Armageddon's Rape Policy

[Barzalene]

Everyone should be aware of the following. If someone wants to torture, or kill your pc, you do not have an ooc choice. Your pc will be harmed. You can opt not to act out the  torture. You can fade to black. This is a valid choice. if you do not want to read the details of said torture, you do not have to consent.
However, the torture still happens to your pc.

Hold on, I'm getting to the point. Here is the point:

Rape is the exception. You do not have to consent to acting it out, further you do not have to consent to have it happen.

Why do I mention this? Two reasons:
1. We are socialized to be agreeable and polite. We are socialized to say yes.
2. There is a prevalent "Arm is HARSH" sentiment. This is good. It means we don't play crybabies and huggers. It means that both male and female pcs can be strong capable people. We can be heros. We can be dirtbags. We all man up.
So, when someone  asks for consent for rape there MAY be a feeling of pressure to consent even when the player finds the event oocly disturbing.  (Yes, a lot of the young men and women who play her are stronger and smarter than the average bear. A very small few are also less empathetic. Some of you may not relate or may not believe that the phenomenon exists. Take my word for it. Or hell, research it.)

You can say no. If you oocly do not want to play a rape victim you should say no. If anyone has any issue with that let them kiss your ass.

This is not a condemnation of people who want to accept the fact of a rape for a pc. It isn't a condemnation of rape in game. Rather, it's a reminder that the rape of your pc is completely ic. You as the player are not a victim as you are the one with the power. You decide if this thing has happened, and deciding it hasn't happened is completely valid.

[NOFUN]

Okay

[Yoman]

I suppose this ties in with "Ignorance is bliss".

[Nyr]

You should probably copy and paste the rules related to what you mentioned. I think you glossed over something related to torture that may maim someone.

[Barzalene]

Alright. But I think both in Arm and real life people are far more likely to be raped because of social norms which players have internalized than to be maimed or tortured. And while there may be a factual glitch in my statement of the rules, one that I have no issue with having corrected, I don't think it changes my point.

[Gunnerblaster]

Rape's not cool. I play to have fun and rape scenes are not enjoyment, to me.

I've never, once, stopped and thought to myself while playing, "Hey - you want to know what would be totally fun? If I raped this PC I'm about to kill."

That's a boundary I'm not interested in crossing - or having crossed by others.

[musashi]

Be smart ... kill first, rape the corpse object.










... I am joking of course. Unless we're talking about tregils.

[Drayab]

Apart from the requirement that people roleplay realistically here, there are few restrictions on roleplay in Armageddon. If you choose to roleplay adult situations, that is fine. However, before instigating such an act with another player, please OOC to make sure that the roleplay is consented to. If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you (the player) uncomfortable, please OOC that they should stop. If they continue despite being told to stop, please wish up. This rule is not meant to be abused in order to allow characters to escape death/torture/etc., but is intended for adult situations, such as torture or rape, which some players and staff may not wish to witness. If you act out a graphic sequence without first obtaining the other player's consent, and the player then complains within a reasonable amount of time (so that the runlogs can be checked and the complaint verified), you will be permanently banned.

Specifically in the case of roleplaying through a rape, the instigator takes on added responsibility. In this case, the instigator absolutely must OOCly ask for and must obtain explicit consent from the victim's player prior to involving their character in any emote specifically indicative of the act of rape, no matter how non-graphical you believe it to be.

Here's the consent rules as I am aware of them. I don't see anything about maiming as a special case, though...

[Feco]

I believe the rule is that any PC who is going to be irreparably maimed (losing hands, legs, etc.) can choose death instead.

I'm not sure where it's listed though.

[Nao]

I believe the rule is that any PC who is going to be irreparably maimed (losing hands, legs, etc.) can choose death instead.

I'm not sure where it's listed though.

help consent

[Talia]

I suppose this ties in with "Ignorance is bliss".

Claiming ignorance of policy doesn't prevent whatever consequences may come from breaking the policy. Laws in the real world work this way, too; just because you don't know the speeding limit doesn't mean you won't get a ticket. It is each player's responsibility to proactively make him/herself aware of the rules.

[Kismetic]

I guess I see what you're talking about Barz.  I've personally never RPed a rape scene over the decade plus that I've been roleplaying, but I could see where such a thing could be powerful and provocative, so long as I knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it would not violate the psyche of the other player.

That being said, there is one thing that always concerned me about rape and consent.  A person who is in the position to rape someone is likely to also be in a position to kill someone.  I always wondered if, when consent was denied, people just killed the PC, instead.  When they fully intended to let them live, before.  That seems mildly disturbing, and I'm hoping it doesn't go on.

[Talia]

I think both in Arm and real life people are far more likely to be raped because of social norms which players have internalized than to be maimed or tortured.

Just bringing out what I believe is the main point in the thread, again. Especially for female players this is true; women are socialized to acquiesce to sexual situations (and though rape is an expression of violence, it is a sexually-flavored expression of violence). It can be very difficult to say no when one has been socialized to say yes. In the case of maiming or torture, or male on male rape, I'd venture to guess that the majority of us are not socialized in any way to see those things as acceptable, so saying no (to a graphic scene, or to male on male rape) is easier.

In short: If you don't want your PC to be raped, it's totally OK to say no, and please do. No one (who matters) will think less of you for not giving consent.

[Sokotra]

I always wondered if, when consent was denied, people just killed the PC, instead.  When they fully intended to let them live, before.  That seems mildly disturbing, and I'm hoping it doesn't go on.

