Don't worry about the slippery slope argument...

[Heade]

Governing Body: We, the government of the people, for the people, hereby declare that you have nothing to worry about. Just because we are stifling and suppressing this one idea that we don't agree with doesn't mean that other things will be stifled and suppressed in the future. Heck, most of you don't care about this issue anyhow.

Citizen #1: Long live the governing body!

Citizen #2: Wait just a moment. I dissent. If you're going to step all over this idea, even if you say it won't spread to other things, what stops you in the future if we don't stand up for this now? What guarantee do we have that you won't try t silence us when we disagree on something else?

Governing Body: Thread Locked.

[Rathustra]

I'm not sure what this is in aid of, but the discussion thread was closed because the 'discussion' had degraded into 'x is a bigot', 'y is a facist' and what-have-you.

Also I don't consider myself part of a 'governing body' any more than I consider the head of MAD Magazine to be a member of a governing body.

[evilcabbage]

That thread needed to be locked because it became a lot of people badmouthing other people, which in turn led to the thread being locked. Maybe if people could be nicer and more civil, it wouldn't have happened.

[Zoan]

I'm pretty sure there's a Law similar to that one about Hitler and online discussion that given enough time, all threads devolve into mudslinging and need to be locked, if they go unchecked.

[mansa]

In my opinion, there already are rules we follow that affect our decisions of roleplay and limit what we can do.

a) you can`t play a new character and make friends with your old character`s friends.
b) you can`t bring sexual discrimination into the game.
c) you must follow the world and not bring in anachronistic items

There are many example of this that are already limiting the actions you can do within the game world.


Adding to it won`t cause the game to stop working.  It will further limit roleplay options.  

I`m okay with this new limit being introduced, though.

[Cutthroat]

Slippery slope is a fallacy when there is no proof that the slope exists. In fact, those arguing slippery slope in that thread couldn't cohesively define what the slope actually was.

- "Staff are going to ban all plots that could potentially offend other people's sensibilities." (Fallacious because torture plots would have been banned years ago.)
- "Staff are going to ban all plots that they do not have the manpower to oversee." (Fallacious because political/murder/war/etc plots would have been banned years ago.)

The whole "I did not speak up because I was not a Communist" thing is very noble, but I think at this point you should think about what battles you are picking, actually look and see if staff have demonstrably shown that they have a habit of doing what you are accusing them of doing.

[LauraMars]

Governing Body: We, the government of the people, for the people, hereby declare that you have nothing to worry about. Just because we are stifling and suppressing this one idea that we don't agree with doesn't mean that other things will be stifled and suppressed in the future. Heck, most of you don't care about this issue anyhow.

Citizen #1: Long live the governing body!

Citizen #2: Wait just a moment. I dissent. If you're going to step all over this idea, even if you say it won't spread to other things, what stops you in the future if we don't stand up for this now? What guarantee do we have that you won't try t silence us when we disagree on something else?

Governing Body: Thread Locked.

Any private organization has the right to allow or disallow whatever kind of discussion it wants.  Your right to free speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT...Armageddon is not the Government.  Please stop comparing it to the government or any kind of political entity, ideology, or movement.  It is none of those things.

[Zoan]

I'm Australian, we talk about whatever we goddamn feel like, and if someone takes offense we have emu duels, similar to the game Joust!

We're pretty rad, Australia.

[Narf]

Governing Body: We, the government of the people, for the people, hereby declare that you have nothing to worry about. Just because we are stifling and suppressing this one idea that we don't agree with doesn't mean that other things will be stifled and suppressed in the future. Heck, most of you don't care about this issue anyhow.

Citizen #1: Long live the governing body!

Citizen #2: Wait just a moment. I dissent. If you're going to step all over this idea, even if you say it won't spread to other things, what stops you in the future if we don't stand up for this now? What guarantee do we have that you won't try t silence us when we disagree on something else?

Governing Body: Thread Locked.

I feel like you're actually playing two role playing games now. One where you pretend to fight to survive in a brutal to totalitarian regime with bone swords, and the other where you pretend to fight against oppression in a totalitarian regime with boisterous forum posts.

