Armageddon General Discussion Board

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55908.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55908.0.html)

Hey guys, as a POC, I'm just curious of the game's direction and influence on what's going on real life and real time today, and wanted to see what sort of cultural influences are there.  Anything you guys want to add, let's discuss it maturely.

I don't understand this post. I'm confused as to what is being asked? Are you asking if the attitude of the real world is showing in the real world?

I simply want to know if POC, females, LGBTQ are represented in staff's leadership, especially at the highest levels, so these issues can be handled with a broad spectrum of background, consideration and empathy.

i wanna kill stuff with bone swords

It's a role-playing game, my man.

You're not supposed to let IRL current events influence IC role-playing/atmosphere. Of course, our real life culture affects manners of speech and all that but the intended way to play this game is as if you're in another world, which is Zalanthas, not in our current messed up world.

People play games like these for escapism, and yet some others try to bring the real world into it all. I'd recommend relaxing, as you're bugging out pretty bad over something meaningless. I don't mean this in a personal way (more supportive) - but it's getting pretty embarrassing.  :-\

They're wondering about the leadership and who allows the changes I think.

Cause while we are a free speaking group and on a forum, end of the day, staff makes the choices. Okay, I get that.

I do know that I've had some issues with lgbtq things and I needed to explain to the staff why something is offensive or a no-no.

We should remove non-human races from the game because they're generally not great.

WRT Tranquil's point: I play largely for the escapism as well. That said, please don't hate on 'palli for posting this. There is a cultural revolution going on for better or worse. Two people were just shot 5 miles from me this morning over it.

WRT Doublepalli: I like the idea 'palli, but in order for this to work one would need to collect the demographics of the playerbase. I am not sure I would want to play a game that started with a census survey; I wouldn't want that data to be leaked, etc.

I think the most elegant way to achieve representation in these circumstances is to have elections but staff have already stated this will not happen.

I just want to empathize and say I know why you started this thread though. I would feel good about how this game handles some topics if I had the knowledge that staff were diverse or at least representative. But it is not necessary and, given circumstances, not possible.

WRT to gentleboy's point: there is no singular "queer opinion." Whatever gentleboy asked staff to change might have been something my equally trans ass did not think need to change. Therefore having more queer staffers would not fix this issue.

WRT Badskeelz: nuclear option and would work dubiously given the retconned history of the Tan Muark. I promise haters will hate no matter what. They got nothing left to do.

TLDR; we cannot make this about identity politics for a lot of reasons. Main concern should just be to ensure our feedback is heard.

Well, I wouldn't say the staff demographics are anyone's business in the first place. I would imagine that, ideally, whoever is put on the staff roster is a culmination of many factors, including writing proficiency, dedication to the game, maturity, the amount of time they are able and willing to spend managing and improving the game...

Whether or not anyone meets such-and-such demographic criteria to "represent" females or LGBTQ should be a complete non-issue, seeing as this is a heavy role-playing game, based on its own world. As far as I see it, the more divorced Zalanthas is from the real world, the better. But you have to realize that there will always be certain parallels, and that cannot be helped.

Lastly, I also feel ESL is a complete non-issue. We shouldn't care if English is someone's first language or their tenth. They still need to be able to write it well, regardless. On the plus side, someone with English as a tenth language would therefore likely be well-versed in many languages. This is obviously a net-positive, a boon, but still, there are definitely many more factors involved in choosing people than just how many languages they know.

Quote from: triste on June 29, 2020, 03:37:40 PM
WRT Tranquil's point: I play largely for the escapism as well. That said, please don't hate on 'palli for posting this. There is a cultural revolution going on for better or worse. Two people were just shot 5 miles from me this morning over it.

Maybe people should go outside and protest instead of virtue-signalling hand-wringing over a text game.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on June 29, 2020, 03:42:01 PM

Quote from: triste on June 29, 2020, 03:37:40 PM
WRT Tranquil's point: I play largely for the escapism as well. That said, please don't hate on 'palli for posting this. There is a cultural revolution going on for better or worse. Two people were just shot 5 miles from me this morning over it.

Maybe people should go outside and protest instead of virtue-signalling hand-wringing over a text game.

Agreed, but I do not blame any POC for being overwhelmed by it and letting it come here. Otherwise yes, agreed.

I think the biggest thing you can consider, in terms of game direction, is 'What are the rules of the game, and what is enforced by the staff'?
Aka, The stuff that is allowable and the stuff that isn't allowable.

http://armageddon.org/help/view/Rules

Roleplaying is a requirement on Armageddon MUD. This involves assuming the role of a character of your creation, and acting the way your character would act in the world of Zalanthas. A large amount of documentation regarding the mindset and behavior of Zalanthans is publicly available and all clans have clan-related documentation for their members to follow. Failure to roleplay and disregarding documentation can result in warnings, karma reduction, storage of your character, and temporary and permanent bans.

Rule 1:  Play in the world that is written.  - see bottom of post for more details


You must ask for consent from all visible players in the room before pursuing sexual or torture scenes. There is no such thing as implied consent from past consent grants - you must ask every time. If someone does not give consent, or requests that the scene "fade to black" or "FTB", you must honor that. If you engage in a graphic scene that another player did not consent to, your character will be stored and karma reduced, and your account will be banned for a month at the first occurrence, and your account will be banned permanently on the second occurrence.

Rule 2:  Sex and torture requires vocal consent to all parties present.


There is an exception to the above rule: rape and sexual torture plot lines are forbidden. They cannot be pursued. There is no option to consent or fade to black. They are simply not played out at all. This extends to accusations and threats of rape or sexual torture. If you choose to do this anyway, your character will be stored and your karma reduced at the first occurrence, and your account will be banned permanently on the second occurrence.

Rule 3:  Absolutely no rape or sexual torture.


Your living character may not have any connection to your dead or stored characters. This includes relationships, looting your dead character's corpse, or possessing intimate knowledge that your past character had. We will reject an application that attempts to establish a link between the applying character and a dead character. We will store your character if we find, after approval, that you are establishing a connection to your dead characters.

Rule 4:  Each character needs to be unique, and is not connected in any way to the previous characters you've played.


We may ask a player to take a break from a certain clan, clan group, or group of players if we feel that a player is repeatedly attempting to play with the same set of players across multiple characters in a manner that breaks other rules. We may also ask a player not to play a guild or subguild for a certain period of time. If a player chooses to ignore such a request, their character will be stored on the first occurrence, and will be banned for a month on the second.

Rule 5:  Play different characters


Sharing or discussing relevant in-game information via out-of-character means is discouraged. Relevant information includes but is not limited to information from within the last year, involving living characters, or involving game mechanics. The rule of thumb is: if it is not in a publicly- available helpfile or document, it should not be discussed out-of-game. This goes for use of the OOC command in game as well as any out-of-game communication. If we find that you are sharing or discussing in-game information, punishment can range from a warning, to karma reduction, to storage of your character, to temporary or permanent bans.

Rule 6:  Don't tell other people who you are currently playing.


Coordinating in-game actions or player groups via out-of-character means is discouraged. The only two exceptions to this are arranging playtimes and setting up an approved family or tribal role. If we find evidence that an in-game act was coordinated outside of the game, punishment will be dependent on the severity of the coordination, ranging from a warning, to karma reduction, to storage of your character, to temporary or permanent bans.