I'm pretty sure that happens, which I guess would be a somewhat realistic way to play a PC if your character was really like that.  I think it is a pretty stupid way to play the game, myself, but whatever.  I just think that if I play characters that don't want to be involved in sexual stuff, whether it be rape or something else then I think it is pretty lame that my PC would get killed because I don't like to play sexual characters.  To me that is stupid.  I think we have started to cross the line a little on this stuff over the years.  Having the game be for "mature" players is fine, but it gets a little dumb and obnoxious at some point when you keep going beyond the PG-13 type of atmosphere and you start to annoy half the playerbase or make things unsuitable for minors or young adults.  It's not up to me, however.  It's up to everyone.  Just my two 'sid, take it or leave it.

[CravenMadness]

Where does it say that, if you say 'No' to the ooc consent.  That the action still doesn't happen, just in a 'Fade to Black'... ... You don't actually have to emote the scene to rp the after-effects and rping the character as having -been- raped/done the raping.

[Talia]

Where does it say that, if you say 'No' to the ooc consent.  That the action still doesn't happen, just in a 'Fade to Black'...

help consent: "If you wish to pursue a rape plotline or engage in an act of rape, you must seek consent from your target. Without that consent, the plotline may NOT be pursued."

It says it right there.

[CravenMadness]

Ah... Well that's rather silly.  Probably what leads to would-be rapists just killing the person.  Sure, you should be able to not have to act out and describe the activity.  But it -does- happen and has happened to your character in that situation.  Kind of just saying .. 'I've gotten myself into this situation, but I don't like it so no.. It's not happened try again.' ... In which case... Kill victim.

[Pills]

Ah... Well that's rather silly.  Probably what leads to would-be rapists just killing the person.  Sure, you should be able to not have to act out and describe the activity.  But it -does- happen and has happened to your character in that situation.  Kind of just saying .. 'I've gotten myself into this situation, but I don't like it so no.. It's not happened try again.' ... In which case... Kill victim.

No, it's not silly at all. People should not be forced to have their characters raped what the fuck is wrong with you tatertrughruhgufdhgudfhgjiajsdigjdg.

I, a [presumably] white male, think y'all softies should just MAN up. This is ARMAGEDDON. It's HARSH. Who cares if the subject of rape could, y'know, bring up feelings and memories that would make playing a game uncomfortable at best!?!?

[Pills]

Personally, I don't think there's a place for rape in Armageddon, and I really have to question the motives of people who feel compelled to play rapists.

[Riev]

Rape makes sense in Armageddon, but its still a very "as it comes" basis. I mean, playing a rapist, that just rapes every female/male they come across is just like playing a psycho that kills everyone. Its not very flashy, and its doomed to be looked back on as "Eh, that person was boring."

Now, if you're in a straight up relationship, and your mate gets the promotion, and you don't, maybe you rape them to establish dominance. That I could see. A lot of the stuff I -do- see? Eh.

[Kaiden]

Creepy. Disturbing.

[MeTekillot]

Personally, I don't think there's a place for rape in Armageddon, and I really have to question the motives of people who feel compelled to play rapists.

Rape isn't cool. But thinking less or questioning the motives of someone who plays a character who rapes isn't cool either.

[chrisdcoulombe]

consent
Jk I don't even rp sex
I stay out of those situations Fade please
I'd totally fade a rape though

[brytta.leofa]

It's extraordinarily unlikely that I would ever play a PC who would commit rape.  I shan't question the roleplaying chops of those who choose otherwise.

If someone (other than Magickal) wants to rape my PC, chances are good that I'd consent at least to the plotline.  I shan't question the roleplaying chops of those who choose otherwise.

[valeria]

Ah... Well that's rather silly.  Probably what leads to would-be rapists just killing the person.  Sure, you should be able to not have to act out and describe the activity.  But it -does- happen and has happened to your character in that situation.  Kind of just saying .. 'I've gotten myself into this situation, but I don't like it so no.. It's not happened try again.' ... In which case... Kill victim.

Presumably the person who refuses to give consent is aware that one of the would-be rapists options is probably just to kill them.  It's likely also safe to presume that they're more okay with that than with having to roleplay the consequences of a rape, or else they would not choose to NOT give the rapist consent.

Whether or not you think it's silly, it is the rule.  And I for one think it's a good rule.  I would personally rather have a would-be rapist end up having to deal with not being able to pursue that particular plotline with that particular nonconsenting PC, than potentially have a player quit the game because they don't even want to have to think about even maybe having to deal with having that sort of situation forced upon them.

[solera]

When I played as a youngster in the 'rinth, I felt that I had  consented to the idea of rape when I made my character. I felt it was in my characters background, it was insinuated by fellow PCs, she was sexually molested once and I think I would have consented to FTB if the occasion arose.
So I suppose I'm asking, should I have made a young, or any rinther if I hadn't been willing to consent?

[Jingo]

I've made young vulnerable characters in the 'rinth before with absolutely no intention of consenting should the occasion arrise.

It would be better to not second guess the intentions of the other player and not risk getting your teeth knocked out by the staff.

[Barzalene]

Yes, I think it is valid to play a rinther and not be raped. In fact, I feel strongly that this is true. No one in this game every has to consent to rape in any role. Being a rape victim is not something that anyone should be forced to deal with by any game even at the remove of it happening only to a fictional construct.

[lepxii]

My 2 cents - I never understood the motivation of the rule (consent in general, and rape in particular). It takes away from the harshness of the game, and feels lawyerly. I takes situation from IC, to OOC, and requires OOC interactions. A request to fade is one thing (and most players aren't jerks, and would follow regardless of the rule) - the current state is another.

Rape happens in the real world. Torture happens. In almost every conflict (ancient world, modern, WWII, Bosnia, Sudan, ....) rape and torture have occurred on a vast scale. People move on. PCs can move on as well.