[Adhira]

I'm Australian, we talk about whatever we goddamn feel like, and if someone takes offense we have emu duels, similar to the game Joust!

We're pretty rad, Australia.

Says you. I'm going to use my oppressive totalitarian regime to totally crush Australia.

[FreeRangeVestric]

- "Staff are going to ban all plots that could potentially offend other people's sensibilities." (Fallacious because torture plots would have been banned years ago.)

You could make the argument that the two topics most offensive to peoples' sensibilities, slavery and then rape, have been banned in that order, and that the pattern could continue. That said, I know slippery slopes are generally a logical fallacy people commit instead of an actual thing.

My stance as strongly against this censorship remains, however, no matter how slippery said slope is, or if it even exists.

[Zoan]

I'm Australian, we talk about whatever we goddamn feel like, and if someone takes offense we have emu duels, similar to the game Joust!

We're pretty rad, Australia.

Says you. I'm going to use my oppressive totalitarian regime to totally crush Australia.

With what standing army? The All Blacks?

...Actually that does sound kind of terrifying.

[Morgenes]

- "Staff are going to ban all plots that could potentially offend other people's sensibilities." (Fallacious because torture plots would have been banned years ago.)

You could make the argument that the two topics most offensive to peoples' sensibilities, slavery and then rape, have been banned in that order, and that the pattern could continue. That said, I know slippery slopes are generally a logical fallacy people commit instead of an actual thing.

My stance as strongly against this censorship remains, however, no matter how slippery said slope is, or if it even exists.

Actually, in both cases, staff has said that the reason this was changed was due to issues with the administration of slave and rape.  Never did we say either of them had anything to do with our convictions over the topics.

It's pretty simple, we are still a game where the decisions about how it is administered are made by the staff.  We try and listen to what players have to say, and weight it with our own knowledge and make the decisions that we feel fit the game.

Heade, I'm sorry you are unhappy with the direction you've found the game going.  The fact of the matter is, you are not paying anything to play this game (and at your own admission you haven't been playing the game), and so you are complaining about what the volunteer staff of a game that you don't play is doing.  So, you have a choice, you can play the game, and positively contribute, possibly even becoming staff and making the change you want to see, or you can continue to stay away from the game.

[FreeRangeVestric]

Actually, in both cases, staff has said that the reason this was changed was due to issues with the administration of slave and rape.

I was already aware of what was said in both cases. It doesn't change the fact that the two things that were banned happened to be the two things that generally offend our players' (people in general, really) sensibilities the most.

Also, from the original announcement,

While we regret having to outright ban an avenue of play from the game this topic continues to create a large workload for staff, as well as being a controversial point for players and staff alike.

It seems like both were a factor in the decision, going off of that.

[Adhira]

Yes but controversial for staff was more - the controversy of how much this area is worth our time, vs other things and so on.  Not necessarily that staff have personal issues with said topics.

[Norcal]

I'm Australian, we talk about whatever we goddamn feel like, and if someone takes offense we have emu duels, similar to the game Joust!

We're pretty rad, Australia.

Says you. I'm going to use my oppressive totalitarian regime to totally crush Australia.

With what standing army? The All Blacks?

...Actually that does sound kind of terrifying.

The All Blacks.....Pleeeaaaase...NZ could not even get the Hobbit right could they?  I am thinking more like rabbits. It's worked pretty well in the past.

[ghostymudy]

10/10.

This thread was a fantastic drinking night ender.

Top lel.

[Heade]

Any private organization has the right to allow or disallow whatever kind of discussion it wants.  Your right to free speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT...Armageddon is not the Government.  Please stop comparing it to the government or any kind of political entity, ideology, or movement.  It is none of those things.

Actually, the staff of Armageddon IS a government. See below.

gov·ern·ment

/ˈgəvər(n)mənt/

noun: government; plural noun: governments

1. the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

So, you have a choice, you can play the game, and positively contribute, possibly even becoming staff and making the change you want to see, or you can continue to stay away from the game.