Rule 7:  Don't arrange in-character actions out-of-game


Multiplaying - the act of creating multiple accounts to have multiple living characters - is forbidden. Only one living character per player is allowed at a time. Breaking this rule will result in a month-long ban of your main account on the first occurrence, and a permanent ban of your main account on the second. The alternate account will always be banned permanently.

Rule 8:  1 character at a time


Botting - the act of running a script, client triggers, or some other function to completely automate your character's actions - is forbidden. Breaking this rule will result in a warning on the first occurrence, a seven day ban on the second, and a permanent ban if there's a third.

Rule 9:  No triggers or scripts or automations


The rules of the General Discussion Board (GDB) must be followed. By using the GDB, you are agreeing to those rules. Exceptionally poor behavior on the GDB can result in a temporary or permanent game ban if you intentionally attempt to harm another player, promote illegal behavior, or repeatedly act in a way that is unbecoming to the game.

Rule 10: Follow the GDB rules listed here:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.0.html


If you choose to circumvent a temporary or permanent ban by creating a new account, we reserve the right to ban your new account, or allow you to play but refuse to grant requests or karma.

Rule 11: Don't make multiple accounts


Ignorance of the above rules is not considered a defense. If you are playing the game, you are assumed to have familiarized yourself with the above rules.

Rule 12:  Read the rules



Rule #1 is very complex, and there's a lot of things inferred with the world.
Here are some examples:
http://armageddon.org/help/view/What%20You%20Know
http://armageddon.org/help/view/Inappropriate%20vernacular
http://armageddon.org/help/view/Consent
http://armageddon.org/help/view/Rape
http://armageddon.org/help/view/Staff%20Complaint

After reading through multiple locked threads of this debate I've come to a conclusion we can all be happy with:



Reopen Tuluk.

I think part of what is great about MUDs and the community is the anonymity. I suppose I always felt that way, even dating back to MMORPGs like Everquest, where my game handle didn't register my age/sex/gender/skin color/whatever else about me, it was just "Soandso" and that was my handle, and that was that.

I feel it would be intrusive in a Staff interview to ask if they are POC/LGBTQ+, and may even lead to perceived or actual discrimination if they aren't selected. Self-identifying in that way on your account I guess could work, but I'm not sure what the benefits or perceived outcomes would be.

I think it's a reasonable question to ask, but I'm not sure what the path is towards that level of transparency or accountability, particularly on a volunteer run role play intensive multi user domain.

👏 👏 👏  mansa's post is really all that needs to be said.

I am not really comfortable with some of the changes and rules that exist outside of those documented here actually! For example now not being allowed to play certain types of gender variant characters that may be offensive, and not being able to say certain words that may be offensive. It is worth noting that someone can read these rules and not realize that certain words and behaviors are banned and get slapped for it. So, we either need to also mention those rules... or remove them...

Quote from: SodaDogARM on June 29, 2020, 03:52:22 PM
After reading through multiple locked threads of this debate I've come to a conclusion we can all be happy with:



Reopen Tuluk.

Hilarious but a legitimate standpoint. Let Allanak express the main themes of the game and let Tuluk be the opposite to appease those who are upset with the current status quo.

Dare I say the Tuluki theme of thought policing is very timely.....

Being that it came about almost fifteen years ago? Not particularly.

Sorry I forgot it is "doubleplusungood" to talk about thought policing!

Quote from: triste on June 29, 2020, 03:54:57 PM
For example now not being allowed to play certain types of gender variant characters that may be offensive

Not sure what you mean by this.  Feel free to email me or elaborate here, not aware we specifically prohibit anything, although we may judge a hentai-inspired tentacled mutant as being too extreme a mutation.

Quote from: Brokkr on June 29, 2020, 04:11:16 PM

Quote from: triste on June 29, 2020, 03:54:57 PM
For example now not being allowed to play certain types of gender variant characters that may be offensive

Not sure what you mean by this.  Feel free to email me or elaborate here, not aware we specifically prohibit anything, although we may judge a hentai-inspired tentacled mutant as being too extreme a mutation.

That is basically it. It wasn't my character but if someone wants to play with one mutation over another, who am I to yuck their yum?

Edit: of course as long as they followed rules on mutation. get rid of your arms and ability to wield weapons so you can have hentai tentacles? be my guest!

I don't think Tuluk will be the magical cure to "racism" that people are perceiving. Odds are it won't turn out to the the utopia people envision it as, and as such, it'll be the staff's fault, who aren't "diverse and sensitive" enough.  And then there's the matter of Allanak still being playable and why players continually choose to play such an awful, horrible place that glorifies real life racism and oppression! *gasp*

Still, I think the title of this thread is odd. If we want to talk about the direction of the game, the real direction, we already have threads discussing topics that are actually relevant, like features to be implemented, code tweaks, dynamics of merchant houses, etc. And yes, bringing back Tuluk is among those discussions as well.

Quote from: NinjaFruitSalad on June 29, 2020, 04:19:01 PM
I don't think Tuluk will be the magical cure to "racism" that people are perceiving. Odds are it won't turn out to the the utopia people envision it as, and as such, it'll be the staff's fault, who aren't "diverse and sensitive" enough.

I don't think that's even in the top 10 reasons to play in Tuluk for most players, except for maybe the players who keep mentioning that they are players of color in every single thread lately, but I don't know about them..

Tuluki hate anyone that is not from Tuluk and you better not change a damn thing about that. They even tattoo their citizens at birth to make them legit.

I was just kidding.

Quote from: SodaDogARM on June 29, 2020, 04:24:26 PM
I was just kidding.

Lol of course but I took the opportunity to make a joke that was on my mind  ;)

@ The OP:

Alright, I feel like this is enough. Look, games in general are art. Not all art is appreciated by everyone. Not all art is representative of all cultures. I don't see a painting by a traditional Japanese artist and say to myself, "Wow, this could really use some straight white influence on the subject material." or "Why isn't this art more inclusive of the LGBTQ community?" As a matter of fact, if a prominant POC artist had responses to his/her art that it wasn't representative enough of the white perspective, there would be outrage. It shouldn't be different when you're critiquing art created by any other race.

Armageddon is a game. It is one of the most successful free MUDs in the history of MUDing with a strong playerbase and 20+ years of history. Its subject matter and handling of things like fantastic racism and egalitarianism has contributed to it's popularity as a form of art, an interactive story. It is literature. Like any other literature, if you don't like it, don't read it. Art cannot appeal to all people. It's impossible. Specifically, if it becomes more appealing to one demographic, it likely becomes less appealing to another. When you're talking about taking a single piece of art, like this game, and making it more appealing to a small demographic, like say 5% of the population in the case of LGBTQ, you're likely going to make it less appealing to the other 95%, which has an overall net negative effect on the number of participants in the game. Math works the same way when you start talking about catering specifically other demographics, like POC.

So, coming here asking to fundamentally change the world to eliminate all possible things that could be considered offensive is destructive to the gameworld. If we all wanted to walk on eggshells about political correctness, seek consent for every action we take, and consider feelings before the feeling police come to take us away, we'd just step outside and go play the ultimate RPG: Life.

We're here to play in a different world, with a different set of rules, where life isn't fair, political correctness means bowing to your superiors or they kill you, and people are very likely going to say nasty and racist things to us. We're going to be marginalized, stepped on, abused, and likely killed. We're participating in a collaberative piece of literature, working together to create stories within a framework that has already existed for 20+ years. If you want to crusade against racism in this game, you can. Do it in character, in the game. Be the MLK of Elves if it makes you happy. Maybe you can ICly change the culture. That's something that might be able to happen. But you won't be doing it here, OOCly.