(That being said - a rule is a rule, and if it has been laid down, it should be followed)

[Synthesis]

[Barzalene]

This shit again.

Can I explain why?






This shit again, because people feel pressure to acquiesce to things that are making them uncomfortable and unhappy and it bears repeating that they don't have to.

[Sam]

I think there is a large amount of rape in the VNPC world, but that doesn't mean it needs to be played out.

Rape is sometimes called a 'landmine' issue. Once you touch on it and remind someone of it, it could cause them to blow up, and noone should be subjected to that.

[Synthesis]

[MeTekillot]

barzalene keeps saying acquiesce and I don't know what that word means.

[Malifaxis]

I've instigated playerkills just by someone mentioning that they might rape someone else.

I don't play white knights.  I don't play fuckers in shining armor.  My PCs tend to be just as scoundrely as many others in their own ways, but I've never played (and I never will play) anyone who considers rape to be A-OK.  

Why?  RL experiences.  Call me a shitty roleplayer, I don't give a fuck.  I'm not going to do it.

And I will absolutely continue to act as I have.

5 will get you 10 that anyone on this board who is preaching bullshit about "Oh it happens in the real world" has never actually looked into the eyes of someone that they loved after this violation of the spirit and mind has happened to them.

Fine, don't understand why you can't go out on a rape fest.  Refuse to get this little concept through your damn skull, it doesn't matter.

The rule is the rule.  Anyone can refuse rape.  Period.  Accept it, and go fucking spam forage for an hour or two as you cry into your second-hand purchased Japanese girl panties.

*throws down the microphone and steps off his soap box*

For fuck's sake.

[Synthesis]

barzalene keeps saying acquiesce and I don't know what that word means.

http://tinyurl.com/5rz5gke

[Sokotra]

Problem is if you don't want to consent to rape (or something else sexual) and you know you are probably going to get your character killed for it, that is like being coerced into consenting even though you don't want to.  A bit of a quandary.  I don't have much trouble with the harshness, and I very rarely end up with PCs that are in these situations.  The whole deal justl seems pretty dumb and keeping the game at a level suitable for young teenagers or others... some sort of middle ground... would probably be better for everyone.

I think staff and everyone does a pretty good job at keeping that middle ground for the most part, but there are some issues that probably don't work well for everyone and may perhaps chase off some players.... pushing things a little too far in the direction of being a game that only one particular group of people want to play and alienating the rest.

Harshness is one thing... pervasive language and sexual stuff goes a little too far for a lot of people.

[MeTekillot]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

[Delirium]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead.

[Cind]

If you really want to play that one person from that one movie, but are uncomfortable with doing it ig, just have it in your background or have it happen offscreen?

The longer the amount of time has passed the easier it gets to deal with, I think, but I'm pretty sure, even if you want to experiment with the idea, that rping a new character who was just raped is going to make a lot of people feel uncomfortable unless you're acting tough about it, which is almost impossible, and the toughies in the world who never smile and smirk at everything that isn't their dinner will have trouble smirking at you.

In my mind playing the victim is more difficult. When you play a rapist, you can just do that offscreen, or with npcs, or pc consentings.

PCs are unique, right? We're the rich boys, the swaggering pimps and especially lovely prostitutes and bynners with especially exciting lives, the promising Tor cadets, the elves with human friends and the humans with elf friends, the spice smugglers that don't get caught, the rinthis that leave the 'rinth, the rogue 'gickers, the mindbending aides. Most PCs have resources or the skills to avoid getting into such jams or, really, becoming the victim of most crimes apart from theft and murder. Compare your average PC to the average npc commoner; we've got game compared to them, if we so choose. Thus, the low prevalence of rape among pcs will make more sense; although I've seen a few pcs whose backgrounds are just rife with abuse and/or torment, rather than isolated single incidences. This happens in real life, too, for some people. A mother who strikes her breed child once is more likelt to continue to do so repeatedly.

So its totally cool cuz we rock for the low prevalence and everything yah?

[Samoa]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

Because a person who is a rapist may not be the same thing as a person who is someone who would beat the shit out of someone.

[Jingo]

Also, don't be the fuckwit that asks consent for "general nastiness" and then proceeds to sexually violate a character. I will enjoy getting your character stored for it.

I'm looking at you, templar x. (not a current templar character)

[MeTekillot]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

Because a person who is a rapist may not be the same thing as a person who is someone who would beat the shit out of someone.

I mean it's a reasonable alternative to just outright killing the PC.

[Cind]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

Because a person who is a rapist may not be the same thing as a person who is someone who would beat the shit out of someone.

I mean it's a reasonable alternative to just outright killing the PC.

or seeing some sexy vnpc walk by that they prefer.

or rp tying you up and then turning their back, unpacking their bag or whatever, stating in emotes that the door is wide open/they are oblivious to you with every emote.

or look closely at you, see some flaw they can't stand, and then let you go because it wouldn't work for them.

[HTX]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

Because a person who is a rapist may not be the same thing as a person who is someone who would beat the shit out of someone.

A small suspension of disbelief is a small price to pay to ensure players are not forced to RP situations that they find highly disturbing OOCly. At the very least, just RP a severe beating/torture and then conveniently let the victim escape before the actual sexual assault begins. Problem solved?

I think the current consent rule is perfect, and doesn't need to be made more lax nor more stringent.

[musashi]

I don't mind the whole don't rape without consent rule, but I think the justification of "Oh it will upset people who got raped IRL" is kind of weak sauce.

There are plenty of people who have been beaten and tortured IRL as well. Talk to a former POW. I assure you they went through their fair share of shit as well but do we care about protecting their precious feelings? No. Fuck them.