I am going to continue to play the game. I love you guys. I'm just an idealist who will always argue for the ideal situation, even if said ideal situation is harder to manage. To any staff who read this thread, please don't take offense. The opening post was designed to generate buzz and controversy, not necessarily to be accusatory.



P.S. You're welcome ghosty.

[FantasyWriter]

They don't govern us, the community. They govern their property, the game, the same way that the CEO or management governs nearly ever private business in the world.

[Heade]

They don't govern us, the community. They govern their property, the game, the same way that the CEO or management governs nearly ever private business in the world.

When they hold the power to make you no longer a member of said community, they govern you and your behavior within that community. At this point, I feel like you're grasping at straws here. They fit the definition of government. Period.

[evilcabbage]

Either way the decision was made, and as far as I've seen has had no actual negative impact on the game. In fact, it may have a positive impact on the retention of players who might otherwise have been leery of joining the game because rape plots were allowed to begin with, and might have been afraid that their character would have been the subject of a rape plot, or forced to be involved in such a plot, or heard about such a plot that would have made them incredibly uncomfortable.

There are consent rules for torture. Rape is harder to enforce because someone can go ahead and accuse somebody else Ig of rape, and it EXPLODES into this huge thing where everybody in a single region gets affected, and the playerbase has shown on many occasions that it does not have the clout to properly handle it in a zalanthan way. And that's only PART of it.

The other part is the obvious thing from before:  it makes people uncomfortable. It might bring up memories for somebody else, it might make them relive those moments, it takes a HUGE amount of effort for staff to review every single report of a rape plot to MAKE SURE that consent was explicitly granted. That is why it was gotten rid of, and I for one am coming to accept (and have even already come to accept) the decision, based on my understanding of why this was done.

[BleakOne]

Seeing as how I'm pretty much Citizen #1 on the threads related to this topic, I wanted to post something...

Unfortunately, my internet is still acting all crabby on me, so I will have to be brief.

Glory to Astotzka!

[MeTekillot]

They don't govern us, the community. They govern their property, the game, the same way that the CEO or management governs nearly ever private business in the world.

When they hold the power to make you no longer a member of said community, they govern you and your behavior within that community. At this point, I feel like you're grasping at straws here. They fit the definition of government. Period.

they govern us but they aren't the fucking government oh my god they aren't the nazis

[Inks]

I personally liked Heade's contributions to the discussions about rape being banned, I found them to be sane and not snipey.

I am glad they unlocked the thread. Thank you for that.

[Synthesis]

They don't govern us, the community. They govern their property, the game, the same way that the CEO or management governs nearly ever private business in the world.

When they hold the power to make you no longer a member of said community, they govern you and your behavior within that community. At this point, I feel like you're grasping at straws here. They fit the definition of government. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

[KankWhisperer]

The old you don't pay us to Lord it over you argument should die some day.

[Desertman]

This isn't a democracy man.

Our/any new "officials" if you want to think of them that way, are chosen by the other officials already in charge.

You can't get mad about our democratic process, because there is no democratic process.

I think given the structure we have in place, the best possible outcome was achieved.

Am I 100% happy? No. But I'm 100% happy to have got what we got out of the discussion and the final outcome based on the system we have to work with.

No need to complain really. It couldn't have gone any better, all things considered.

Really all you could attempt to do at this point is "fight the power", but, I do not recommend it.

Best case scenario, your opinion is heard, you get a reply maybe, and you are ignored after that. (See this thread for details.)

Worst case scenario, you get banned.

My final recommendation, let it go man.

[Riev]

The old you don't pay us to Lord it over you argument should die some day.

[Synthesis]

The old you don't pay us to Lord it over you argument should die some day.

The "you don't pay us to Lord it over you" argument is an appropriate rebuttal to the argument that "X is wrong because X is inconsistent with democratic principles."

