having saves turned on/off.

If someone isn't reasonable to stop a situation after an OOC like "Please stop the rape now or FTB, I forgot to change my consent settings..." then no amount of OOCing or Flagging with regards to consent is going to stop them in the first place.

I see no reason to prevent the inclusion of a code mechanism that can help people because some people are uncomfortable with it due to the ebb and flow of what they're comfortable with.  If you don't want to accidentally get diddled while having a flag on, then don't use it in the first place, I say.

Anyway, I think I'll bow out after this final statement: I never want to use the OOC during gameplay with another PC unless there is no other way to fix something gone wrong or communicate necessary information.  Consent is one of the top reasons for the OOC command use during RP, aside from typo corrections and Helper'esque assistance to other players.  If staff can implement a tool to help avoid any of those three instances then I'm all for it and consent should be the easiest of these three to fix.

Everything that Seph said. Also: Perhaps you could have something in there, where you could just type 'consent me' or 'consent <character's name>'. The first could set your consent to permanently on for one, two, or even all of the flags (permanent until manually changed), and the second would be a good thing for those who say 'Well, with some people I'd play out blahblahblah, but with other's, I'd rather not.'. You would, in theory, have your flags off for anyone who looked for it that wasn't included in the list of people you consented to.

[Delstro]

I would never give consent to some of you people, but others I will always consent to.

I would hate to autoconsent to every Tim, Dick, and Griefer.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I would never give consent to some of you people, but others I will always consent to.

I would hate to autoconsent to every Tim, Dick, and Griefer.

for those who say 'Well, with some people I'd play out blahblahblah, but with other's, I'd rather not.'. You would, in theory, have your flags off for anyone who looked for it that wasn't included in the list of people you consented to.

[Pale Horse]

New code, maybe?

Code Select Expand

>Consent me

You do not currently have any consent flags set.

>Change consent

Choose your consent flags: Rape, Torture, Mudsex, Extreme Violence

>Consent Torture

Your Torture consent flag has been set to On.

Do you want to add conditions to it?

>Yes

Please type in your conditions:

> Consent to "light", tastefully done torture emotes.  I will give an ooc warning when/if the scene starts to become too discomforting.

Your Torture conditions have been noted.

>Consent me

Your Torture flag is On, with conditions.

>Consent torture me

Consent to "light," tastefully done torture emotes.  I will give an ooc warning when/if the scene starts to become too discomforting.
>

Using "Consent Tressy" would bring up a view of the tressy-tressed woman's consent flags for the reader's eyes only, and maybe a date as to when the conditions were edited.  That way, if you are in an adult situation and see that they haven't updated in a long time, you can then go OOC and see if their flags are still set the way they want them to be.

Personally, I like the way things already are.  I just tossed the above out to feel like I'm adding to the discussion.

[Delstro]

That is a whole lot to code for:

OOC Consent to sexual scenes?
The one person says, OOC, Consent.
The other person says, OOC, Consent.
The griefer says, OOC, Consent.

[Qzzrbl]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

[MeTekillot]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

[Is Friday]

I like how it is currently. Consent is too complicated to code into simple categories.

I think this would bring about more problems than solve.

[Barzalene]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

I don't think that's it.

[Is Friday]

Wait.... Hold up.

Is anyone else noticing something here?

More than one person has stated they would consent to certain people, but not others.

What's up with that?

I'm guessing consenting to sex with the buxom, tressy-tressed maiden would be more tolerable than consenting to sex with the horribly-disfigured, severly-maimed crone?

I don't think that's it.

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

Also, I wonder if this consent flag would increase the amount of arranged rapes. Err... do people do that?

[Nyr]

I don't foresee something like this getting put into the game.

[boog]

I guess I am just delightfully ignorant of those who play certain characters and certain characters that do certain things. :x

[BlackMagic0]

I guess I am just delightfully ignorant of those who play certain characters and certain characters that do certain things. :x

This.

[Qzzrbl]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

[Barzalene]

Certain players garner more "trust" than others.

If that's not blatantly letting OOC factors affect IG actions, then I don't know what is.

There are some pcs I enjoy playing with more than others for purely ooc reasons. Like the pace of their rp. Or the depth of their rp. Or how they don't break character or give little ic/ooc lectures.

Maybe it is letting ooc factors affect ig actions. I don't care. When I get paid to play I'll be more willing to endure people I don't enjoy.