If you aren't emotionally stable enough to separate the fantasy of what happens in Armageddon from the reality of what happens in your life ... do not play the game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having said that, here is why I think the no consent no rape rule is a good idea: Playability.

Plain and simple. I am not interested in role-playing out graphic sexual content, so I can choose to fade.
If I were not interested in role-playing out graphic torture, then I could choose to fade.
If I were not interested in RP'ing the aftermath of a character who had both his arms cut off and his tongue and eye balls removed ... I could choose to have the character die instead and just go play a fresh concept.
And of course ... if I am not interested in role-playing the aftermath of being a rape victim, then I can choose to veto that idea, which may or may not result in the other PC escorting me to the mantis head for a fresh concept.

[Nyr]

I don't mind the whole don't rape without consent rule, but I think the justification of "Oh it will upset people who got raped IRL" is kind of weak sauce.

Indeed!  We should never be empathetic or take into account the feelings of people that have been in horrible real-world situations!  How dare we take an adult stance on this by making rules about it!  The unfortunate byproduct of these rules?  Those silly rape victims won't ever get to experience it again in Arm!  They're missing out!

There are plenty of people who have been beaten and tortured IRL as well. Talk to a former POW. I assure you they went through their fair share of shit as well but do we care about protecting their precious feelings? No. Fuck them.

Well said!  We should never be empathetic or take into account the feelings of people that have been in horrible real-world situations!  How dare we allow such hypothetical people to skip over having to at least "see" the grisly effects of such torture happen to a character that they may, in fact, be quite attached to!  As you say, screw 'em.

If you aren't emotionally stable enough to separate the fantasy of what happens in Armageddon from the reality of what happens in your life ... do not play the game.

Exactly!  If you get mad over losing a character, you probably should just quit the game and never play it again!  It's fantasy, it's just a game, don't feel bad over losing your character!  What are you, some kind of pansy?

All of the above was sarcasm, by the way.  Those aren't necessarily the word-for-word reasons we've made these rules on consent, but they do come into play.  Your opinions on the matter mentioned above may be exactly how you feel, but I don't think it's unexpected for a staff member to officially say that we don't care about your opinions about the consent rule. We on staff take a very hard line on these rules having to do with consent and if you break them, we will break you.

[Cowboy]

emot (raises his glass to ~nyr) Here, here! Well said.

[musashi]

Me point is, if you go the "oh but think of their RL experiences!!!!" route ... then the rules are pretty much saying: Rape victims are delicate flowers who need their feelings taken into account, former POW's and victims of prolonged domestic abuse as children can man up because the torture is happening to their PC whether they consent or not and I don't really care if you were actually locked in a dog cage for months and burned with a blow torch.

To me the rules have always seemed to be more about ensuring that people can enjoy playing their characters in the game, rather than starting an abuse victims' shelter.

And anyway, I didn't at any point say that I thought the consent rules shouldn't be there.

[Samoa]

I don't see any reason why a rape plotline can't be replaced with a "savagely beating the shit out of" plotline instead. Why you gotta get killed?

Because a person who is a rapist may not be the same thing as a person who is someone who would beat the shit out of someone.

A small suspension of disbelief is a small price to pay to ensure players are not forced to RP situations that they find highly disturbing OOCly. At the very least, just RP a severe beating/torture and then conveniently let the victim escape before the actual sexual assault begins. Problem solved?

I think the current consent rule is perfect, and doesn't need to be made more lax nor more stringent.

I straight up agree with the rape rule, but I *do not* agree with this statement. A character who is a rapist *may not necessarily be* a character who would beat someone. In fact, the character may be okay with raping someone, but would be horrified at the idea of beating someone -- and, in fact, the /player/ may also share this thought process. Asking a would-be rapist to automatically choose beating/torture as a 'viable alternative' is grotesquely unfair to that player and character. I think we have all been playing long enough to be able to come up with our own reasons not to do things in order to acquiesce with the rule.

[Samoa]

Me point is, if you go the "oh but think of their RL experiences!!!!" route ... then the rules are pretty much saying: Rape victims are delicate flowers who need their feelings taken into account, former POW's and victims of prolonged domestic abuse as children can man up because the torture is happening to their PC whether they consent or not and I don't really care if you were actually locked in a dog cage for months and burned with a blow torch.

I am 99.9% sure that if we had a player who had been locked up in a dog cage for months and burnt with a blow torch, that we would sure as shit afford that player the exact same consent options for torture that we afford in terms of scenarios involving sexual assault. If someone OOC'd to you that they were extremely uncomfortable playing out a torture scenario for personal reasons and you insisted they go along with it, there's a term for that kind of behaviour on your part, and it's called being an asshole. We all play here together. The key word here is play.

Furthermore, the rules *do not* say that people who have been raped are delicate flowers; that is you reading your own flavour and interpretation into the rules. The rules are written very clearly, and if you feel like colouring them with your own perceptions of what they're saying, that falls on you -- not on rules that haven't been written with a hundred clauses underneath them to try and anticipate your varied opinions.

The rules were written to be short, concise, and clear. They serve that purpose.

[musashi]

If someone OOC'd to you that they were extremely uncomfortable playing out a torture scenario for personal reasons and you insisted they go along with it, there's a term for that kind of behaviour on your part, and it's called being an asshole. We all play here together. The key word here is play ... The rules were written to be short, concise, and clear. They serve that purpose.

On this, we agree.
And it's good that they're there.

[Pills]

I've instigated playerkills just by someone mentioning that they might rape someone else.

I don't play white knights.  I don't play fuckers in shining armor.  My PCs tend to be just as scoundrely as many others in their own ways, but I've never played (and I never will play) anyone who considers rape to be A-OK.  