The argument you're looking for is "X is wrong because it will be harmful to the community."  Democracy and government are only tangentially related to that, so if you're pinning your argument for harm on those two things, you're being intellectually lazy.  You could build a case that being blatantly anti-democratic is harmful to the community, but I suspect that in a "harm from rape plotlines" vs. "harm from no-rape imperial decree," the community is probably better off with the decree.  Of course, that's probably why nobody wants to really take up the consequentialist approach on the anti-decree side...because when you get down to brass tacks, the hedonic calculus doesn't work out in your favor.  Sooo...people try to take up the deontological approach with principles that in Western societies are semi-sacrosanct (democracy, personal liberty, etc. etc.), even if those principles don't necessarily apply, and even though deontological approaches are generally stupid.

(I know musashi and I got into some big argument about whether deontology is or isn't dead a while back, and I was on the "isn't" side, but just because it isn't dead doesn't mean that it also isn't stupid--there's ample evidence [without even having to leave the GDB] that "stupid and alive" isn't a contradiction in terms.)

[Yam]

Stick to medicine, buddy.

Actually sorry that was a knee response because the words you used are scary and post-destructoralist.

[Fujikoma]

I honestly agree with Desertman's last post here. I'm glad the staff took a moment and discussed things, providing a more accurate definition of the issue being objected to and taking player concerns and questions into account.

Am I %100 happy? Well, no. But I'm never that happy with anything, so, not really something I'm going to raise a lot of heck over, except when some random concern pops up in my mind and I feel it could be clarified so the "Find out IG if you get banned for that" doesn't happen.

[KankWhisperer]

The old you don't pay us to Lord it over you argument should die some day.

The "you don't pay us to Lord it over you" argument is an appropriate rebuttal to the argument that "X is wrong because X is inconsistent with democratic principles."

The argument you're looking for is "X is wrong because it will be harmful to the community."  Democracy and government are only tangentially related to that, so if you're pinning your argument for harm on those two things, you're being intellectually lazy.  You could build a case that being blatantly anti-democratic is harmful to the community, but I suspect that in a "harm from rape plotlines" vs. "harm from no-rape imperial decree," the community is probably better off with the decree.  Of course, that's probably why nobody wants to really take up the consequentialist approach on the anti-decree side...because when you get down to brass tacks, the hedonic calculus doesn't work out in your favor.  Sooo...people try to take up the deontological approach with principles that in Western societies are semi-sacrosanct (democracy, personal liberty, etc. etc.), even if those principles don't necessarily apply, and even though deontological approaches are generally stupid.

(I know musashi and I got into some big argument about whether deontology is or isn't dead a while back, and I was on the "isn't" side, but just because it isn't dead doesn't mean that it also isn't stupid--there's ample evidence [without even having to leave the GDB] that "stupid and alive" isn't a contradiction in terms.)

Or I just don't like the argument because it should be irrelevant in a lot of cases and not the go to nuclear option.

[Desertman]

Am I %100 happy? Well, no. But I'm never that happy with anything, so, not really something I'm going to raise a lot of heck over, except when some random concern pops up in my mind and I feel it could be clarified so the "Find out IG if you get banned for that" doesn't happen.

Heh, this.

I love our community. I can't think of anyone else I would like to pretend to be elves and bald dwarves with.

But, there is no denying, we are some of the most pedantic, hardheaded, stubborn, and down right inconsolable individuals you are ever going to meet.

And our staff is made up of our playerbase. 

Considering how everything went with this decision, the back and forth I saw, and the final outcome, I think we really hit a bullseye, all things considered.

[FreeRangeVestric]

But, there is no denying, we are some of the most pedantic, hardheaded, stubborn, and down right inconsolable individuals you are ever going to meet.

I am neither stubborn nor hardheaded, and will vehemently reject any arguments to the contrary!!

[Desertman]

But, there is no denying, we are some of the most pedantic, hardheaded, stubborn, and down right inconsolable individuals you are ever going to meet.

I am neither stubborn nor hardheaded, and will vehemently reject any arguments to the contrary!!

[Heade]

They don't govern us, the community. They govern their property, the game, the same way that the CEO or management governs nearly ever private business in the world.