Someone just needs to come out and say it when this crap comes up instead of prancing around the issue. This isn't the place for real-world crusades. The game world is the game world. Real life is real life. Keep them separate, like they're supposed to be.

Quote
I don't see a painting by a traditional Japanese artist and say to myself, "Wow, this could really use some straight white influence on the subject material."

So well put.

Sadly Americans say, more or less, exactly this to Japanese, Korean, and other artists all the time. Unused to such horrific rudeness, entitlement, and close-mindedness they often shut down accounts and stop sending their art to America--or worse, stop producing art completely, ashamed from abuse they did not deserve.

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 04:52:36 PM
...
Someone just needs to come out and say it when this crap comes up instead of prancing around the issue. This isn't the place for real-world crusades. The game world is the game world. Real life is real life. Keep them separate, like they're supposed to be.

I think there are some issues that is contained within the game world of Zalanthas that is not enjoyable to roleplay in.  It is an escapist game, and we should craft the world so that it escapes the real world reality that we experience every day.

Some of those things are:

• Gender
• Sex
• Rape
• Racism
• Religion

Racism is tricky, though. We want to have conflict between different fantastic races, but we don't want to reproduce slang, historical examples, or symbols that have been used in the real world.   We're also (mostly) north american players, and we repeat examples of hated that we have learned in our local society.  That's why the name "Gypsies" are retconned, because that's a real world example that was lifted and played out in game.   Same with the slang 'Necker', which was lifted and twisted by some players who used it to represent real world slang.   Blackwing elves is another example of native american / first nations that was lifted and dropped into Zalanthas.

If players started to call the Labyrinth "the ghetto" I would complain.
I'm especially iffy about the concept that nobles should have "white" skin.
If players started using Yiddish slang, I would complain.

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 05:13:14 PM
I'm especially iffy about the concept that nobles should have "white" skin.

They do not unilaterally, I recall that from the last rolecall House Tor members tend to be darker skinned and I applied for a dark skinned Tor member [did not get the role sadly for y'all].

That said I agree documentation around phenotypical characteristics people are discriminated against in real life--such as hair, skin, and eyes--might be due for a second look. Height and ears are fine because there is enough phenotypical variation among IRL cultural groups that it is not as much of a thing. The NBA's tallest players come from just about every continent because race truly does not have a strong bearing on it. Also, no one is born with seven inch long elf ears so far as I know IRL. Therefore calling someone "knife ears" or whatever IG should be non-triggering except for extremely specific circumstances. Skin, eyes, and hair are risky however.

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 05:13:14 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 04:52:36 PM
...
Someone just needs to come out and say it when this crap comes up instead of prancing around the issue. This isn't the place for real-world crusades. The game world is the game world. Real life is real life. Keep them separate, like they're supposed to be.

I think there are some issues that is contained within the game world of Zalanthas that is not enjoyable to roleplay in.  It is an escapist game, and we should craft the world so that it escapes the real world reality that we experience every day.

Some of those things are:

• Gender
• Sex
• Rape
• Racism
• Religion

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

I adhere to the game's documentation, but I can tell you now, if Armageddon becomes a safe space ICly, I will find something else to do with my time. There are millions of things I could do. For years, the word most often used to describe Armageddon's game world was "harsh". Over the years as we've slid towards OOC political correctness and hand-holding that bleeds into the IC world, I feel like this descriptor has become less and less accurate. And it's that descriptor that set Armageddon apart from "just another MU*".

A permadeath MU* that takes out all of the emotional attachment and emotional investment in characters by avoiding all negative life events except death is "just another MU*", and is precisely why there are so many complaints that players won't use alternatives to murder. All PC conflict is extreme because you can't get in trouble for killing another PC in game for an IC reason. But try to do anything else negative to them without consent and you're flirting with a ban. That is ridiculous.

It is banworthy to offend someone or RP grabbing their butt without consent, but it's ok to kill them without a word. This is the backwards-ass game system you get when you try to take a harsh, permadeath gameworld and pretend to be sensitive to the OOC feelings of everyone they possibly can be.

There is a separation between IC and OOC. That should be the driving force of what we're doing here. It should not be allowed to harass people OOCly, or exhibit behavior OOCly that is unacceptable in modern society. But IC, people should be aware going into it that it is an adult-themed game in a harsh, unforgiving world that does not share the same values that we do IRL. If people can't separate their OOC emotions from what is happening ICly in the game world, it's possible that permadeath RPI's are not for them.

If I had one thing I missed about old-school staff, it would be on this point. Old school staff had no problem telling people exactly what I'm saying, "If you don't like the game world, maybe it's just not for you."

If we had more people willing to say that in regard to the flavor of the gameworld, I think we'd have a better game, and more players today.

As to the question of staff demographics...Staff should be chosen for quality in the job....that is it. Nobody should care about anything else.

I know I do not, I have never asked if that new clan staffer is male, female, black, white, gay straight etc etc etc etc. Are they good, bad or somewhere in between...nothing else matters. If all the best staffers happen to be single white males, then so be it...if they all happen to be gay midgets from borneo...Great...or any combination of anything...I only care about merit.

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 05:13:14 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 04:52:36 PM
...
Someone just needs to come out and say it when this crap comes up instead of prancing around the issue. This isn't the place for real-world crusades. The game world is the game world. Real life is real life. Keep them separate, like they're supposed to be.

I think there are some issues that is contained within the game world of Zalanthas that is not enjoyable to roleplay in.  It is an escapist game, and we should craft the world so that it escapes the real world reality that we experience every day.

Some of those things are:

• Gender
• Sex
• Rape
• Racism
• Religion

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

I adhere to the game's documentation, but I can tell you now, if Armageddon becomes a safe space ICly, I will find something else to do with my time. There are millions of things I could do. For years, the word most often used to describe Armageddon's game world was "harsh". Over the years as we've slid towards OOC political correctness and hand-holding that bleeds into the IC world, I feel like this descriptor has become less and less accurate. And it's that descriptor that set Armageddon apart from "just another MU*".

A permadeath MU* that takes out all of the emotional attachment and emotional investment in characters by avoiding all negative life events except death is "just another MU*", and is precisely why there are so many complaints that players won't use alternatives to murder. All PC conflict is extreme because you can't get in trouble for killing another PC in game for an IC reason. But try to do anything else negative to them without consent and you're flirting with a ban. That is ridiculous.

It is banworthy to offend someone or RP grabbing their butt without consent, but it's ok to kill them without a word. This is the backwards-ass game system you get when you try to take a harsh, permadeath gameworld and pretend to be sensitive to the OOC feelings of everyone they possibly can be.

There is a separation between IC and OOC. That should be the driving force of what we're doing here. It should not be allowed to harass people OOCly, or exhibit behavior OOCly that is unacceptable in modern society. But IC, people should be aware going into it that it is an adult-themed game in a harsh, unforgiving world that does not share the same values that we do IRL. If people can't separate their OOC emotions from what is happening ICly in the game world, it's possible that permadeath RPI's are not for them.

If I had one thing I missed about old-school staff, it would be on this point. Old school staff had no problem telling people exactly what I'm saying, "If you don't like the game world, maybe it's just not for you."

If we had more people willing to say that in regard to the flavor of the gameworld, I think we'd have a better game, and more players today.