Why?  RL experiences.  Call me a shitty roleplayer, I don't give a fuck.  I'm not going to do it.

And I will absolutely continue to act as I have.

5 will get you 10 that anyone on this board who is preaching bullshit about "Oh it happens in the real world" has never actually looked into the eyes of someone that they loved after this violation of the spirit and mind has happened to them.

Fine, don't understand why you can't go out on a rape fest.  Refuse to get this little concept through your damn skull, it doesn't matter.

The rule is the rule.  Anyone can refuse rape.  Period.  Accept it, and go fucking spam forage for an hour or two as you cry into your second-hand purchased Japanese girl panties.

*throws down the microphone and steps off his soap box*

For fuck's sake.

This.

[NOFUN]

I don't think any one is arguing against the policy, can't see where all the hate came from.
Hopefully we can trick somebody into disagreeing in random arm thought when somebody brings it up yet again so we can start a ten page argument.

If people want to roleplay rape, then fine. As long as they're not breaking policies. Better that such people pursue such a fantasy in a game, in my opinion.

[Bacon]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

[NOFUN]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

Why?
I hate to have the unpopular opinion, but it seems odd that the GDB sympathises rape victims but not torture victims. A player may very well of had his eyes gouged out and his tongue cut out. Obviously the policy allows the player to fade to black for torture just incase, but I'm just wondering why the GDB flames somebody for raping another PC but considers it cool to cut off another PC's hand.

I'm not trying to justify torture or rape. Just seems like bullshit double standards to me.

[Samoa]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

These are not the same thing, nor do both automatically belong to people of the same psychological profile. While some kinds of rape may be exceptionally physically violent, all rape is not characterized by excessive violence. Generally, only rapists who rape to satisfy a sadistic need -- which is not most of them -- would be willing to engage in something like mutilation or murder, and some rapists may not even engage in violent force AT ALL.

I would really, really prefer it if people would stop insinuating that one is interchangeable with the other. They are not.

[Samoa]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

Why?
I hate to have the unpopular opinion, but it seems odd that the GDB sympathises rape victims but not torture victims. A player may very well of had his eyes gouged out and his tongue cut out. Obviously the policy allows the player to fade to black for torture just incase, but I'm just wondering why the GDB flames somebody for raping another PC but considers it cool to cut off another PC's hand.

I'm not trying to justify torture or rape. Just seems like bullshit double standards to me.

Because it is very likely that none of the playerbase has had their hands or eyes removed via acts of torture, and it is similarly very likely that a fair portion of the playerbase has been sexually assaulted.

[NOFUN]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

Why?
I hate to have the unpopular opinion, but it seems odd that the GDB sympathises rape victims but not torture victims. A player may very well of had his eyes gouged out and his tongue cut out. Obviously the policy allows the player to fade to black for torture just incase, but I'm just wondering why the GDB flames somebody for raping another PC but considers it cool to cut off another PC's hand.

I'm not trying to justify torture or rape. Just seems like bullshit double standards to me.

Because it is very likely that none of the playerbase has had their hands or eyes removed via acts of torture, and it is similarly very likely that a fair portion of the playerbase has been sexually assaulted.

Okay let's disregard the feelings of a torture victim because they're in the minority.

[Synthesis]

These sorts of rules ultimately only make sense in terms of whether we feel like they're good or not, so all these "but but but..." attempts to draw logical parallels or establish equivalencies is misguided, unless it's purely rhetorical.

People feel different about torture than they do about rape.  Yes, this is probably merely because rape is closer to home.  Yes, they're probably equally horrible.  No, it doesn't make a difference.  Yes, the rule is still fine.

[Samoa]

These sorts of rules ultimately only make sense in terms of whether we feel like they're good or not, so all these "but but but..." attempts to draw logical parallels or establish equivalencies is misguided, unless it's purely rhetorical.

People feel different about torture than they do about rape.  Yes, this is probably merely because rape is closer to home.  Yes, they're probably equally horrible.  No, it doesn't make a difference.  Yes, the rule is still fine.

Yes, thank you.

[Bacon]

Just maim them instead if you must do something to them. I like gouging out eyes or cutting out tongues myself. Taking one of their hands is pretty cool too.

These are not the same thing, nor do both automatically belong to people of the same psychological profile. While some kinds of rape may be exceptionally physically violent, all rape is not characterized by excessive violence. Generally, only rapists who rape to satisfy a sadistic need -- which is not most of them -- would be willing to engage in something like mutilation or murder, and some rapists may not even engage in violent force AT ALL.

I would really, really prefer it if people would stop insinuating that one is interchangeable with the other. They are not.

They're the same thing in the regard that they are doing something very bad to someone with permanent issues that can result from it. They are the same thing in the regard that it takes one having power over the other one to execute. No, they aren't -exactly- the same thing and I never said such. What I'm saying is that instead of making a pc that's a rapist as their outlet to harm others or exert their power over others, I choose for that pc to be the type to maim them instead. If it's a big deal in regards to rape in the game that there are special rules for it. I'd just rather avoid those sort of scenes entirely.

[Clavis]

tor·ture   /ˈtɔrtʃər/  Show Spelled [tawr-cher]  Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty



Honestly look at it rape is just another form of torture. Causing both mental and physical pain, is cruel an instrument of terror that has been used for countless years. So the whole rape vs. torture arguement is kinda bull shit. Also I agree completely with malifaxis

[Synthesis]

Moral rules are guided more by emotional content than by logic and strict definitions.

In this context, if people feel like it is significantly different, it is significantly different.

You may disagree with certain conclusions, and you may feel differently, and you can attempt to mount a crusade to change other people's feelings about the matter, but resorting to definitions and logic is only going to help insofar as the feelings are based on definitions and logic, which, going back to my first premise there, likely isn't very much.