When they hold the power to make you no longer a member of said community, they govern you and your behavior within that community. At this point, I feel like you're grasping at straws here. They fit the definition of government. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

This is sort of why I referred to this as the "governing body" rather than "government" in post #1. But it ultimately makes sense and is applicable even with the latter word, incorrectly cited by several people later in the thread.

The old you don't pay us to Lord it over you argument should die some day.

The "you don't pay us to Lord it over you" argument is an appropriate rebuttal to the argument that "X is wrong because X is inconsistent with democratic principles."

The argument you're looking for is "X is wrong because it will be harmful to the community."  Democracy and government are only tangentially related to that, so if you're pinning your argument for harm on those two things, you're being intellectually lazy.  You could build a case that being blatantly anti-democratic is harmful to the community, but I suspect that in a "harm from rape plotlines" vs. "harm from no-rape imperial decree," the community is probably better off with the decree.  Of course, that's probably why nobody wants to really take up the consequentialist approach on the anti-decree side...because when you get down to brass tacks, the hedonic calculus doesn't work out in your favor.  Sooo...people try to take up the deontological approach with principles that in Western societies are semi-sacrosanct (democracy, personal liberty, etc. etc.), even if those principles don't necessarily apply, and even though deontological approaches are generally stupid.

(I know musashi and I got into some big argument about whether deontology is or isn't dead a while back, and I was on the "isn't" side, but just because it isn't dead doesn't mean that it also isn't stupid--there's ample evidence [without even having to leave the GDB] that "stupid and alive" isn't a contradiction in terms.)

And this is why you're awesome. Even when I disagree with you, I enjoy reading your arguments.

[Ktavialt]

So this is how our compulsion towards rape fantasy on an online text game dies, with thunderous applause.

[Mood]

dear heade your obsession w/the decision to ban rape, and esp the thread you posted previously (WHO IS THE VICTIM!?) leads me to two conclusions:

1. you are an active poster on /r/MensRights
2. also kind of creepy.

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

[Fujikoma]

Please, attack the idea, the argument, not the person. It seriously detracts from the quality of a post and accomplishes little for the side you support.

[Inks]

Seriously, what Fujikoma said. Quit with character assassination, it's just lame.

[FreeRangeVestric]

dear heade your obsession w/the decision to ban rape, and esp the thread you posted previously (WHO IS THE VICTIM!?) leads me to two conclusions:

1. you are an active poster on /r/MensRights
2. also kind of creepy.

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

And if anyone argued against the ban on PC slaves, they must have been ex-Confederate soldiers. And all those PK'ers are out committing war crimes in their spare time away from the MUD.

My eyes have never rolled so hard.

[jstorrie]

Heade, your thread about rape was horrible, I am glad it was locked, and this thread complaining about the lock is also horrible. Please stop.

[Lizzie]

Heade, your thread about rape was horrible, I am glad it was locked, and this thread complaining about the lock is also horrible. Please stop.

Heade hasn't posted in this thread in two days. It's the rest of you who are keeping it alive and bumped to the top of the "most recently posted" list. If it bothers you that much, stop posting in it.

[Heade]

Heade, your thread about rape was horrible, I am glad it was locked, and this thread complaining about the lock is also horrible. Please stop.

This thread was made in response to someone else's thread being locked. Not the one I made. But to be fair, there was very little reason to lock my thread either, which happened way after this thread was almost dead.

And in response to the people saying "creeper, bad guy, etc", you don't know me at all.

Someone tries to show compassion for BOTH sides of a social issue, and they're creepy? But when someone is resolute in only showing compassion for half the people out there, forgetting about the others, and they're the "Good Guys"?

What a terrible world we live in. I'm glad role-playing exists.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[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.

[Patuk]

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:

Yeah, so er.. Regardless of how I feel about this thread, I really have a hard time believing this being true. If it is, send in a report, but so far, I really don't think this belongs on the gdb.

[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:

Yeah, so er.. Regardless of how I feel about this thread, I really have a hard time believing this being true. If it is, send in a report, but so far, I really don't think this belongs on the gdb.

My personal character/integrity. Not my game character. 

[Cutthroat]

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.

