Discussion of Rape being banned from plotlines

[Harmless]

I'm a stickler for definitive consent IRL so that's why I care

That's your preference. You are required to be a stickler via ooc. I assure you a lot of folks here don't want any such requirement ICly, just the generalities as stated currently.

[MeTekillot]

If some dude drugs you into saying yes to sex that apparently isn't rape since you said yes technically

[FantasyWriter]

Is why some schools offer consent forms now.

[MeTekillot]

This thread, basically

[Heade]

I'm a stickler for definitive consent IRL so that's why I care

I find people like that to be mood killers IRL. If we are moving things along nicely, and someone stopped to say, "Just for the legal record, are you consenting to sexual relations with me?", I think that I might second-guess my previous decision to consent.

If two people are making out, feeling each other up, and begin undressing each other with no resistance, I take that as implied consent. And implied consent is not only sufficient, but much more exciting irl. Just my opinion.


Also, I'd like to point out that there are circumstances where RP wouldn't be condusive to definitive consent. For instance, RPing a scene in which a timid virgin girl has sex for the first time. Of course she's going to be hesitant. Of course she's going to be scared. That doesn't mean that both players aren't enjoying playing out the scene, or that it shouldn't happen. The character may start out that scene by rebuking advances, and only later be convinced to proceed. The character starting out saying no, then changing to a yes isn't important. The important part here is that the player OOCly gives consent. IC, you roleplay it out and see what happens.

[MeTekillot]

that is literally not at all what i was saying but i ceased taking you seriously when you compared banning rape to the holocaust

[Heade]

that is literally not at all what i was saying but i ceased taking you seriously when you compared banning rape to the holocaust

Uh, I think you've got the wrong person. Though, that comparison made me lol.

[MeTekillot]

Also I'm thinking more of a situation like this:

Amos gives Amosa drugs and sexes her up something nasty. Apparently, this is not rape, because Amosa said yes, even though she was compromised. The definition of rape in the rules seems to be violently violating someone as they say no(?). But anyway, this is apparently not rape so the plot is going along swimmingly it was coercion or something(). Malik hears about this and says "dude that's totally not cool that's fucked up that's. . .rape. Malik is force-stored. Plot continues.

I don't thinks this is exactly what is going to happen. I am really just pushing for someone to DEFINE what sort of rape is allowed, because from what I understand, sexual coercion is allowed with this rule-set (which I personally believe to just be a form of rape). If someone has sex with you because something bad happens if they don't, that's rape. It seems this rule only bans violent acts of forcing sex upon a refusing person. Am I understanding it correctly?

[MeTekillot]

   First they came for the Communists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

   Then they came for the Socialists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

   Then they came for the trade unionists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

   Then they came for me,
   and there was no one left to speak for me.

The original form of this saying included the Jews, if I'm not mistaken. This is what I was referring to.

[Heade]

Also I'm thinking more of a situation like this:

Amos gives Amosa drugs and sexes her up something nasty. Apparently, this is not rape, because Amosa said yes, even though she was compromised. The definition of rape in the rules seems to be violently violating someone as they say no(?). But anyway, this is apparently not rape so the plot is going along swimmingly it was coercion or something(). Malik hears about this and says "dude that's totally not cool that's fucked up that's. . .rape. Malik is force-stored. Plot continues.

I don't thinks this is exactly what is going to happen. I am really just pushing for someone to DEFINE what sort of rape is allowed, because from what I understand, sexual coercion is allowed with this rule-set (which I personally believe to just be a form of rape). If someone has sex with you because something bad happens if they don't, that's rape. It seems this rule only bans violent acts of forcing sex upon a refusing person. Am I understanding it correctly?

Yes. That, and it bans falsely accusing someone of rape. Which includes accusing someone of rape when what they did falls in the categories previously discussed. So, in zalanthas, getting drugged up and being taken advantage of isn't rape. On Zalanthas, it's considered making a regretful decision while under the influence, which is what it should be anyhow. People still make their own decisions, even while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The RL trend of being able to say "YES" while drunk, then go back and say "Hmm, I wouldn't have done that if I was sober, so it's rape." is ludicrous. How is someone else supposed to know at what point you've crossed a line from being able to give lucid consent, to only consenting because you're drunk/drugged into lowered inhibitions?

I was drunk once, and had sex with a really fat chick. She was cute for a fat girl, but still, I likely wouldn't have slept with her if I were sober. Was I raped? No. I made a poor, regretful decision while under the influence. And I live with that, I don't try to ruin someone else's life over it.

    First they came for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

    Then they came for the Socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

The original form of this saying included the Jews, if I'm not mistaken. This is what I was referring to.