In my last post I agreed with mansa that documentation around skin tone are "iffy" in his words and "risky" in my words. But I still completely agree with Heade and this is not contradictory: Art can be risky. In fact art that is risky and challenges the status quo is considered true art when compared to commercial art. Examining the tension between true art and mass market commercial art is what Postmodernism was about.

Like Heade I would prefer risky, true, unfiltered art given a choice.

Quote from: X-D on June 29, 2020, 05:56:04 PM
As to the question of staff demographics...Staff should be chosen for quality in the job....that is it. Nobody should care about anything else.

I know I do not, I have never asked if that new clan staffer is male, female, black, white, gay straight etc etc etc etc. Are they good, bad or somewhere in between...nothing else matters. If all the best staffers happen to be single white males, then so be it...if they all happen to be gay midgets from borneo...Great...or any combination of anything...I only care about merit.

I have a man-crush. Sadly, not gay though, in case people are collecting demographics for future staff selection criteria. ;D

Making a selection based on whether or not a person is gay or black doesn't seem at all offensive to you guys?

To my knowledge, the perfect system is in place. Meritocracy in an online medium. I bet, at least half of all staffers are safe in the knowledge that their skin color and sexuality are not factors in the discussion about whether they got the position.

I say half, because I know a few staffers get on voice and video chat on Discord.

Soooo....

Does one just CLAIM to be a member of a certain community?

Or do they need to provide video evidence?

Asking for a friend!!

Quote from: Hauwke on June 29, 2020, 06:32:10 PM
Making a selection based on whether or not a person is gay or black doesn't seem at all offensive to you guys?

Yeah, I think most people have expressed an opinion that way.

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 06:33:44 PM

Quote from: Hauwke on June 29, 2020, 06:32:10 PM
Making a selection based on whether or not a person is gay or black doesn't seem at all offensive to you guys?

Yeah, I think most people have expressed an opinion that way.

Yep. I am a bi trans person of color double rape victim with a genetic blood disease. I find the idea ill advisable even with all my "diversity points."

Meritocracies are ideal but the question becomes how does one measure merit. So far as I know there are no rules like "If thirty distinct players file a complaint against a staffer, they cannot be a staffer anymore." Without an explanation of the criteria for merit, there is no evidence that the system now is a meritocracy.

(Newsflash we are all taking this too seriously. We do not have a meritocracy, or elections; at the end it is just a group of mostly chill volunteers. That said most volunteer orgs still have published policies.)

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
..

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

ArmageddonMUD is not a teaching tool to enlighten people.  It's a roleplaying game that players can inhabit another body and play out fantasy within the text world.  It should be an escape from the everyday real.

This means that you shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.  And yeah, it is a safe space.  That's built into the rules of the world of Zalanthas.

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

You cannot roleplay characters in this game that don't adhere to these concepts.   The game is clear that it's a safe space the points above.

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
..

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

ArmageddonMUD is not a teaching tool to enlighten people.  It's a roleplaying game that players can inhabit another body and play out fantasy within the text world.  It should be an escape from the everyday real.

This means that you shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.  And yeah, it is a safe space.  That's built into the rules of the world of Zalanthas.

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

You cannot roleplay characters in this game that don't adhere to these concepts.   The game is clear that it's a safe space the points above.

I think what Heade is trying to escape are restrictive cultural rules recently championed in real life which have no relation to the setting. Heade is allowed to desire an escape from these rules.

Art is really the best metaphor here.

Do we want to be like commercial art; do we want to be like WoTC which has bent over to protect it's brand and offered to gut their content like some novelists will for Hollywood.

Or, do we want to be true to what this game is about, be true to the theme despite the criticism, like real artists who do not fear criticism.

There is a time and place to take and act on criticism, but we cannot be so cowardly as to jump and leap to please our critics every time, as some critics might be asking us to jump off a cliff.

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
..

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

ArmageddonMUD is not a teaching tool to enlighten people.  It's a roleplaying game that players can inhabit another body and play out fantasy within the text world.  It should be an escape from the everyday real.

This means that you shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.  And yeah, it is a safe space.  That's built into the rules of the world of Zalanthas.

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

You cannot roleplay characters in this game that don't adhere to these concepts.   The game is clear that it's a safe space the points above.

These weren't all always the rules of the game, and while I adhere to them, I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But we're also not talking about those specific rules, here. People are attempting to draw parallels between human/elven racism to real life racism and make it a big issue. It shouldn't be. This is art. This is literature.

Huckleberry Finn explored and highlighted racism, but Mark Twain is still widely considered a great American author.

I would love it if Armageddon would run an experiment. Run one version of Armageddon with no consent rules except FTB requests, and that allowed all controversial subject material(Torture, Rape, Religious Pursuits, Racism without limited vernacular, etc), and another version of Armageddon that took every feel-good suggestion from the Political Correctness Committee, and let them run side by side for 2 years. Whichever one had the highest daily average login times would be the philosophy that Arm would stick with. Either be a harsh world IC, or be a sensitive carebear game that pretends it's harsh as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

I suspect there would be a clear winner in the end, and I doubt it would be what you think it would.

I have hesitated to reply to see if anyone has feedback. But I just want to say...

Quote
Armageddon with no consent rules except FTB requests, and that allowed all controversial subject material

Yup, I would vote with my feet and play this version for sure rather than the alternative. Like I often say here, more content and options are generally better than less. I am for more content, less drama, more agency, less constraints.

Fuck right off.

Armageddon is neither art nor literature. This is a game. As a game it's meant to be fun for everyone, not just the shitwit with rape fantasies.

Not all games OR art OR media have to fit the same script. It requires a bit of empathy and insight to realize this.

People who want safe mass market themes now have WotC!

I kid, I kid. Of course we have already made compromises so we will continue to. We took the common philosophy that you need to accommodate those want to take away content rather than encourage people to self-manage their reactions to content or find/create new content. And that is fine. I empathize with people who don't want to encounter some topics and can accept their viewpoint. Just playing along with Heade's thought experiment. Thought is not a crime to be told to fuck off for.

Ew no. I'm not a sensitive person at all, but the consent rules make me very happy. I don't want to even get near being raped by you thirsty motherfuckers. Some of us do not engage in sexual roleplay whatsoever because it actively ruins our enjoyment of the game. There's other games for your rape-fantasies if that's what you need in your life.

At no point did I say I want rape content / fantasies / whatever tf by the way. Just saying I have a thick skin and do not fear any content. And I am saying this as a rape victim.

Either way, I understand the policies given the visceral reactions. It's a good policy.

Let's get back on topic.

OP is coming from a good place and wants us to figure out how we can sensibly address hard topics in a way that pleases the playerbase. He proposed to handle this through representation.

I went along with a thought experiment Heade had that others seemed to like the gist of. But not all agree with that approach.

Are the other posters saying we get what we want by moaning "Ew" and screaming "Fuck off?"

Do we just remove content bit by bit when people submit complaints? "____ is offensive, remove it." Is this game a Complain-ocracy?

What is our mechanism and solution. I don't want to be a Complain-ocracy.

Frankly, I can imagine a scenario where a cadre of anti-animal cruelty activists campaign against this game because you can ride mounts. Should we remove mount riding if a group of people complain that it is cruelty? IDK, one of my favorite players is a dressage expert, a lot of people like her. Other players like horses too. How do we decide whether to appease the animal rights players and the horse riding players?

We need a mechanism, I am tired of random sweeping changes that alienate some players while appeasing others. And everyone deserves to give their feedback in situations like these.