Also, if we got rid of all the nastiness in the game, we might as well kick ginka in the nuts and go play a Pokemon MUSH.  I think it's fair enough to settle for putting the worst sorts or nastiness out of bounds, while allowing lesser sorts.  While we may express sympathy for those who cannot handle the lesser sorts of nastiness, and therefore choose not to play our game, I think it matters little for the playerbase at large.  Clearly, this is not the case for rape.

[manipura]

tor·ture   /ˈtɔrtʃər/  Show Spelled [tawr-cher]  Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty



Honestly look at it rape is just another form of torture. Causing both mental and physical pain, is cruel an instrument of terror that has been used for countless years. So the whole rape vs. torture arguement is kinda bull shit. Also I agree completely with malifaxis

Disagree. That's not to say that rape isn't something that -can be- and -is- used as torture...but I don't think it's 'just another form of torture'.  I think that the mindset of a rapist and their justification for it are very different than the mindset of a person torturing someone for information or as punishment, revenge etc.  

[NOFUN]

Also, if we got rid of all the nastiness in the game, we might as well kick ginka in the nuts and go play a Pokemon MUSH..

That's not what I'm saying at all. I can understand that people may not want to roleplay nasties such as rape or torture, and that's fine. It's just when I come into a thread and see everybody hopping on the SS moral highground and hating just because.. well, they can. Three pages of NO DON'T ROLEPLAY RAPE IT'S EVIL!! just because there was an opening to say so.

It's one thing to not want to roleplay rape or torture, but OOCLY hating other players that do is another thing completely.

[musashi]

It's one thing to not want to roleplay rape or torture, but OOCLY hating other players that do is another thing completely.

Yuuuup.

[Synthesis]

don't hate the playa hate the game

wait...

Also, I feel like it's trivially obvious, but bandwagon-jumping is the way moral disapprobation is handled in a social context, dude.

[Kismetic]

I'm just going to put out there which scenario is more interesting ...

Code Select Expand

Grabbing you by the throat, sneering derisively, the stark, rantarri-slashed man says, in sirihish:
    "I fucking own you, and don't you forget it."

The stark, rantarri-slashed man drags his slimy tongue across the side of your face before giving it
a condescending pat.


Or ...

Code Select Expand

The stark, rantarri-slashed man backstabs you and you die, thanks for playing.


You can play a domineering, creepy asshole without delving too far into the interweird.  If you want to play rape, go play a tentacle monster on some fetish MUSH.


P.S.  I dig Malifaxis' post.  <3 u man

[lordcooper]

One of my PCs raped another on a different MUD once.  It literally had to happen due to IC stuff and certain kinks in his mental processes.  Still made me feel sick though.

[jcarter]

I don't mind the whole don't rape without consent rule, but I think the justification of "Oh it will upset people who got raped IRL" is kind of weak sauce.

Indeed!  We should never be empathetic or take into account the feelings of people that have been in horrible real-world situations!  How dare we take an adult stance on this by making rules about it!  The unfortunate byproduct of these rules?  Those silly rape victims won't ever get to experience it again in Arm!  They're missing out!

There are plenty of people who have been beaten and tortured IRL as well. Talk to a former POW. I assure you they went through their fair share of shit as well but do we care about protecting their precious feelings? No. Fuck them.

Well said!  We should never be empathetic or take into account the feelings of people that have been in horrible real-world situations!  How dare we allow such hypothetical people to skip over having to at least "see" the grisly effects of such torture happen to a character that they may, in fact, be quite attached to!  As you say, screw 'em.

If you aren't emotionally stable enough to separate the fantasy of what happens in Armageddon from the reality of what happens in your life ... do not play the game.

Exactly!  If you get mad over losing a character, you probably should just quit the game and never play it again!  It's fantasy, it's just a game, don't feel bad over losing your character!  What are you, some kind of pansy?

All of the above was sarcasm, by the way.  Those aren't necessarily the word-for-word reasons we've made these rules on consent, but they do come into play.  Your opinions on the matter mentioned above may be exactly how you feel, but I don't think it's unexpected for a staff member to officially say that we don't care about your opinions about the consent rule. We on staff take a very hard line on these rules having to do with consent and if you break them, we will break you.

Have you considered ever taking a break from staffing or reading the GDB? You seem to get way too emotionally invested in things.

[NOFUN]

You can play a domineering, creepy asshole without delving too far into the interweird.  If you want to play rape, go play a tentacle monster on some fetish MUSH.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm reading this as "play ARM the way I want or stop playing altogether"

[Pills]

You can play a domineering, creepy asshole without delving too far into the interweird.  If you want to play rape, go play a tentacle monster on some fetish MUSH.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm reading this as "play ARM the way I want or stop playing altogether"

When it comes to rape, this is correct.

edit: With "the way I want" meaning "the way the majority of the staff and playerbase have decided is appropriate".

[NOFUN]

You can play a domineering, creepy asshole without delving too far into the interweird.  If you want to play rape, go play a tentacle monster on some fetish MUSH.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm reading this as "play ARM the way I want or stop playing altogether"

When it comes to rape, this is correct.  (in my opinion)

ftfy.

edit: With "the way I want" meaning "the way the majority of the staff and playerbase have decided is appropriate".

Not that this is a valid point since majority=/=being right, but the staff says it's okay as long as you OOCLY get consent first.

[Cind]

This is the only text game I know of that has rules like this---- rules where I can not only tell someone "noez, dude" but I can prevent them from simply coming up to me without a word and start sexing me up and not stop when I tell them to stop. It does hurt for some people, you know--- so please don't change the rules.

Actually, why is this thread open in the first place? something happen?