Nope. That is the original form. Anything else you've seen is a derivative of that, of which there are many. I could have tailored this to the arm community, but I instead chose to use the original form of "They came for me", knowing that the majority of people in the arm community could make the logical jump and apply it appropriately.

[MeTekillot]

regretful decision while under the influence, which is what it should be anyhow.

If this is what you think, then this conversation really has nowhere to go because we are basing our arguments on a subject on two completely different sets of beliefs and I'm going to have to withdraw.

[Heade]

regretful decision while under the influence, which is what it should be anyhow.

If this is what you think, then this conversation really has nowhere to go because we are basing our arguments on a subject on two completely different sets of beliefs and I'm going to have to withdraw.

Fair enough, because under your belief system, I've been raped, and I assure you I haven't been.

[Fujikoma]

Yeah, IC consent is a bit muddy. You may find yourself with an IC no on intercourse, but maybe a yes on something else, which leads to IC consent being granted for the other thing in due time.  I don't think that counts as rape.

[Harmless]

This thread, basically

Edited: I had a long post here, then I watched this video. This video is nothing like what I was saying, it's a moronic rapist (aka a PUA). I went on a crazy string of edits of this post, trying to articulate several things: how PUAs don't exist in Zalanthas as they do IRL, how the value system of PUAs is grounded in a set of beliefs that shouldn't and wouldn't survive in Zalanthas. I tried to tell you how to look into this further and understand how that is the case. I tried to explain in one of the edits how the rules rebuke everything you stated as "rape" in your post, isn't. But, alas, I don't think there's really any way I can, in one post, get you from thinking one way to another on this issue. I tried to edit this post, again and again, and I was never satisfied with what I had. There's no way that I'll be satisfied with this post, really. Sorry, Met. You're right, we all have to withdraw from this discussion. It's unsatisfying but it's just the right thing to do.

[Malifaxis]

   First they came for the kanks,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a kank.

   Then they came for the halflings,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a halfling.

   Then they came for the tan Muark,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a tan Muark.

   Then they came for me,
   and there was no one left who could use the say command.

FTFY.

I don't play anymore, but hey, I've seen a lot of really cool characters fucking wrecked by rape plotlines.  Alternately, I have seen some people in game that I knew had been raped and had dealt with it in a completely realistic manner that made the characters even more goddamn awesome than ever.

IMHO (which does not matter one iota) rape should be left in the players hands, but if someone OOCs: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT YOU GODDAMN TWAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS AND I WILL EMAIL THIS FUCKING LOG TO YOUR GODDAMN MOTHER IF YOU DON'T STOP, well then you should bloody well listen.  Or even if they ooc:  "No."  You should listen then, too.

But the ball (no pun intended) has been called, and I know for a fact how in, out (goddamn puns, I am seriously not trying here) and sideways the staff have dissected this issue, and this is the best solution they could come (FUCKING WHAT THE HELL) up with to make the roleplay more fluid (oh I give up... however viscous that fluid must be *eyeroll*.)

Anyway, I'm drunk, there's my 2 am 2 cents.

Peace.

[Aruven]

   First they came for the kanks,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a kank.

   Then they came for the halflings,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a halfling.

   Then they came for the tan Muark,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a tan Muark.

   Then they came for me,
   and there was no one left who could use the say command.

FTFY.

I don't play anymore, but hey, I've seen a lot of really cool characters fucking wrecked by rape plotlines.  Alternately, I have seen some people in game that I knew had been raped and had dealt with it in a completely realistic manner that made the characters even more goddamn awesome than ever.

IMHO (which does not matter one iota) rape should be left in the players hands, but if someone OOCs: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT YOU GODDAMN TWAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS AND I WILL EMAIL THIS FUCKING LOG TO YOUR GODDAMN MOTHER IF YOU DON'T STOP, well then you should bloody well listen.  Or even if they ooc:  "No."  You should listen then, too.

But the ball (no pun intended) has been called, and I know for a fact how in, out (goddamn puns, I am seriously not trying here) and sideways the staff have dissected this issue, and this is the best solution they could come (FUCKING WHAT THE HELL) up with to make the roleplay more fluid (oh I give up... however viscous that fluid must be *eyeroll*.)

Anyway, I'm drunk, there's my 2 am 2 cents.

Peace.

[Zoltan]

Also I'm thinking more of a situation like this:

Amos gives Amosa drugs and sexes her up something nasty. Apparently, this is not rape, because Amosa said yes, even though she was compromised. The definition of rape in the rules seems to be violently violating someone as they say no(?). But anyway, this is apparently not rape so the plot is going along swimmingly it was coercion or something(). Malik hears about this and says "dude that's totally not cool that's fucked up that's. . .rape. Malik is force-stored. Plot continues.