People are still able to pursue adult-themed plots, so long as it doesn't involve rape plots between two PCs.

I am not pro-rape. I am pro-fun between consenting players.

Consenting players can still have fun, so long as they don't pursue rape plots with each other.

Someone tries to show compassion for BOTH sides of a social issue, and they're creepy? But when someone is resolute in only showing compassion for half the people out there, forgetting about the others, and they're the "Good Guys"?

You're showing compassion for both sides of an issue when one side is already decided with compromise toward the other side to the extent that players can still play past rapists or victims of rape, but the only major restriction upon them is that they cannot start a rape plot. The vast majority of players aren't interested in rape plots specifically. They are interested in playing Zalanthans, and being able to play out a rape plot doesn't factor into that. Villains don't need to be rapists, they can be past rapists or victims of rape or neither of those things. Murderers don't need to rape their victims. Nobles and templars don't need to rape each other during political RP. Grebbers don't need to rape each other while competing for grebbing spots. Raiders can still raid without raping. Thieves can still steal without raping. There are still so many avenues of conflict left in this game, and conflict, under the broader murder/corruption/betrayal theme, is what this game is all about, is it not? Being able to engage in rape RP makes a relatively minor difference when it is viewed as an addition to the main avenues of roleplay, which it should be. Instead staff were apparently finding that rape plots were taking up more and more focus in the game and thus, their attention and ability to focus on other kinds of plots suffered. The vast majority of players should be rejoicing at their staff giving them renewed focus and amount of assistance.

I don't personally like when avenues of RP are taken away from the game for staff workload reasons (e.g. slaves) but I try to at least see the good aspects to it and this decision has many good aspects to it. The slippery slope is not a concern for me because I know from personal experience that staff do not exist to shoot down plots, they exist to foster them, regardless of what grumpy/jaded players might say about that topic. If some relatively unimportant and insignificant plots need to be sacrificed to focus on the game's bread and butter, especially if those unimportant plots start to become far more important than they should be, then I am fine with it.

[Heade]

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.

People are still able to pursue adult-themed plots, so long as it doesn't involve rape plots between two PCs.

I am not pro-rape. I am pro-fun between consenting players.

Consenting players can still have fun, so long as they don't pursue rape plots with each other.

Someone tries to show compassion for BOTH sides of a social issue, and they're creepy? But when someone is resolute in only showing compassion for half the people out there, forgetting about the others, and they're the "Good Guys"?

You're showing compassion for both sides of an issue when one side is already decided with compromise toward the other side to the extent that players can still play past rapists or victims of rape, but the only major restriction upon them is that they cannot start a rape plot. The vast majority of players aren't interested in rape plots specifically. They are interested in playing Zalanthans, and being able to play out a rape plot doesn't factor into that. Villains don't need to be rapists, they can be past rapists or victims of rape or neither of those things. Murderers don't need to rape their victims. Nobles and templars don't need to rape each other during political RP. Grebbers don't need to rape each other while competing for grebbing spots. Raiders can still raid without raping. Thieves can still steal without raping. There are still so many avenues of conflict left in this game, and conflict, under the broader murder/corruption/betrayal theme, is what this game is all about, is it not? Being able to engage in rape RP makes a relatively minor difference when it is viewed as an addition to the main avenues of roleplay, which it should be. Instead staff were apparently finding that rape plots were taking up more and more focus in the game and thus, their attention and ability to focus on other kinds of plots suffered. The vast majority of players should be rejoicing at their staff giving them renewed focus and amount of assistance.

I don't personally like when avenues of RP are taken away from the game for staff workload reasons (e.g. slaves) but I try to at least see the good aspects to it and this decision has many good aspects to it. The slippery slope is not a concern for me because I know from personal experience that staff do not exist to shoot down plots, they exist to foster them, regardless of what grumpy/jaded players might say about that topic. If some relatively unimportant and insignificant plots need to be sacrificed to focus on the game's bread and butter, especially if those unimportant plots start to become far more important than they should be, then I am fine with it.