I do not want to see my community fetishized in the game and that happens every now and then. "Traps" and anime fetishism is something rampant on the internet and me saying representation is good every now and then pertains to literally that and that alone.

Call an elf a sharp ear
Call a mul an abomination
Dance on the line of consent

All good with me.

What's not good is using tropes and real world/internet shit and putting it in game. To be clear: I do think that the game world recently has started to show issues with gender and sexuality in recent times more than issues of real life race.

And another thing I noticed, the character descriptions have been so good lately! Honestly. Not every woman has plush lips, toned thighs, and ample bosom.

I do think we need more female representation in power. I don't care who gets picked as long as they do their job really well, yeah. But, I think a lot of people hide their gender cause there's a feeling of a difference in treatment in the discord and forum when you are a woman.

Am I dead wrong? Maybe.
Do I have saved examples? Yes.
Does what bothers me bother you? Maybe not.

But instead of just saying you're wrong and telling me to get off my sensitive ass, imagine for a moment that someone portrayed you as a sexual item and that your only character trait is being queer or a woman. That, I do not like.

Full agree, but what is our mechanism? I am thankful you give your feedback to staff and they address it, but that mechanism by definition will not work for everyone.

If our game has 10 players who believe riding mounts is cruelty and should be removed, are they enough of an interest group to successfully lobby to have mounts removed even if the vast majority of players like riding beetles and inixes in game? Or should we just tell those players who dislike animal cruelty and riding to play elves? Would refusing to remove mount code be insensitive?

[edit/context for page roll] OP believes the answer is representative staff, others kind of agree, others disagree. I want voting/elections but no one wants that. Looking for more options here!

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
..

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

ArmageddonMUD is not a teaching tool to enlighten people.  It's a roleplaying game that players can inhabit another body and play out fantasy within the text world.  It should be an escape from the everyday real.

This means that you shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.  And yeah, it is a safe space.  That's built into the rules of the world of Zalanthas.

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

You cannot roleplay characters in this game that don't adhere to these concepts.   The game is clear that it's a safe space the points above.

Beautifully put, Mansa. 

Heade, you said you didn't necessarily agree with all of the above policies.  Rather than make assumptions, I'd like to ask directly, which of the four core polices do you disagree with?

QuoteThere is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

I have more to add, but I'll see if there's some clarity to be had before proceeding.

@Saiseiki Beautifully put, but that list of rules is not comprehensive. It omits rules around the language you can use, etc. So you might need to repose that question to Heade.

Part of the problem is that list is ever growing. Mansa did not lay out the full list. Fact. Unless there is a clear mechanism for how rules end up on that list, or player representation among those making the list, how is the list of rules even valid? That is OP's concern.

So I don't post here much. I do appreciate the revolution happening and how it seems to be touching every aspect of our lives.  It's affected mine in many ways, at work and in my personal life. I think that's a positive thing, as a whole.

As far as Armageddon is concerned....so, I was on Armageddon staff for many years, and FYI when you join staff or apply for staff nobody asks you what your ethnicity is or if you identify as male or female or what your sexual orientation is.  They don't want a picture of you. They don't want your real name. They seem interested in evaluating your strengths as a team player and your contributions thus far as a player of their game, and that is all. It seems to me that you could quite easily catfish yourself into a Storyteller position. There's nothing in the hiring process (or at least, the hiring process as I remember it, it's been awhile!) to prevent it.  Anything they know about you, they know because you share it voluntarily. Otherwise, it doesn't come up.

Does the information you share voluntarily affect your chances? Yeah, I'm sure it does. It does everywhere else in the world, which is why there's so many boardrooms filled with nothing but old white dudes. And it did for me.  For instance, I was denied a chance to be on staff multiple times because of who I was married to at the time. (My husband had a bad reputation/was banned from the game and they did not like him...thus, I was tarred with the same brush for many years.) Was this fair? Eh...you be the judge. I sure wouldn't classify that choice as discrimination on a level with being rejected because my romantic partner happened to be a certain gender, for example. (They eventually gave in when I applied enough times and saw that I was, y'know, a nice and reasonable person who just really liked writing about bone swords.)

Anyway, letting voluntarily revealed personal information about a person affect hiring decisions is something that Armageddon staff could and possibly should check in with themselves about to see how they're doing because they're in a position of power - and I think when you're in a position of power, interrogating how that power affects the world around it is really important.

HOWEVER, they don't ask about your body or your personal life or your political views during the hiring process or at any time while you're on staff, and quite frankly I don't think any of them should. That's personal!

When I was on staff it skewed leftist as a whole, in terms of value systems.  Pretty sure it still does.

Thanks for posting that Laura. That is exactly why I want elections. I am not specifically mad at Staff for taking your early applications like that because it is human nature and similar to many boardrooms as you say. I want us to proactively consider mechanisms to address the issue and this insight is valuable.

I'm pretty opposed to elected staff and would never want to run a creative enterprise that way. But it could be an interesting experiment to hire one Storyteller with an election I guess, just to see what happens. Armageddon staff is BIG, and I do mean BIG, compared to the size of the playerbase, so it kind of feels like they can afford to mess around and do some social science on themselves.

Yeah that would be fun! Like a player representative or union organizer. I actually love this idea and could address OP's concern. Basically any idea besides formless complaints, I adore.

I don't think voting for staff would be a good idea:

but I think nominating someone for a helper position every now and then would be good. Or like a player representative to represent an idea or change and rely on them to make the argument. I dunno. Me big brain hurt.

I have so many OOC friends that I would win every single elections.

MAKE ARMAGEDDON GREAT AGAIN! VOTE FOR KAWAII ^_^ MALKEN-SAN 2020 （✿ ͡◕ ᴗ◕)つ━━✫・*。 (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

Let me catfish my way into your heart!

Quote from: Malken on June 30, 2020, 12:15:25 PM
I have so many OOC friends that I would win every single elections.

MAKE ARMAGEDDON GREAT AGAIN! VOTE FOR KAWAII ^_^ MALKEN-SAN 2020 （✿ ͡◕ ᴗ◕)つ━━✫・*。 (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

Let me catfish my way into your heart!

Got my vote, damn. I wish I knew how to do cool emojis.

idk your kaomoji game is pretty good. people said they wanted a meritocracy

but yeah, boardroom style meritocracy is the status quo and if that is what you want Malken you've got it. But OP is correct to wonder if it is representative.

Meritocracy is the way to go. Although I was a part of the Ubuntu Linux community and those who were Members were allowed to elect/vote the Community Council members (and for the other two boards). It did work to a point though.

Quote from: triste on June 30, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
idk your kaomoji game is pretty good. people said they wanted a meritocracy

The average voters don't know the difference between mediocracy and meritocracy so it's all good.

٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶ヽ(♡‿♡)ノ٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶

Maybe in this community, yes.

Armageddon is not a meritocracy. The Armageddon staff team is not a meritocracy.

The more the game appeals to people who aren't straight cis white men, the more diversity staff will have, just as a function of who is around and who becomes passionate enough about the game and community to devote the kind of blood, sweat, and tears it takes to do such a thankless chore.  I wouldn't ask people to disclose any kind of minority status.  I'm really uncomfortable when people ask me to disclose mine, and I'm usually pretty up-front about them!  It's different when it's voluntary.

I think the playerbase and game as a whole actively try to make this game a welcome escape for people who are discriminated against in various ways IRL, despite the presence of a few vocal kneejerk reactionaries.  Problems happen or are regoznied because society is changing and people are learning to be better, but those problems actually do get addressed here.  That's been true since I started playing over 10 years ago, or I wouldn't even be here.