I don't thinks this is exactly what is going to happen. I am really just pushing for someone to DEFINE what sort of rape is allowed, because from what I understand, sexual coercion is allowed with this rule-set (which I personally believe to just be a form of rape). If someone has sex with you because something bad happens if they don't, that's rape. It seems this rule only bans violent acts of forcing sex upon a refusing person. Am I understanding it correctly?

Yes. That, and it bans falsely accusing someone of rape. Which includes accusing someone of rape when what they did falls in the categories previously discussed. So, in zalanthas, getting drugged up and being taken advantage of isn't rape. On Zalanthas, it's considered making a regretful decision while under the influence, which is what it should be anyhow. People still make their own decisions, even while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The RL trend of being able to say "YES" while drunk, then go back and say "Hmm, I wouldn't have done that if I was sober, so it's rape." is ludicrous. How is someone else supposed to know at what point you've crossed a line from being able to give lucid consent, to only consenting because you're drunk/drugged into lowered inhibitions?

I was drunk once, and had sex with a really fat chick. She was cute for a fat girl, but still, I likely wouldn't have slept with her if I were sober. Was I raped? No. I made a poor, regretful decision while under the influence. And I live with that, I don't try to ruin someone else's life over it.

Jesus Christ. Game rules are one thing, and as I mentioned earlier, I find them to be suitable for day-to-day purposes of playing the game. I've said all I care to on that, but this attitude needs to be addressed. If not for Heade's own understanding, then for that of other members of the community who may just be getting their first whiff of some crucial social issues due to this thread.

This is why some people are encouraging, IRL, the concept of sober, enthusiastic consent. It's possible to eliminate a lot of gray area by having respect for yourself, and respect and empathy for others. The gray area is where actual rapists thrive, as it enables them to muddy the waters and silence the victim. There is of course nuance to everything in the real world, but too often arguments like "it was merely a regrettable act" are used to soften and excuse actual acts of sexual violence and exploitation. These attitudes cause real harm by enabling actual offenders and discouraging their victims from reporting them.

Despite Heade's distastefully-worded anecdote, this isn't a personal attack. At an earlier age, his logic would have seemed sound to me. In recent years I delved deeper into investigating these issues and learned about the harm I've done by just standing by. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I recommend doing some reading on "rape culture" and thinking about how it applies to your own life and interactions.

[Desertman]

I think we are getting dangerously close to the, "This is no longer about Zalanthas and more about accusing each other of things IRL and questioning each other's RL morals.", line.

Let's not do that. It doesn't belong in this thread, even if it is well intended advice.

This is about Zalanthas.

[Barzalene]

Also I'm thinking more of a situation like this:

Amos gives Amosa drugs and sexes her up something nasty. Apparently, this is not rape, because Amosa said yes, even though she was compromised. The definition of rape in the rules seems to be violently violating someone as they say no(?). But anyway, this is apparently not rape so the plot is going along swimmingly it was coercion or something(). Malik hears about this and says "dude that's totally not cool that's fucked up that's. . .rape. Malik is force-stored. Plot continues.

I don't thinks this is exactly what is going to happen. I am really just pushing for someone to DEFINE what sort of rape is allowed, because from what I understand, sexual coercion is allowed with this rule-set (which I personally believe to just be a form of rape). If someone has sex with you because something bad happens if they don't, that's rape. It seems this rule only bans violent acts of forcing sex upon a refusing person. Am I understanding it correctly?

Yes. That, and it bans falsely accusing someone of rape. Which includes accusing someone of rape when what they did falls in the categories previously discussed. So, in zalanthas, getting drugged up and being taken advantage of isn't rape. On Zalanthas, it's considered making a regretful decision while under the influence, which is what it should be anyhow. People still make their own decisions, even while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The RL trend of being able to say "YES" while drunk, then go back and say "Hmm, I wouldn't have done that if I was sober, so it's rape." is ludicrous. How is someone else supposed to know at what point you've crossed a line from being able to give lucid consent, to only consenting because you're drunk/drugged into lowered inhibitions?

I was drunk once, and had sex with a really fat chick. She was cute for a fat girl, but still, I likely wouldn't have slept with her if I were sober. Was I raped? No. I made a poor, regretful decision while under the influence. And I live with that, I don't try to ruin someone else's life over it.

Jesus Christ. Game rules are one thing, and as I mentioned earlier, I find them to be suitable for day-to-day purposes of playing the game. I've said all I care to on that, but this attitude needs to be addressed. If not for Heade's own understanding, then for that of other members of the community who may just be getting their first whiff of some crucial social issues due to this thread.

This is why some people are encouraging, IRL, the concept of sober, enthusiastic consent. It's possible to eliminate a lot of gray area by having respect for yourself, and respect and empathy for others. The gray area is where actual rapists thrive, as it enables them to muddy the waters and silence the victim. There is of course nuance to everything in the real world, but too often arguments like "it was merely a regrettable act" are used to soften and excuse actual acts of sexual violence and exploitation. These attitudes cause real harm by enabling actual offenders and discouraging their victims from reporting them.