[Pills]

You can play a domineering, creepy asshole without delving too far into the interweird.  If you want to play rape, go play a tentacle monster on some fetish MUSH.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm reading this as "play ARM the way I want or stop playing altogether"

When it comes to rape, this is correct. [ b](in my opinion)[/b]

ftfy.

Well, since you fucked up the BBcode, you didn't fix anything, mister. And it's the opinion of the staff as well, hence the policy.

[Pills]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

[Riev]

I don't think anyone is advocating that rape is good, fun, or a positive aspect of human or animal culture.

The fact is, the policy currently ALLOWS rape, as long as there is consent given. If there is no consent, the offended player has the right to stop the course of RP and not allow the rape to occur. That is the policy.

Everyone arguing that rape is bad, and shouldn't be allowed, is arguing -against- the current staff-set policy. There is no argument, that is the rule. Rape is allowed, but it -must- be consented. Any arguments should be taken up with the goddamned Producers of the game if you want it changed, otherwise you're just screaming at a wailing wall.

[Zoltan]

I don't think anyone's actually wanting to break this rule, sheesh. I think what you're seeing is backlash at those people that think you're some sort of super-pervert-horrible-person because you fade a rape scene.

I never was involved in a rape scene, nor would I ever play one out. I could see some characters of mine fading it, though. And if the other player says "no consent"? Well, golly, it didn't happen! It's really a simple rule. Still, I think that in the game world, terrible things happen. I don't pass OOC judgement on players for murderin', mudsexin' and torturin' (unless they're somehow twinking out like crazy), and I likewise deal with IG rape strictly ICly. I think that's the "argument" we're seeing in this thread. And clearly, the rule is a good one to have.

Aaaand, Riev essentially just said what I'm saying now, but I'm posting away anyway.

[NOFUN]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

Because that is my fetish
No, I'm not. Truth be told I wouldn't give consent if another PC tried to rape mine, and I wouldn't attempt to rape another.

And it's not that I'm deadset on, it's people looking down on people for doing one thing while bragging about doing another. It's good play to run about amputating and torturing but if your character touches another characters breast without asking then you're OOCLY worse than Hitler.

I consider it somewhat ignorant that people see one thing as being ten thousand times worse than something else simply because it is something that happens more often and receives more media attention.  Quit judging other players on how they choose to play, so long as they're keeping in harmony with policy and documentation.

Like I said, it's bullshit double standards.

[Pills]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

Because that is my fetish
No, I'm not. Truth be told I wouldn't give consent if another PC tried to rape mine, and I wouldn't attempt to rape another.

And it's not that I'm deadset on, it's people looking down on people for doing one thing while bragging about doing another. It's good play to run about amputating and torturing but if your character touches another characters breast without asking then you're OOCLY worse than Hitler.

I consider it somewhat ignorant that people see one thing as being ten thousand times worse than something else simply because it is something that happens more often. Quit judging other players on how they choose to play, so long as they're keeping in harmony with policy and documentation.

Like I said, it's bullshit double standards.

Synthesis already addressed this, and quite well. I think you should go back and reread what he had to say on the matter.

[PurpleParrot]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

Maybe because it's something that could actually happen, especially in such a harsh world?

Personally, as a rape victim IRL, I can see why the escape clause is there...it kills a little of the realism of the game, but if I'd rather not think about it every time I'm on ARM or run the risk of being OOC...I think I'll take the escape clause.

As a realist and someone who's a bit too hard on themselves to be in character, I wouldn't just flat out veto a rape unless I felt it was a pointless, forced (Edit: forced as in OOC for the attacker, not forced as in non-consensual.) thing, but if it serves a purpose for the interaction and is in character, I'm likely to suck it up and just make my character have PTSD. Personally, I'm glad that rape is allowed IG, because it's something that happens and the threat of it makes the world just that much more believable.

I was originally going to agree with the, "Hey, rape is a perfectly viable option!" group as a whole, but the more I think about it, I see why the rule is in place

How about we just all be adults and if one character is going to rape another and the player of the victim is uncomfortable, talk it out and metagame a little bit to reach a reasonable compromise? Make it a less violent rape (which fucks with one's head just as much) or make it a rape attempt that ends in the attacker being forced to knock the victim out because they struggled so much?

This would be okay, right? To negotiate a scene like that OOCly if one had a problem with it?

[Saellyn]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

Maybe because it's something that could actually happen, especially in such a harsh world?

Personally, as a rape victim IRL, I can see why the escape clause is there...it kills a little of the realism of the game, but if I'd rather not think about it every time I'm on ARM or run the risk of being OOC...I think I'll take the escape clause.

As a realist and someone who's a bit too hard on themselves to be in character, I wouldn't just flat out veto a rape unless I felt it was a pointless, forced (Edit: forced as in OOC for the attacker, not forced as in non-consensual.) thing, but if it serves a purpose for the interaction and is in character, I'm likely to suck it up and just make my character have PTSD. Personally, I'm glad that rape is allowed IG, because it's something that happens and the threat of it makes the world just that much more believable.

I was originally going to agree with the, "Hey, rape is a perfectly viable option!" group as a whole, but the more I think about it, I see why the rule is in place

How about we just all be adults and if one character is going to rape another and the player of the victim is uncomfortable, talk it out and metagame a little bit to reach a reasonable compromise? Make it a less violent rape (which fucks with one's head just as much) or make it a rape attempt that ends in the attacker being forced to knock the victim out because they struggled so much?

This would be okay, right? To negotiate a scene like that OOCly if one had a problem with it?

This.

[Dakota]

...if you break them, we will break you.

