Discussion of Rape being banned from plotlines

[MeTekillot]

Armed sexual coercion is basically using physical force to rape and is thus, not allowed.

[Adhira]

As you point out there are many possible interpretations here, and if you search for them I'm sure you can keep coming up with new situations.

At the end of it all the base takeaway is that you cannot play out rape plotlines in Armageddon. Sex that is coerced through power being exerted over another must be consensual. It cannot be classed as rape and someone cannot be accused of raping another.

If you have questions about a situation that arises when in game feel free to wish up to ask for staff input.

[Narf]

... why change the entire system? Why not just make the rule: "You cannot falsely accuse someone of rape."

I got the impression from reading all the help files in Morgene's links that 'changing the entire system' consisted of exactly two actual changes.

No rape accusations.

No physical force (direct or indirect) to initiate sex.

I mean there was a litttttle more than that, but not much. The overwhelming amount of added verbage was clarification rather than creation of new policy.

[MeTekillot]

The recent (that is, IRL) debate of what consent is is probably the reason you're going to get a lot of questions on what you guys mean by "consent". From what I see, it's just "yes" from a conscious person who isn't being ACTIVELY physically threatened, even if they are drunk/poor/on the low end of the power scale/being coerced. Could you guys maybe think of a different word for consent, or maybe just give us YOUR definition of consent for the purposes of the rules?

[Adhira]

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Consent

[MeTekillot]

I mean like, IC consent to sex.

My IRL definition of consent is an enthusiastic, sober yes (or some other representation of such) without something being held over their head if they are not interested in the sex.

[evilcabbage]

As you point out there are many possible interpretations here, and if you search for them I'm sure you can keep coming up with new situations.

At the end of it all the base takeaway is that you cannot play out rape plotlines in Armageddon. Sex that is coerced through power being exerted over another must be consensual. It cannot be classed as rape and someone cannot be accused of raping another.

If you have questions about a situation that arises when in game feel free to wish up to ask for staff input.

What Adhira is saying is at the end of the day the person being coerced can -still- say no. "I'll kill you unless you..." is probably a coercion extreme that wouldn't be accepted, but, "I'll forgive you running out the gates as a runner if you..." is probably more acceptable.

Holding a weapon over somebody... is like giving them the choice of do or die. That's rape. Holding a job or position or item of importance or less jail time isn't rape.

[Adhira]

Consent, as per our rules, is an OOC concept. It doesn't matter what type of RP is being consented to. If it falls within the area of needing consent then it needs to be asked via OOC and replied to via OOC. In general it is better to be specific about what is being consented to, rather than just 'OOC do you consent'.  Instead it should follow the lines of 'OOC do you consent to roleplayed torture' or 'OOC do you consent to roleplay of a sexual nature'. 

[MeTekillot]

Sex that is coerced through power being exerted over another must be consensual.

Is your reference to the consensuality right here referring to IC consent or OOC consent? That's what I'm meaning. I completely understand the OOC consent rules.

[MeTekillot]

Like are you guys defining rape as "hold you down and have sex with you while you're kicking and resisting" or is raping someone via giving them drugs that make them horny against their will or getting them drunk or otherwise having them have sex with you without physical force or what I'm a bit confused here

[FreeRangeVestric]

At the end of it all the base takeaway is that you cannot play out rape plotlines in Armageddon. Sex that is coerced through power being exerted over another must be consensual. It cannot be classed as rape and someone cannot be accused of raping another.

That seems to me to be a contradictory set of statements, however. If you're exerting power over another person to get consent for sex, that is rape. A person who gets a dagger held to their throat and gets told to have sex or die is consenting through coercion in essentially the same way a person who agrees to sex because they don't want to piss off Lord Templar Fancypants/the scary person they mated up with, in my opinion, or at least the only differences look to be rather arbitrary to base rules off of.

Again, I'm glad that staff saw fit to keep coercion and power abuses in the game, as I feel they're good components for displaying how corrupt the world is. I just still don't see the essential differences that make one sort of rape okay by the rules and another not.

Holding a weapon over somebody... is like giving them the choice of do or die. That's rape. Holding a job or position or item of importance or less jail time isn't rape.

So by that definition, a shadowy figure approaches in the alleys and says, "Give me all your 'sids, or we're doing the naughty right here." That seems about as rape-y as it gets, but since the threat of death has been ruled out, it's just 'coercion?'

[Fujikoma]

If someone fails a pickpocket attempt, is it ok to look around and ask "Who grabbed my ass? Was it you? Did you grab my ass? I mean, it's ok if you did.", or do you need to get OOC consent first?

[MeTekillot]

Please don't be a cheeky fuck until my question is answered then I don't care.

[Fujikoma]

Please don't be a cheeky fuck until my question is answered then I don't care.

If you're talking to me, it's a serious concern of mine, even if it is a quote from "Night at the Roxbury", I mean misinterpreting "You feel hands in your cloak, but are unable to determine the culprit" and turning to accuse someone of touching you, likely as a joke with no malicious intent. Some could view this as being accused of unwanted contact...

