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

[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.