Consent checklist command

[valeria]

I'm very pro CW, pro consent. But I think this would cause more problems than it would solve. The chargen one has already been touched on, and the one where people might forget to note changing preferences. But what about characters who are present that you can't see? The consent OOC gives them a chance to leave even if they don't want to answer. What about having to check consent to torture in a room with 15 people? How is it less immersion breaking to have to check and keep track if 15 preferences than to just ask? What about consent to X with certain people but not with others? I might trust one character to give me a tasteful torture scene, but want some other to just kill me so I don't have to deal with what I perceive as twinkery that I'm already pissed off about. What about "I consent to like  4 nonspecific sex emotes"? Someone could see that I consent to adult RP, but that doesn't mean I want to read a three-line description about the precise sexual geometry the other player has in mind. It's overly granular in one way, but could never be granular enough in another way.

I think the consent rules balance changing situations and needs better than Arm automated command every could.

[ShaLeah]

Been suggested.  For decades. 

[Gentleboy]

Can someone please explain why severe weather would need consent? I'm really confused on why it's on that list.

[kahuna]

Can someone please explain why severe weather would need consent? I'm really confused on why it's on that list.

I pulled most of those suggestions from a D&D checklist, as examples not as a definitive list. It's not about consent and never was, it's a checklist or guideline for what players are or are not comfortable roleplaying. What most people are failing to understand is that this has nothing to do with consent and everything to do with making sure you're not broaching any topics that someone might not be comfortable. I brought 2 new players to the game recently and they've since taken a long absence because of the very issues I previously mentioned which is why I made this thread. Clearly though we won't be seeing this gain any support from the GDB.

[Riev]

I will be flamed for this, however:

Knowing what your triggers are, and demanding to never be exposed to them, are different things.
The consent rule exists so you can put a stop to what is happening, immediately, for any reason. Your scene partner doesn't have to know its traumatic, or because you just don't have time to go through the motions.

I'm sensitive that people have triggers. I've been trained in identifying some of my own. I don't expect anyone to dance on eggshells around me because I might snap. Its on me to work on that.

Outside of that, this would be a massive undertaking that we already have rules for. Most DnD games don't have a blanket "fade" rule.

[kahuna]

This is where my idea came from. I'm a part of a facebook GM group and they posted it.

[Nameless Face]

I can see something like that being useful to a DM setting up a new playgroup or in crafting a scenario or a one-off adventure where he doesn't know the players.

A "what do you like, what should I make" kind of thing.

It just doesn't seem to be helpful for what you are trying to have it do for a pre-existing MUD in an established genre.

[kahuna]

It just doesn't seem to be helpful for what you are trying to have it do for a pre-existing MUD in an established genre.

Just so I understand your position what do you think I am trying to have it do exactly?

[mansa]

I agree with the statements that consent is every changing from one scene to another scene, and from one playtime to another playtime.

I don't think it's like a 'nosave' toggle.




I think it may possibly work if you had to redefine it every time you log into the game, but ....  I'm lazy.

[Lizzie]

I agree with the statements that consent is every changing from one scene to another scene, and from one playtime to another playtime.

I don't think it's like a 'nosave' toggle.




I think it may possibly work if you had to redefine it every time you log into the game, but ....  I'm lazy.

It's even changing from one PC to another. Maybe I just don't like the way certain players roleplay certain types of scenes, and would rather not have to spend an hour watching them type out whatever they're going to type out and coming up with responses to them. Maybe I really LOVE how other people RP certain types of scenes, and would RP it out every time with them.

as for a consent list and what *I* think kahuna is trying to have it do:

The purpose of declaring what you are willing to consent to and what you're not willing to consent to, is to ensure that no one subjects you to the things you're not willing to consent to. Otherwise, why bother having a consent list at all?

I don't think it's necessary, and I think it's way over the top, and in some cases antithetical to the theme of the game. If you aren't willing to consent to seeing people die, don't play Armageddon.

Maybe instead of a consent list, there should be an assumed list in the official docs:

By playing Armageddon, you consent to extreme weather, acrobatics, character death, animal death, blood, the existence of gore and guts, the existence of omnivores, carnivores, and herbivores. You consent to the existence of various gender identities and sexual preferences OF FICTIONAL CHARACTERS, you consent to trees, water, slavery as a general concept, interspecies breeding, the color orange, and the possibility that your FICTIONAL CHARACTER might have to eat a cockroach.

[Nameless Face]

The goal is to prevent people from being offended during roleplay they might not want to be a part of.
<snip>
Trusting players to just police their own roleplay doesn't really work.
<snip>
You could even have the checklist be a standard Q&A during account creation so new players can enter their stuff from the get go.

Its not that you aren't clear.  I just don't agree this suggestion as presented is a positive solution.  It'd be a better tool to help sort out what kind of MUDs or other games are a good fit for you before you start them.

[kahuna]

The goal is to prevent people from being offended during roleplay they might not want to be a part of.
<snip>
Trusting players to just police their own roleplay doesn't really work.
<snip>
You could even have the checklist be a standard Q&A during account creation so new players can enter their stuff from the get go.

Its not that you aren't clear.  I just don't agree this suggestion as presented is a positive solution.  It'd be a better tool to help sort out what kind of MUDs or other games are a good fit for you before you start them.