[Lizzie]

Thanks so much to Adhira, Morgenes, et al for listening to our "devil's advocate" rants and taking the issues as seriously as we intended for them to convey!

The result - I for one am very happy with, since my primary issue was the whole "you can't discuss that your character was raped even by a VNPC" which would have left out most half-elven roleplay/discussion of their character backgrounds. Here's the change for those who don't want to link:

Your character can be a rapist, or a product of rape. However, as per the rules outlined above, you can never rape a PC or NPC character. You may do so to VNPCs, as well as have thoughts of raping others, but you may not act on it as outlined in the definition of rape given above.

You may speak of rape, or being raped, but it can never lead to a PC or NPC being accused of that rape or being raped by anyone. You can assume that if someone is talking about being raped or raping someone, that it was with a VNPC.

So - my character can be a victim of virtual rape, by a VNPC, and it can be part of her backstory. "No Lady Templar, I'm not really a rinthi. You caught me on Hathor's coming out because I was dragged in and raped. Someone in there took pity on me and dragged me off the road until I could heal, then let me go. That's why I have only the clothes on my back and a waterskin to my name."

The templar's player knows that it had to have been a virtual rape, that it didn't involve any players, and so he doesn't need to dig too deeply into the investigation. I know that I shouldn't attempt to turn it into a serious investigation, because the whole thing happened off-camera, but that I -can- use this type of RP to explain an incident in my character's virtual life.

[valeria]

I'm much more comfortable with these clarifications.  Thanks for the quick consideration and update on this!

[Inks]

This pretty much solved the problems I had with this. Vnpcs you are going to get it!

[Zoltan]

I've been lurking, but just want to chime in that I'm pleased with this change and the clarifications made. Like Metekillot, my definition of consent IRL is probably more precise than what is mainstream (sadly), which gave me a lot of concerns about this new ruling. I think the helpfile is sufficient in its explanation, though, and a lot of this gray area stuff can be taken care of by good reporting to staff, timely wishes, and immediate, up-front OOCs when necessary.

[FantasyWriter]

If the character says, "No," or "Stop" ICly, pursuing it further is rape. You cannot continue regardless of OOC consent.
If the character feels pressured but never refuses the advances, it is coercion, not force. You may ask for consent and continue.

[Jengal]

How often do all you guys get into situations where you almost rape people IG like jeez

[A Large Bag]

I am perfectly satisfied with the clarification/adjustment to this change as it stands now. No problems here. Thank you staff.

[Desertman]

Just dropping in to give my support of the new guidelines.

While I don't like the idea of having to censor anything in the game, our playerbase IS growing. Which is a good thing. We aren't the same core group of 50 vets and a newbie or two coming along every now and then that would adapt or leave.

It looks like we get a lot of new players on a fairly regular basis these days, and I like to think of this as just a growing pain.

In a lot of cases we have newbs teaching newbs out there. That wasn't the case ten years ago. It is the case now. We have newbs trying to do rape roleplay plotlines with other newbs. People who don't "understand" or "get" Armageddon yet.

That of course results in people submitting a ton of player complaints about adult situations in game they just weren't ready for. They aren't seasoned enough in Armageddon yet to separate the reality from the virtual reality.

Ten years ago, when we were a relatively small core of veteran players, this problem didn't exist.

It does exist now.

But, isn't it a PRETTY GOOD thought to think that it only exists because we are GETTING BIGGER as a playerbase?

I like having people to play with. Even if it's nubs.

We needs them boots.  

Anyways, the new rules allow me to continue to play truly evil villains to the same extent I would have in the past, more or less, and I give my support.

Thanks to the staff for being open minded enough to have a second look at this and work with the playerbase.

[Harmless]

After reading through the new revisions, I also agree that they are well suited to the goals of the original change as well as addressing the community's concerns about backstories. I think they fit well with the theme.

Others here are asking about the "how" of the consent process, and I just wanted to say as I read the rules, I didn't have any such questions. In my mind, consent is consent. If the character says "yes," and the player oocly says "yes," then the nature of the sex -- if there's holding down, or even drugs or what have you -- doesn't really matter. It was no longer rape when the two parties were willing to go into it.

As long as both sides can OOCly ask at any time to stop the scene, that consent is no longer given, then this system feels very safe. Maybe it isn't foolproof, but we already discussed that -- the goal of the rule changes was to remove some workload and reduce hurt feelings, and this will do that as well as any rule change can without stifling the roleplay of those who wish to pursue these plotlines. 10/10.

[Synthesis]

I mean like, IC consent to sex.

My IRL definition of consent is an enthusiastic, sober yes (or some other representation of such) without something being held over their head if they are not interested in the sex.

Hope you're never getting married, then.

*ba-dum tsh*

[Zoan]

"Consent?"

"No, I've got a headache...long day of work tomorrow...just wanna sleep..."