Discussion of Rape being banned from plotlines

[Harmless]

Okay. We are now on day 8 of the amazing Holiday Rape Shitstorm. AKA, How Rape Raped Armers Christmas. AKA, How Rape made Sandy Claws too busy to give anybody presents this year.

Recently, Met has brought up an interesting issue, of "rape by false consent," where he is raising a real phenomenon of Western society whereby (usually women) are coerced into sex by strategies and tactics a rapist might use to make them feel obligated to have sex, where an obligation to have sex is implied or subconsciously believed by the victim. He is rightfully raising a question of a grey area in "rape," that, in the real world, real rapists abuse to rape people, but has a questionable existence in Zalanthas.

I was going to try and explain it in THIS thread why that can't happen in Zalanthas, but as I read my own post, I realized that it was really off-topic in this thread. Moreover, it is such an important topic that my one post would be drowned in the noise of accusations and other inappropriate posts that has had this thread closed -- twice. This thread is a discussion of rule changes, and in those rule changes, there are answers to every component of Metekillot's concerns -- they are not defined as rape in Zalanthas. It says so quite clearly in "help rape." However, it feels like Metekillot is asking "why" that is, and that is a different question. A different thread.

I feel that these questions merit Yet Another Spinoff Thread, discussing romance, coupling, and how it relates to the unique gender egalitarianism of Zalanthas, and why that could exclude the "rape by false consent" concept as a possibility in Zalanthas.

In preparing for this new discussion, I encourage participants to read the documentation, but also, please read this snippet, from a discussion of how Egalitarianism survives in hunter-gatherer societies.

Theory 1: Hunter-gatherers practiced a system of "reverse dominance" that prevented anyone from assuming power over others.

The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone–especially if some young man–attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.

So. Shall I make the new thread? Or do you guys really want to keep discussing this here, on page 17 of a thread that was supposed to be focused on discussion of a decision staff has made?

[Synthesis]

omg pagerolled again

[Harmless]

Yep. Lucky coincidence.

I'm not making any new threads yet. I'm going to wait for someone to flame me first.

[26 dollars]

This thread keeps reminding me of http://youtu.be/b4hNaFkbZYU

[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.

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.

After checking the post I see where Adhira stated as a fact that people did get hurt feelings over the issue of rape. That is was a very controversial topic for some players and it was determined that some players couldn't and shouldn't have to handle being put into those situations.

But, I do not see anywhere that it was stated this decision was made or came about to protect those players.

I do see repeatedly where it was stated that staff workload was the factor that brought about this change, not the consideration of the RL feelings of others.

Now, I will agree with you that the RL feelings of a few players and their repeated requests DID contribute to the staff workload issue in question, so the only way to fix the problem would be to get rid of those players, or put in a rule to keep them from complaining further.

It was decided to put in a rule, to keep them from complaining, for the PURPOSE of decreasing the staff workload. Not for the purpose of protecting their feelings. Protecting their feelings is collateral at best and if we could have kept rape and reduced the staff workload, we would have let their feelings continue to be hurt.

It is a fine distinction, but an important distinction.

The reason it is important is because Armageddon IS NOT pushing to become a PG13 setting.

If this decision was made for any other purpose, even peripheral in sense, than decreasing staff workload, then it is a push to make the game "safer" for certain players, and more "friendly to all", which is exactly the purpose of a PG13 setting.

Since staff said repeatedly the goal was not to make the game more PG13 friendly, and that the only purpose was the decrease in staff workload, I am going to choose to believe them and assume people's feelings and a safer environment were not considered.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the only factor considered was staff workload, or moral considerations and "empathy" played a part, and that is a direct push for a PG13 environment.

[Jingo]

After having to hear about how some players were consistently harassed ic and ooc and how it generally made their experience uncomfortable, or even made them want to quit outright.

Yeah I think those are the ones we should ban. 

Personally, I'll take the pg-13 rating if it means players don't need to deal with that kind of bullshit.

[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.