Hearing echos Ivan Drago here. I think we need a new Avatar from you Nyr.

ps: the rule to requiring players to ask for consent to act out, follow through w/ rape, maiming, etc is a good thing.

[Bacon]

As others have said, I think people are demonizing those who would play a character that would rape someone in game. Most normal people don't hate an actor because they once played the role of a rapist in a movie or hate the writer of a story because they had a rape take place in the story. I don't care if somebody else wants to play a pc that would do it. I don't care if people have a legit reason to decline it happening as per the rules. I do care that players who decide to bring a little more realism and variables to the game and include rape as an option, are being demonized for saying so.

[PurpleParrot]

I do care that players who decide to bring a little more realism and variables to the game and include rape as an option, are being demonized for saying so.

^ Agreed.

Let people play their characters and don't hate on them for their character's choices. IC is IC.

[Delirium]

Let people play their characters and don't hate on them for their character's choices. IC is IC.

I think this is a really great rule of thumb in general.

[manipura]

I don't think that people are necessarily 'demonizing' any player who feels that it would be okay for their character to rape someone.  
I think that people are getting up in arms because the people feeling demonized continue to question why the policy is in place for rape and not other nasty stuff.

[Bacon]

I think that people are getting up in arms because the people feeling demonized continue to question why the policy is in place for rape and not other nasty stuff.

And although I'm fine with where the line is drawn, they do have a valid point and it's no reason to persecute them for pointing it out and is rather assholish on the part of those who are doing it.
I just hope they're not -actually- arguing for moving the line to consent for whether or not torture, murder, or robbery of a character is allowed to take place. If that happened, I'd be done. That's just too much for me personally.

[Nao]

I do care that players who decide to bring a little more realism and variables to the game and include rape as an option, are being demonized for saying so.

I've never raped another PC, and I'm not planning to. Apaprently I need to say this or some people will assume that I like playing serial rapists.

I'm feel like this thread is throwing me dirty looks for even considering to let my character be raped instead of saying 'this never happened'. Please get off your moral high ground and stop judging players for RP that all involved parties are fine with.

Also, implying that the only reason to rape another character IG is some fetish the player has is insulting. So is the assumption that someone that likes RPing this sort of thing is a sick sadist that would otherwise do this in the real world.

[Barzalene]

I thought when I started that I would say my peace and let it stand.

And a few times I've opened this window, typed, and closed it again without hitting send. Because, I thought, it stands on its own.

But I am going to clarify.

I started this thread, not because I see a problem with the policy. Nor have I observed anyone breaking this rule. My point was never to point a finger.

Instead, it's to remind those people, who might be vulnerable, or unsure of what to do in a situation that makes them unhappy or uncomfortable that they have a legitimate exit. I said this, because while most of you do not need that reassurance, some might.

[Sokotra]

There's still the issue of people probably getting killed if they don't feel comfortable consenting to certain things, which doesn't seem right to me - therein lies the problem with going over the line with the whole R rating deal instead of just keeping it at more of a middle-ground level.  Should everyone just say "ok fine I'll just go along with everyone else and allow myself to get raped even though I don't feel comfortable with it"?  Personally I would rather have a finger cut off or something... that would still be something interesting to RP with.  Heh.

[Barzalene]

Actually, I trust the people I rp with to handle no as adults. Perhaps when they were done raping their victim they would have killed them anyway. And they will. Perhaps they would have left them alive. I believe they will. If there is a reason to suspect that they would do otherwise I trust the staff to look hard at that. It's not my concern.

In the end, I can't control what anyone else will do about anything. I can only choose my own actions. Sometimes I find it easier to make the choice that's right for me when that choice is externally validated Why? I don't know. Maybe we have a psych major that can explain it. But that's the point here. Saying no is a valid option.

[Bacon]

That's kinda why I said I'd just go with maiming or killing if the pc would be the type to do something bad. That way I never have a situation where consent to rape is not given, my pc ends up killing or maiming them instead and then they claim that it's because they wouldn't consent to being raped. My opinion of it is though, they were going to do something bad to you, you get the choice in regards to rape and they have to go with that, don't bitch because your pc ends up dead or maimed instead.

[Qzzrbl]

There's still the issue of people probably getting killed if they don't feel comfortable consenting to certain things

Does this really happen at all?

[manipura]

I wouldn't think that someone (a player) who did not consent to their character being raped would then turn around and start complaining if they got killed or maimed instead. 

If, when being asked for consent, I say no and am OOC told "Well if you won't let my character rape yours then he or she will just kill you"...I'll be awfully pissy, but I'll accept my dead character (if that's what ends up happening).  If the policy was not in place and I ended up having a character that was a rape victim, I'd store immediately, whether the scene played out or faded.

[Nyr]

NOFUN, why are you so deadset on being able to rape people IG?

Because that is my fetish
No, I'm not. Truth be told I wouldn't give consent if another PC tried to rape mine, and I wouldn't attempt to rape another.

And it's not that I'm deadset on, it's people looking down on people for doing one thing while bragging about doing another. It's good play to run about amputating and torturing but if your character touches another characters breast without asking then you're OOCLY worse than Hitler.

I consider it somewhat ignorant that people see one thing as being ten thousand times worse than something else simply because it is something that happens more often and receives more media attention.  Quit judging other players on how they choose to play, so long as they're keeping in harmony with policy and documentation.

Like I said, it's bullshit double standards.

If your character begins a rape plotline without you as a player asking, then you're banned for 30 days for the first occurrence, permanently after the second (or permanently after the first, depending on Producer review).  If your character begins graphic mutilation/torture without you as a player asking permission OOC, you're banned 30 days for the first occurrence, permanently after the second.

Yes, the punishment for one is more severe initially depending on the nature of the offense; get over it.