-SIGH- Please keep updated on the entire topic if you're going to give me a ton to respond to. I'm not blaming you here. It's difficult because things are being discussed from multiple threads here, some of which were locked, but it's a complex issue.

1. The compassion issue was mentioned in reference to a different thread in non-arm discussions and isn't related to the game world discussion.
2. I agree with you on the RP side of things. With the more recent changes and rewording of the rules regarding the issue, I'm quite happy with the resulting situation. I never like to see avenues of RP taken away, but given the circumstances, I believe that it was handled very well by staff.

[Harmless]

Heade, thanks for posting so much on the topic. You've explored this discussion to a point of exhaustion, where I am now 100% comfortable with the changes at this point. If you weren't here to champion the "no censorship at all" side so strongly, I would probably still be at 95%, with 5% of me still wondering if there was going to be some kind of slippery slope after this.

I am not sure that Adhira would have come out and said, "I could give a shit about wholesome," if you weren't in this fight for the win. But, I think it's safe to say you lost at this point on this issue. So, let it rest. Though you didn't convince the staff to change their minds completely, you've convinced me that this was a good move, or at least, that I can happily live with it.

As for "Character Assassination." I am using Chris Hansen as my icon to represent the true ridiculousness of people pointing at you and saying you're a creeper. I'm sure that makes you uncomfortable. Chris Hansen encapsulates the ridiculousness because he was the host of "To catch a Predator," but he has a fucking mistress that he regularly cheated on his wife with -- he wasn't a statutory rapist, but he had a MISTRESS, so he perfectly represents to insane hypocrisy of people here accusing you of ANYTHING for taking a viewpoint. +1000000 shame points on those people.

The thing is, though, there is something to be said about the benefits and harms of pursuing an argument too far. One of the pervos that Chris Hansen caught was famous for saying, "Just because it's something I said on the internet, doesn't mean that's what I really think." I don't say this in reference to your, or anyone's posts. I say it in reference to what kinds of RP happen in the MUD.

We might all be mature enough to handle this topic in the game. (Unfortunately, though, we -aren't-, as evidenced by some of the holier-than-thou attitudes that our own players are showing on the gDB here.) But the reality is, our game IS being MONITORED by the outside world. When they see some of the things that are now banned, what would they think?

The bottom line is, if Chris Hansen saw what happened in Arma, he would think this was just an elaborate chatroom. He'd be in the game, posing as a 15 year old female PC, and he'd be asking our players if "they like rape." Then he'd be trying to OOC contact info to catch the predators in the community.

So, even though it's lame, it's stupid, it's flat out retarded, I would rather our game survive than be able to pursue a rape plot. I guess I fit with the 99% of the community that never had any interest in pursuing it anyway, so for me, this is a win-win change. For most of us, it's win-win. This is why, I guess, people are accusing you of being a creepo. They see the "win-win" clearly, and they are really starting to wonder why you care.

But don't worry. I get you, man. I feel your argument, you want us to be able to RP without feeling like rules are oppressing us. But, as Cutthroat and others said, there have always been rules restricting our RP, the staff just hasn't had to make such a bold proclamation such as this before. That's the world we live in, dude. It's a good thing, too, because there are a lot of delicate folks out there who simply -can't- handle it. There are delicate folks in my own family that can't. Like my girlfriend. I couldn't ever RP rape in this game and look at her without feeling some kind of guilt, so that's that I guess.

GG, heade.

[Heade]

Heade, thanks for posting so much on the topic. You've explored this discussion to a point of exhaustion, where I am now 100% comfortable with the changes at this point. If you weren't here to champion the "no censorship at all" side so strongly, I would probably still be at 95%, with 5% of me still wondering if there was going to be some kind of slippery slope after this.

I am not sure that Adhira would have come out and said, "I could give a shit about wholesome," if you weren't in this fight for the win. But, I think it's safe to say you lost at this point on this issue. So, let it rest. Though you didn't convince the staff to change their minds completely, you've convinced me that this was a good move, or at least, that I can happily live with it.