After checking the post I see where Adhira stated as a fact that people did get hurt feelings over the issue of rape. That is was a very controversial topic for some players and it was determined that some players couldn't and shouldn't have to handle being put into those situations.

But, I do not see anywhere that it was stated this decision was made or came about to protect those players.

I do see repeatedly where it was stated that staff workload was the factor that brought about this change, not the consideration of the RL feelings of others.

Now, I will agree with you that the RL feelings of a few players and their repeated requests DID contribute to the staff workload issue in question, so the only way to fix the problem would be to get rid of those players, or put in a rule to keep them from complaining further.

It was decided to put in a rule, to keep them from complaining, for the PURPOSE of decreasing the staff workload. Not for the purpose of protecting their feelings. Protecting their feelings is collateral at best and if we could have kept rape and reduced the staff workload, we would have let their feelings continue to be hurt.

It is a fine distinction, but an important distinction.

The reason it is important is because Armageddon IS NOT pushing to become a PG13 setting.

If this decision was made for any other purpose, even peripheral in sense, than decreasing staff workload, then it is a push to make the game "safer" for certain players, and more "friendly to all", which is exactly the purpose of a PG13 setting.

Since staff said repeatedly the goal was not to make the game more PG13 friendly, and that the only purpose was the decrease in staff workload, I am going to choose to believe them and assume people's feelings and a safer environment were not considered.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the only factor considered was staff workload, or moral considerations and "empathy" played a part, and that is a direct push for a PG13 environment.

wat

[Desertman]

wat

I can't make it any more clear.

The cut down version I guess is:

"We can't set the precedent that it is Armageddon staff policy to set rules in the game based on the sensibilities and moral standards of certain staff members or players."

That is exactly what the slippery slope argument is, and we don't want to feed that argument.

In fact, if this decision was made for the purpose of protecting certain players and making a "safer environment", then it doesn't just feed the slippery slope argument, it makes it right.

Nope.

This decision was made for one reason, the measurable and logical gains associated with staff workload. Not the emotional/moral/ethical desires of staff members or other players trying to enforce their own social agenda on the playerbase.

[Synthesis]

I suppose I'm more concerned with ultimate as opposed to proximal causes, when it comes to chains of events.  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's "just" a workload problem.

[Harmless]

After having to hear about how some players were consistently harassed ic and ooc and how it generally made their experience uncomfortable, or even made them want to quit outright.

Yeah I think those are the ones we should ban. 

Personally, I'll take the pg-13 rating if it means players don't need to deal with that kind of bullshit.

The rule changes as stated have absolutely no impact on what you're talking about. Why even mention it here? Why is a pg-13 rating going to help?

This thread isn't just frustrating, it's baffling. Nobody seems to want to talk about the same thing. Are we even speaking the same language?

[Desertman]

I suppose I'm more concerned with ultimate as opposed to proximal causes, when it comes to chains of events.  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's "just" a workload problem.

I will keep telling myself that, because telling myself that the staff did this to make the game more "wholesome" and "safer"  and "moral", for certain players is a pretty crappy concept to me, and not really a road I think the playerbase is prepared to go down.

[Synthesis]

I suppose I'm more concerned with ultimate as opposed to proximal causes, when it comes to chains of events.  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's "just" a workload problem.

I will keep telling myself that, because telling myself that the staff did this to make the game more "wholesome" and "safer"  and "moral", for certain players is a pretty crappy concept to me, and not really a road I think the playerbase is prepared to go down.

We've been going down that road ever since the Tuluki Rebellion

TULUK SLAM

*high-five*

[FreeRangeVestric]

I suppose I'm more concerned with ultimate as opposed to proximal causes, when it comes to chains of events.  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's "just" a workload problem.

I will keep telling myself that, because telling myself that the staff did this to make the game more "wholesome" and "safer"  and "moral", for certain players is a pretty crappy concept to me, and not really a road I think the playerbase is prepared to go down.

Here's what (I think) Synthesis was getting at:

1) Staff banned rape plotlines to decrease their workload.