Despite Heade's distastefully-worded anecdote, this isn't a personal attack. At an earlier age, his logic would have seemed sound to me. In recent years I delved deeper into investigating these issues and learned about the harm I've done by just standing by. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I recommend doing some reading on "rape culture" and thinking about how it applies to your own life and interactions.

Thank you for posting that. You said what I might have liked to, far less shrilly than I would have.

I am uncomfortable with the line of reasoning that insists that any sensitivity to people's feelings is pandering to the oversensitive. I think its perfectly possible to play in a way that doesn't bring hugs and unicorns and still has a cognizance of real people behind the PCs they play. Our characters may have broken moral compasses, but we shouldn't. And if that means I've broken the game and you (editorial you, not Zoltan) are  don't want to play with me - good.

[Barzalene]

Told you I'd be shrill.

OK D-man. I'll be more quiet now.

[Desertman]

I am uncomfortable with the line of reasoning that insists that any sensitivity to people's feelings is pandering to the oversensitive.

It isn't that the staff doesn't care about their feelings. It's that they aren't in the business of making decisions for the entire playerbase based on being sensitive to the feelings of specific groups.

They have a goal. To run the game efficiently.

This decision was about the staff's workload. Emotional sensitivity to specific groups was never taken into consideration as part of this decision, because this isn't a move to PG13, or a move to making the game more "feeling friendly (also known as PG13)".

It's not that I don't care about people's feelings.

It's just that everyone bringing up that point in this thread repeatedly is doing nothing to add to the conversation, because their point was never even considered.

All it is conducive to is making the "morally just" group feel vindicated, and the "morally judged" group angry and flamey.

So why do it?

Because people can't control themselves. *sigh*

If your point in this thread is, "We need this because of morals/feelings." You have no point.

Zalanthan morals are the only morals that matter for this discussion, and the staff's workload is the only RL issue that is being considered.

[Cutthroat]

The fact that you can simply not consent to the "Amos and Amosa experiment with drugs" sex scene should entirely eliminate the whole "consenting under the influence" concern regardless of whether players RL find such tactics repugnant, because the players themselves are not drunk or drugged while playing Arm (presumably) and can therefore decide how inhibited their characters actually are. To my knowledge, there is literally nothing in this game that will 100% put a coded effect on your PC to have sex with the first thing you see (if there is, there probably shouldn't be at this point), and any related coded effects/echoes at best suggest a raising of arousal which can still be tempered by the player's control.

[Zoltan]

The fact that you can simply not consent to the "Amos and Amosa experiment with drugs" sex scene should entirely eliminate the whole "consenting under the influence" concern regardless of whether players RL find such tactics repugnant, because the players themselves are not drunk or drugged while playing Arm (presumably) and can therefore decide how inhibited their characters actually are. To my knowledge, there is literally nothing in this game that will 100% put a coded effect on your PC to have sex with the first thing you see (if there is, there probably shouldn't be at this point), and any related coded effects/echoes at best suggest a raising of arousal which can still be tempered by the player's control.

I agree with this. I think the game rules are fine, and so are the reasons that the stuff enacted them. I just couldn't let such a harmful RL attitude stand without at least a token rebuttal. I'm done talking about it in this thread.

[Desertman]

Because people can't control themselves. *sigh*

I'm just saying. I called it.

(I'm one of the biggest offenders.)

[Synthesis]

I am uncomfortable with the line of reasoning that insists that any sensitivity to people's feelings is pandering to the oversensitive.

It isn't that the staff doesn't care about their feelings. It's that they aren't in the business of making decisions for the entire playerbase based on being sensitive to the feelings of specific groups.

They have a goal. To run the game efficiently.

This decision was about the staff's workload. Emotional sensitivity to specific groups was never taken into consideration as part of this decision, because this isn't a move to PG13, or a move to making the game more "feeling friendly (also known as PG13)".

It's not that I don't care about people's feelings.

It's just that everyone bringing up that point in this thread repeatedly is doing nothing to add to the conversation, because their point was never even considered.

All it is conducive to is making the "morally just" group feel vindicated, and the "morally judged" group angry and flamey.

So why do it?

Because people can't control themselves. *sigh*

If your point in this thread is, "We need this because of morals/feelings." You have no point.

Zalanthan morals are the only morals that matter for this discussion, and the staff's workload is the only RL issue that is being considered.

I already debunked this opinion, but got pagerolled.  Check Adhira's post on the first page of the thread, and you'll find that, in fact, RL feelings about such plotlines were indeed a consideration.