Sure, sexism isn't supposed to be in the game.  Is it?  Absolutely.  I could write whole pages about how differently my male characters are treated different from female characters.  There's active pushback against it though.  Homophobia, also not supposed to be part of the game.  I could write pages about how my homosexual characters have been treated different from the heterosexual ones.  Again, people push back hard against it both IC and OOC.  Trans issues, oh boy, the last time that came up (a few years ago) there was a whole kerfuffle around andro pronouns that resulted in me, a nonbinary player, quitting the game for a while.  The problem was resolved to my satisfaction eventually.  I'd like to think the game has gotten better there, though I've never tried to play a trans character.

Anyway.  From those of the playerbase I know and who choose to disclose things, I'd say we have a pretty diverse playerbase.  I'd imagine staff is also pretty diverse, just because people who stick around tend to gravitate toward staff.  Do I think staff should self-assess their diversity?  Yes.  It's always good to know where your strengths and weaknesses are.  But if I was on staff, being asked to disclose my personal stuff in anything less than a voluntary, anonymous fashion would make me really uncomfortable.  So I wouldn't want to do that to other people.

More than I'd care to see any sort of elected liaison position, I'd like an anonymous complaint/suggestion system.  I would like to be able to put in a complaint ticket about sexual harassment, people pushing the consent boundaries, or other issues, without having my name attached to it, so that they could be investigated without having to worry about retaliation.  I'd like to be able to put in a suggestion about something like changing a slur or addressing problematic documentation without it being attached to my account.  Would it be clear at the time who made the complaint, to the people investigating it?  Possibly.  But would it be on my account info for years?  No.  So that would be really nice.

Any sort of election deciding Staff is a silly idea.

You know who will win that election? Someone people here on the GDB know. Are they the best person for the job? Who knows, but probably not.

People like me, who no-one knows, or gives a shit about (And who doesn't care to try and politic and hustle for votes for a staff position on an online text game) would never end up on Staff for any reason. This is not a good thing.

Self selecting people who can sell themselves to our player base would end with bad Staff. Only one of them? Congratulations, you're the Hlum noble of Storytellers, you're different from everyone else on Staff, you didn't "earn" your way there, you're just some person. All of them elected...Armageddon becomes a different game, maybe better? (I personally doubt it) Maybe worse. But not Armageddon.

(If there was anything to support out of this thread. I really like valeria's idea of anonymous reporting mechanisms. I believe things do go unreported for fear of reprisal, or just a snitches stitches attitude)

Quote from: Saiseiki on June 30, 2020, 10:47:31 AM

Quote from: mansa on June 29, 2020, 06:42:15 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 29, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
..

I disagree. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my days IRL being a racist, bigoted, homophobic rapist that crusades around the world with religious zeal. So, those things being in a game is escapism for me. It allows you to explore terrible, horrific subject matter with no real world consequence. I was drawn to arm for it's portrayal of all of these terrible things.

Look, if you eliminate these types of issues in both the real world and the fictional world, how will people know why they're so awful? They will have neither experienced it, nor heard about it, nor read about it. Through literature and roleplay, we can experience the truly terrible and feel the associated emotions with no real world consequence, other than reaching a greater understanding of why these things are terrible IRL.

Reading fiction about the horrors of slavery, torture, rape, racism, religious zealotry, sexism and so on is healthy.

ArmageddonMUD is not a teaching tool to enlighten people.  It's a roleplaying game that players can inhabit another body and play out fantasy within the text world.  It should be an escape from the everyday real.

This means that you shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.  And yeah, it is a safe space.  That's built into the rules of the world of Zalanthas.

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

You cannot roleplay characters in this game that don't adhere to these concepts.   The game is clear that it's a safe space the points above.

Beautifully put, Mansa. 

Heade, you said you didn't necessarily agree with all of the above policies.  Rather than make assumptions, I'd like to ask directly, which of the four core polices do you disagree with?

QuoteThere is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

I have more to add, but I'll see if there's some clarity to be had before proceeding.

I'm not interested in derailing this thread from the original topic, which I think this side discussion is beginning to do. A direct answer to your question here will undoubtedly cause this discussion to go a direction that this thread isn't intended for. If you're interested in more than virtue signaling and would like to have a discussion on my opinion, feel free to PM me and I can answer you there.

I would, however, like to point out that Mansa's entire argument against what I said is the exact argument I made for things staying as they are: It's the status quo. This is how things are. Mansa basically copy/pasted current staff policy on a few things. We could do the same thing with racism in game. It's supported by the docs. So, if the best argument for not changing things is that this is how it currently is, that argument applies to the OP as well.

Anonymous-based complaint system - bad idea. My community is a prime example of why. The tl;dr version of it is: zero accountability for the people making the accusations.

So here's the situation:

We have a thing called Community Standards, and deed restrictions. We're all supposed to obey them, but it's only enforced if someone complains. Complaints can be anonymous.

An entire neighborhood (remember this is the largest 55+ community in the country - 70 square miles and over 120,000 people) might all be on board with Joe Smith's paint job on the trim of his home. It's beautiful, it enhances the neighborhood, and the painters didn't block traffic parking their vehicles or toss cigarette butts on the neighbor's lawn.

But some angry resident of the town this neighborhood is in - who has a beef with the senior community as a whole - spends all her time driving around this neighborhood every day, and sends complaints in the SECOND she discovers something is out of compliance. She doesn't live in the neighborhood. She doesn't even live in the community. But she's allowed to submit a complaint because who's gonna stop her? It's done anonymously.

So the ARC (the compliance people with Community Standards) has to follow up on it. They have to follow up on ALL complaints, because they have no way of knowing which are valid and which aren't, until they do. They don't have any way of knowing that it's this angry non-resident who bitches about everyone and their brother. They can't ban her from submitting complaints, because it's done anonymously.

So poor Joe is forced to re-paint his trim because the shade was 1 degree warmer than the "allowable" colors in that neighborhood, according to Community Standards.

Even though EVERYONE in the neighborhood loves it, and it enhances the entire neighborhood.

One outsider spoiled it for everyone.

Meanwhile - the angry biddy is submitting complaints about all kinds of things that aren't even true. And the ARC has to waste countless hours following up on dozens of complaints that have zero merit at all. Like Sue Jones' tacky pink flamingo in the front garden - even though she doesn't own a tacky pink flamingo. And the for sale sign on the front lawn of Malik Tor's house - even though his house isn't for sale and he doesn't own a for sale sign.  And the religious statues in Talia Fale's back yard - even though a) back yards are supposedly safe space, and b) it'd require someone trespassing on private property to even see those things and c) there aren't any religious statues on Talia Fale's back yard.

Dozens and dozens of complaints against people who haven't violated any of the deed restrictions, haven't even tried to toe the line, haven't done anything wrong - and all because one griefer decides to submit anonymous complaints and the ARC is required to follow up on ALL of them so as not to be accused of favoritism.

The above situations are all true.

For that reason alone - I'm 100% against anonymous complaints.

I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

I've been silent since I started this and I feel I need to elaborate as to the why behind my ask the staff thread and me asking all of you collectively to voice your opinions on this matter.

I'm of the firm belief that demographically, if there IS discussions about race inside of our community and our game world, we need to be sure that those in power are even capable of empathizing with the playerbase concerns. And it's a fact that this has been a recurring topic regarding race, inside the game world.