2) Rape plotlines caused an increased staff workload because people would get offended by them, causing them to send in requests and complaints and the like.

3) Thus, staff banned rape plotlines with the primary cause being to stop people getting their moral sensibilities offended.

I'm also inclined to say that if it looks like a step towards a more 'wholesome' (even if we're a few thousand miles from anything like wholesome, still) setting, smells like a step towards a more 'wholsome' setting, etc...

(Dammit, I said I was done with this thread!)

[Desertman]

I suppose I'm more concerned with ultimate as opposed to proximal causes, when it comes to chains of events.  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's "just" a workload problem.

I will keep telling myself that, because telling myself that the staff did this to make the game more "wholesome" and "safer"  and "moral", for certain players is a pretty crappy concept to me, and not really a road I think the playerbase is prepared to go down.

We've been going down that road ever since the Tuluki Rebellion

TULUK SLAM

*high-five*

I admit, you made me have the chuckles.  

[Heade]

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.

Harmful? I don't think you understand my position. Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough. Either way, I agree that this portion of the conversation belongs in a different thread, which you can find here: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,46757.0.html

[jstorrie]

I will keep telling myself that, because telling myself that the staff did this to make the game more "wholesome" and "safer"  and "moral", for certain players is a pretty crappy concept to me, and not really a road I think the playerbase is prepared to go down.

The word you're looking for is "fun." They did it to make the game more "fun" for players. God forbid.

[Adhira]

I could give a shit about wholesome.

[evilcabbage]

I could give a shit about wholesome.

You guys heard it here first.

And I sig'd that.

[Drayab]

I don't blame staff for not wanting to deal with rape. Rape is just too real. I come here to escape. Give me a bone sword, a dinosaur to ride, and a giant insect to hunt.

[Heade]

And just to put a stop to the attempted character assassinations that have been levied against me as of late, I'll finally do what I've been avoiding this entire argument. Here goes:

I have never, not once, pursued or been involved in a rape in game in all my 15 years of playing. Just because I fervently defend EVERYONE's right to RP what they want between two consenting players doesn't mean that I play a bunch of rapists. It simply means I am interested in seeing people continue to be able to pursue adult themes, whatever those may be, so long as both involved parties are interested in doing so. I am not pro-rape. I am pro-fun between consenting players.

I've avoided mentioning the bolded topic specifically because I don't believe it matters. But with people continuing to try to call me creepy because I was defending an anti-censorship position, I began to feel like it mattered to the rest of the playerbase. Now, I suppose, I've had a brief taste of what it must have been like to be Larry Flynt's attorney.

please stop. one day, if you ever develop self-awareness, you'll regret this.

When presented with the opportunity to champion an opinion that I feel is for the betterment of a community I care about, or all mankind, I will -always- carry that cross. Even if it means that the unwashed masses will demonize me for defending their rights and freedoms. I'm not in it for the recognition. I'm in it to enact positive social change, even if I don't survive the experience to enjoy the results of said change. And perhaps, for all my effort, I change nothing. At least I can say I tried, and I fought the good fight.

Of course, I'd prefer not to be demonized for defending an idea. So, to those of you willing to think and read, any help to that end would be appreciated.

[lordcooper]

This is a pretendy fucking funtime game.  Dude, you ain't Martin Luther King.

[Desertman]

Haede, it isn't that you aren't right.

It's that you aren't going to win.

Let it go brother.

Edited to Add: Also, you do realize they aren't actually debating you anymore right? They are baiting you. They want you to keep going until you are banned. Just bow out before that happens.

[roughneck]

When presented with the opportunity to champion an opinion that I feel is for the betterment of a community I care about, or all mankind, I will -always- carry that cross.

It's a heavy cross you bear. Thank you for all the sacrifices you have made to keep me unfettered by the shackles of oppression.

[Harmless]

Best holidays ever on the GDB. Dateline NBC has never had so much business.

[Morgenes]

I think this thread has seen it's usefulness.