Right so can you tell me why it's not a positive solution? I am all for having more information about the players I play with. What they want or don't want to see. Makes my life a lot easier if am trying to facilitate something. The MUD operates 24/7, this isn't a tabletop, therefore automated systems such as this are very useful for all my aforementioned reasons.

Still trying to wrap my head around why you wouldn't want this information?

[Lizzie]

The goal is to prevent people from being offended during roleplay they might not want to be a part of.
<snip>
Trusting players to just police their own roleplay doesn't really work.
<snip>
You could even have the checklist be a standard Q&A during account creation so new players can enter their stuff from the get go.

Its not that you aren't clear.  I just don't agree this suggestion as presented is a positive solution.  It'd be a better tool to help sort out what kind of MUDs or other games are a good fit for you before you start them.

Right so can you tell me why it's not a positive solution? I am all for having more information about the players I play with. What they want or don't want to see. Makes my life a lot easier if am trying to facilitate something. The MUD operates 24/7, this isn't a tabletop, therefore automated systems such as this are very useful for all my aforementioned reasons.

Still trying to wrap my head around why you wouldn't want this information?

Because it makes no sense in the context of the game. You don't know who is in the room with you. There could be invisible PCs, hiding PCs, shadowed PCs, or it could be held in a room where people can watch from another room (such as the arena). You have no way of knowing if those people consent or not, because your character can't see them to assess them for consent options.

If ONE person doesn't want to experience one item on the entire list, and that was the one thing you were planning to do, now you'll have to change your plans to accommodate that ONE person - even though everyone else in the room is fine with it.

In addition, this is supposed to be a harsh brutal world. That is the THEME of the game. You're trying to change the theme by saying "it's harsh, except if you don't want it to be, even if everyone else is fine with it."

[kahuna]

You might want to re-read some of this thread. I never said any of that. Normal consent rules of the game still apply. This would be so people know before hand what people want or don't want to experience. It's simply more information.

People attend the Arena games all the time and no consent is required or asked for at any time so I fail to see how this would change anything there?

People also fail to get consent behind closed doors all the time, especially if there are invisible characters. This command would negate you from seeing invisible or hidden characters, obviously that would be easily abused. I think it is safe to assume that if there are PCs that are not visible you cannot be held accountable for their request for consent.

I'm trying to change the theme of the game by wanting to know more about the players in the room with me and if I offend them with my roleplay? Ok..

[Lizzie]

You might want to re-read some of this thread. I never said any of that. Normal consent rules of the game still apply. This would be so people know before hand what people want or don't want to experience. It's simply more information.

People attend the Arena games all the time and no consent is required or asked for at any time so I fail to see how this would change anything there?

People also fail to get consent behind closed doors all the time, especially if there are invisible characters. This command would negate you from seeing invisible or hidden characters, obviously that would be easily abused. I think it is safe to assume that if there are PCs that are not visible you cannot be held accountable for their request for consent.

I'm trying to change the theme of the game by wanting to know more about the players in the room with me and if I offend them with my roleplay? Ok..

What I want, is to play the game as intended. What I don't want, is to have the added burden of checking to see who likes and doesn't like every little bit of minutae about the IC plots and plans. And if I know that someone doesn't want something - and I do it anyway, whose responsibility is it that they got their feelings hurt? Mine? Or theirs, for choosing to play the game that involves things they might be sensitive to?

The point of "consent" is to give permission for something to happen. If you don't give consent, it means you do not permit it to happen in your presence. If that isn't what you intend by having a consent list, then it's not a consent list. It's a list of likes and dislikes. And honestly - I'm not going to check it if I'm trying to RP a scene.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Some folks play this game to chop mothafuckaz up with bone swords.
I play this game, cuz I ain't gotta give a shit about anyone's feelings.

plus, everything Lizzie just said

[Veselka]

I play ArmageddonMUD to escape trigger warnings.

I think the consent rules as they stand are just fine.

[Yam]

Fuck no. This is weird.

[Medena]

Right so can you tell me why it's not a positive solution? I am all for having more information about the players I play with. What they want or don't want to see. Makes my life a lot easier if am trying to facilitate something. The MUD operates 24/7, this isn't a tabletop, therefore automated systems such as this are very useful for all my aforementioned reasons.

Still trying to wrap my head around why you wouldn't want this information?

I don't generally want to know things about the players I play with.  While I have, over the years, gotten to know a few of the players and made some good friends, for the most part I do not wish to do so.  I especially do not want to know the likes/dislikes/fears/preferences/character -- in short the identity--  of the player behind the PC I am currently playing with.  I do, however, want to get to know all about the PC I am interacting with.

Our existing consent rules work just fine to ensure the players behind the PC's are comfortable with the content presented to them.

[LindseyBalboa]

Right so can you tell me why it's not a positive solution? I am all for having more information about the players I play with. What they want or don't want to see. Makes my life a lot easier if am trying to facilitate something. The MUD operates 24/7, this isn't a tabletop, therefore automated systems such as this are very useful for all my aforementioned reasons.

Still trying to wrap my head around why you wouldn't want this information?

... why would you, though? We don't have player 'whois' information, and this is something that would fit in with the sort of game that had that. We don't have tells, or pages, OOC talk is almost non-existent. This "rp preference" sheet of whether someone wants to RP about storms or doesn't like eating animals just doesn't really fit into the theme of this particular game.

[chrisdcoulombe]

Fuck no. This is weird.