As for "Character Assassination." I am using Chris Hansen as my icon to represent the true ridiculousness of people pointing at you and saying you're a creeper. I'm sure that makes you uncomfortable. Chris Hansen encapsulates the ridiculousness because he was the host of "To catch a Predator," but he has a fucking mistress that he regularly cheated on his wife with -- he wasn't a statutory rapist, but he had a MISTRESS, so he perfectly represents to insane hypocrisy of people here accusing you of ANYTHING for taking a viewpoint. +1000000 shame points on those people.

The thing is, though, there is something to be said about the benefits and harms of pursuing an argument too far. One of the pervos that Chris Hansen caught was famous for saying, "Just because it's something I said on the internet, doesn't mean that's what I really think." I don't say this in reference to your, or anyone's posts. I say it in reference to what kinds of RP happen in the MUD.

We might all be mature enough to handle this topic in the game. (Unfortunately, though, we -aren't-, as evidenced by some of the holier-than-thou attitudes that our own players are showing on the gDB here.) But the reality is, our game IS being MONITORED by the outside world. When they see some of the things that are now banned, what would they think?

The bottom line is, if Chris Hansen saw what happened in Arma, he would think this was just an elaborate chatroom. He'd be in the game, posing as a 15 year old female PC, and he'd be asking our players if "they like rape." Then he'd be trying to OOC contact info to catch the predators in the community.

So, even though it's lame, it's stupid, it's flat out retarded, I would rather our game survive than be able to pursue a rape plot. I guess I fit with the 99% of the community that never had any interest in pursuing it anyway, so for me, this is a win-win change. For most of us, it's win-win. This is why, I guess, people are accusing you of being a creepo. They see the "win-win" clearly, and they are really starting to wonder why you care.

But don't worry. I get you, man. I feel your argument, you want us to be able to RP without feeling like rules are oppressing us. But, as Cutthroat and others said, there have always been rules restricting our RP, the staff just hasn't had to make such a bold proclamation such as this before. That's the world we live in, dude. It's a good thing, too, because there are a lot of delicate folks out there who simply -can't- handle it. There are delicate folks in my own family that can't. Like my girlfriend. I couldn't ever RP rape in this game and look at her without feeling some kind of guilt, so that's that I guess.

GG, heade.

-sigh- I agree with the current state of things in-game too. I thought i've said that...a lot. The staff handled the changes really well, and I'm done talking about it, too. I don't feel like 60% of the people who respond read what I write anyhow. GG.

[Synthesis]

It's not that they don't read what you write.  Most of the time, people will cherry-pick one poor turn of phrase or your weakest argument (even if it's tangential, an aside, or not otherwise critical to building your case) and attack that point only.  I think it's a combination of laziness, attention span, and wanting to "win," in a state of affairs where rhetoric trumps logic, or where wit is more rewarded than wisdom.  The fact that they seem to ignore most of what your write isn't an indication that they didn't read it...it's more an indication that they read it and either couldn't come up with a witty rebuttal or there was some other low-hanging fruit that they decided to focus on, or they simply felt that the vast majority of your argument was just so blatantly stupid that it didn't warrant a response.  This isn't to say they aren't intelligent, thoughtful people, either; this is simply a forum where comprehensive responses and well-reasoned arguments backed by evidence aren't rewarded, and that's probably fine.

Note:  I'm not singling out anyone in particular, or agreeing with you.  This is simply how argument here works, and I'm just as guilty as everyone else.

[Cutthroat]

1. The compassion issue was mentioned in reference to a different thread in non-arm discussions and isn't related to the game world discussion.
2. I agree with you on the RP side of things. With the more recent changes and rewording of the rules regarding the issue, I'm quite happy with the resulting situation. I never like to see avenues of RP taken away, but given the circumstances, I believe that it was handled very well by staff.

Okay. It was confusing as you made the same post in several different threads. I assumed you were talking about this particular topic, still.

[BleakOne]

Can we stop calling each other creepy or 'the unwashed masses' and the like, please?

Nobody here is a hero or villain due to their opinion. Good and reasonable arguments have been made on both sides.

[Eurynomos]

Seems this thread has served it's purpose as well.