To give example, I don't think a man can empathize with a woman giving birth. They could never be in their shoes, so, how could they possibly understand? And their reactions, in a situation they cannot understand, could come off as very ignorant. Just like Brokkr posting a very opinionated response about race in a thread that was locked due to the topic of race, they clearly were not empathetic, so it provoked the bigger question. Can our staff accurately represent our diverse playerbase. If it's a council of dominantly middle aged white males, I say not regardless of intentions. So that's why certain demographics do matter. We have a diverse playerbase. Of men women, LGTBQ, non-binary individuals, people of color. But is our true standings represented in our staff? Presently, from what I have witnessed, I think not. A level of empathy and responsibility needs to be represented, and our staff taking opinionated responses on a public, scale is unacceptable. We need people who consider the consequences of their actions, the message they portray. Especially in high-risk topics such as race, sexism, rape etc.

So does our staff have voices, or is it a closing ranks frat boy conglomerate? Pardon my French.

WRT Lizzie and Heade: Yep, good idea. Last time I asked about voting, manipulation of votes on the GDB came up. But as I mentioned back then linking it to the account solves the issue since staff already enforce account uniqueness. Could possibly be built into the request tool too.

Seems like a really small but powerful change. Of course there are flaws like "what if you do not like either option" but having a say in matters at all is better than a complain-ocracy.

WRT OP: it's a good idea but it is still unclear how to achieve it. Not everyone might be on board here due to constraints such as our community being small, but generally yes, I agree that people from a given group should have say on matters that pertain to their group.

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 05:44:07 PM
I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

In regards to Lizzie and Valeria, I do not support anonymous decisions either. Historically that ends in one way, and it is never a balanced and fair decision

On top of the new OOC era...

Quote from: Lizzie on June 30, 2020, 06:12:28 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 05:44:07 PM
I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 07:50:49 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on June 30, 2020, 06:12:28 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 05:44:07 PM
I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

Quote from: Lizzie on June 30, 2020, 08:03:13 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 07:50:49 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on June 30, 2020, 06:12:28 PM

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 05:44:07 PM
I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

Sure, and that is exactly the system that I suggested. No one could vote without them already being an established account over 30 days old. Make all votes last 29 days or less so that no one can create accounts specifically to vote. Furthermore, you could even add a stipulation that an account must have been logged into within the last 6 months immediately prior to the vote being called for in order to receive the vote prompt.

This is a far cry from allowing the type of anonymous complaining that you described in your community. We're talking about only citizens in the neighborhood being able to vote. But do you really think that if they had such a thing in your neighborhood that it would be a good idea to publish the names of the people who complained about your neighbors paint job? That's how people die over paint jobs.

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 08:10:44 PM

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

Quote(by me)
They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

Quote
Sure, and that is exactly the system that I suggested. No one could vote without them already being an established account over 30 days old. Make all votes last 29 days or less so that no one can create accounts specifically to vote. Furthermore, you could even add a stipulation that an account must have been logged into within the last 6 months immediately prior to the vote being called for in order to receive the vote prompt.

This is a far cry from allowing the type of anonymous complaining that you described in your community. We're talking about only citizens in the neighborhood being able to vote. But do you really think that if they had such a thing in your neighborhood that it would be a good idea to publish the names of the people who complained about your neighbors paint job? That's how people die over paint jobs.

I'm not talking about new accounts. I'm talking about people who are ALREADY registered members of the community - but have not played in years, have a gripe against the game, and would love nothing more than the opportunity to vote for something they think would ruin it. Or just vote randomly to skew the votes, because no one can stop them since they're already registered and their accounts are still valid. This would be that opportunity.

Quote from: Doublepalli on June 29, 2020, 03:02:16 PM
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55908.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55908.0.html)

Hey guys, as a POC, I'm just curious of the game's direction and influence on what's going on real life and real time today, and wanted to see what sort of cultural influences are there.  Anything you guys want to add, let's discuss it maturely.

Just posting, in support of Brokkrs response.

Quote from: Heade on June 30, 2020, 05:05:43 PM
I would, however, like to point out that Mansa's entire argument against what I said is the exact argument I made for things staying as they are: It's the status quo. This is how things are.

My argument is this:
...You shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.

The game is constantly changing and evolving.  People are constantly evolving and changing.  My argument has nothing to do with status quo.

For example:
It was less than 2 years ago when gender definitions were expanded in the game.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg1022647/topicseen.html#msg1022647

Again, very recently the minimum age of characters was increased from 13 to 16
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55105.msg1037893/topicseen.html#msg1037893

Again, very recently sexual torture was outright banned.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,46717.msg998137/topicseen.html#msg998137

Hell, "Rape" was outright banned only in 2013.  That's 20 years after the game was launched.

Gender roles in Zalanthas still get debated, and I don't want to post threads on the GDB from 2016, 2012, 2009, 2006, 2002, etc.



The staff and the players will constantly be reassessing what sort of game we want to play, what enjoyment we can experience in the fantasy world, how we create a welcoming atmosphere for new players.  We should be able to bring up existing ideas and systematic issues that we disagree with, discuss them, and petition for change.

Quote from: mansa on June 30, 2020, 10:12:58 PM
The staff and the players will constantly be reassessing what sort of game we want to play, what enjoyment we can experience in the fantasy world, how we create a welcoming atmosphere for new players.  We should be able to bring up existing ideas and systematic issues that we disagree with, discuss them, and petition for change.

But you keep going on like every change that is made that you like is something that is "welcoming" to the greatest number of players. That isn't the case. If I want to play a game with space pirates in it, and you don't want space pirates in your game, putting space pirates in the game, or not, inevitably satisfies one party while putting off another.

This is true with all of those elements that have been debated in the past, and with all that will be debated in the future. This isn't about inclusion. It's about deciding what kind of game you want to play, which, while including some, will inevitably exclude others who don't want what you're selling. Players who like that kind of game will stay, and players that don't like the new direction of the game will leave. That's it.

But you're right, it's been happening for years, and we've lost a LOT of players.

So part of the reason why I would consider signing on staff is the anonymity of it. If I submitted an application for staff, I don't want the rest of the player base to know who I've played. I just want to contribute to a game and a community that I've been a (on and off sometimes) part of since the past decade and a half in a meaningful way. How is this going to happen if people vote for staff candidates?

QuoteHeade, you said you didn't necessarily agree with all of the above policies.  Rather than make assumptions, I'd like to ask directly, which of the four core polices do you disagree with?

QuoteThere is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

I have more to add, but I'll see if there's some clarity to be had before proceeding.

QuoteI'm not interested in derailing this thread from the original topic, which I think this side discussion is beginning to do. A direct answer to your question here will undoubtedly cause this discussion to go a direction that this thread isn't intended for. If you're interested in more than virtue signaling and would like to have a discussion on my opinion, feel free to PM me and I can answer you there.

Yeah, trying to get specifics, define terms, etc. so we can have an actual discussion.  If that constitutes "virtue signaling", we're not in a good place.

QuoteI would, however, like to point out that Mansa's entire argument against what I said is the exact argument I made for things staying as they are: It's the status quo. This is how things are. Mansa basically copy/pasted current staff policy on a few things. We could do the same thing with racism in game. It's supported by the docs. So, if the best argument for not changing things is that this is how it currently is, that argument applies to the OP as well.

Yep, a good ol' Inherency argument, for my fellow mega-geek debaters.  In this case, I think it's a fairly good one.  Arm certainly does more to tackle problematic topics than any other equivalent (analogous?) game I've seen.  I've had some truly magical experiences while playing here that would otherwise have been impossible but for those afore-cited rules.  I don't get the feeling Mansa is disgruntled, and neither am I.  That doesn't mean I can't listen closely to what others are saying, though, nor do my best to understand where their pain is arising.  I try to do that in real life, and that's at least as important (and often far more difficult) online than in-person.

Again, if you consider the above "virtue signaling", I would reply It's my attempt to contextualize the space I'm coming from.  I hope we can at least agree that neither of us is arguing these points in bad faith.  YMMV

As I respectfully disagree that a delve into core tenants of the "Rules of Engagement" are a derail, given that we're discussing the direction of the game, I'll sketch out some brief thoughts/reactions to each:

QuoteThere is gender equality, and you can be any gender.

- As implied above, I find this hugely liberating, and in large part agree.  After what Valeria wrote, I may well have had a "outlier" experience with my one androgynous character.  I'm still a relative newb, and don't pretend to have the deep understanding of (potentially) shifting dynamics that the vets in these parts do.  Still, with my one data point, it was a powerful, moving experience, one that wouldn't have been possible without both the social 'okay' and the coded possibility.

QuoteThere is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.

- Again, I think this is largely true.  We might differ over NO negatives, but as stated, this is indeed the official staff policy, and from what I've been able to view/have experienced, holds up in the main once in play.  To be fair, my participation in ER is somewhat limited, so there may be entire facets/pockets I'm missing.

QuoteThere is no rape in game.

- Check.  The docs are perhaps the most unequivocal and forceful here.  My very first reaction to this when I began playing was "But won't you need this to tell certain kinds of stories?"  (I'm not going to get into personal, RL experiences here, but rest assured this isn't a naive statement from me stemming from a lack of familiarity with the topic.) 

     Now with some time under my belt, I've revised my opinion.  First off, I can only imagine the staff-side nightmare trying to fairly adjudicate allegations of lines of consent, inappropriate storylines, etc. must have been.  There's really no winning, and almost any time a player complaint revolving around rape was filed, I'm willing to bet someone felt either burned or dismissed.  From an rp perspective, I've actually found that almost all of the same power differentials can play themselves out without being diluted, and without resorting to rp'ing out scenes that many players would or have found damaging.  I think back to the handful of scenes that could have led to rape for my character, and don't feel I've missed out on much of anything for not having played through that.  Instead, those scenes found other ways - some subtle, some brutal, some Kudo-worthy - of conveying the same power dynamic, and leaving me chilled in a good way.

QuoteThere is no racism based on the color of your skin.

- Hopefully we can all agree this one is a no-brainer in terms of being supported.  The merits and flaws of Fantastical Racism aside, I don't see how direct, 1:1 analogs to RL racism would either facilitate meaningful rp, nor be supportive of the playerbase.

     In any event, I'm going to continue to play, continue to enjoy the game, and continue to attempt to rp my ass off.

Quote from: Doublepalli on June 30, 2020, 05:51:28 PM
I've been silent since I started this and I feel I need to elaborate as to the why behind my ask the staff thread and me asking all of you collectively to voice your opinions on this matter.

I'm of the firm belief that demographically, if there IS discussions about race inside of our community and our game world, we need to be sure that those in power are even capable of empathizing with the playerbase concerns. And it's a fact that this has been a recurring topic regarding race, inside the game world.

To give example, I don't think a man can empathize with a woman giving birth. They could never be in their shoes, so, how could they possibly understand? And their reactions, in a situation they cannot understand, could come off as very ignorant. Just like Brokkr posting a very opinionated response about race in a thread that was locked due to the topic of race, they clearly were not empathetic, so it provoked the bigger question. Can our staff accurately represent our diverse playerbase. If it's a council of dominantly middle aged white males, I say not regardless of intentions. So that's why certain demographics do matter. We have a diverse playerbase. Of men women, LGTBQ, non-binary individuals, people of color. But is our true standings represented in our staff? Presently, from what I have witnessed, I think not. A level of empathy and responsibility needs to be represented, and our staff taking opinionated responses on a public, scale is unacceptable. We need people who consider the consequences of their actions, the message they portray. Especially in high-risk topics such as race, sexism, rape etc.

So does our staff have voices, or is it a closing ranks frat boy conglomerate? Pardon my French.

So you're basically saying that our staff here, who run an intense role-playing game, and have not only roleplayed, themselves, for decades but have also judged other players by how they roleplay...  cannot empathize being the opposite gender? My, that is shocking. Tell me, how does one empathize with and properly roleplay being an elf, a dwarf, or a mul without ever having been one, either?

Ignoring the sheer ignorance of what you post, I'll say this again: first, staff demographics are none of your business.  And as Brokkr said, they don't even poll their prospective staff members for such information.

Second, the staff are not here to "represent" certain demographics. They are here to manage the game. And guess what? They don't know your real race, gender, religion, or whatever either as they handle your complaints, or award you a kudos, or ban you for multiplaying. As long as staff members are being chosen on merit without asking them for irrelevant personal details, this works perfectly well.

Quote from: NinjaFruitSalad on July 01, 2020, 03:53:07 AM
Ignoring the sheer ignorance of what you post, I'll say this again: first, staff demographics are none of your business.  And as Brokkr said, they don't even poll their prospective staff members for such information.

Second, the staff are not here to "represent" certain demographics. They are here to manage the game. And guess what? They don't know your real race, gender, religion, or whatever either as they handle your complaints, or award you a kudos, or ban you for multiplaying. As long as staff members are being chosen on merit without asking them for irrelevant personal details, this works perfectly well.

That, I feel, is a more polite version, of what I'd have said.

Staff do no press us for demographics, or inquire about or political, sexual or religious leanings. Nobody asks/cares. I'd wager, they'd rather not know to begin with.

Why, then, should they be expected to reveal their personal demographics? No, their privacy matters, as much as ours.

I haven't read this whole thread, I don't stop by too often anymore.

I will say part of the reason I've quit is I believe I experienced flagrant sexism in the game.  I am convinced that what I experienced in game would have not occurred if either both I and my PC were both male.  I also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

On top of that, we are living in hellish times in the US.  I don't feel like role playing the effects of tragedy, hardship, pestilence,racism, nepotism, xenophobia and poverty because those are all things that are painfully close in reality right now.  I am located blocks from where George Floyd was murdered.

The game was supposed to be a place to escape sexism both IG and hopefully within the community, but I haven't found that to be the case.  All of the aforementioned things I want to avoid IRL seem to seep out of the game.  The culture here needs a huge overhaul.  It's what's pushed me away before and it's what's pushed me away again.

And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I could say more about my recent experience with the game but I'll leave it at that.  All it takes is a few bad apples, and the lack of transparency to "protect story" is actually a smoke screen that enforces zero accountability of rules and the safety of the players.

Quote from: Bebop on July 01, 2020, 08:19:40 PMI also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

Take it to reddit. Take it to the alt forums. If it is, how you say it is, it's exactly the kind of thing, that needs to be exposed. It matters.

Especially things like torture and rape, it's only an amusement, to people who have never had to survive them.

Quote from: Vex on July 01, 2020, 09:08:14 PM

Quote from: Bebop on July 01, 2020, 08:19:40 PMI also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

Take it to reddit. Take it to the alt forums. If it is, how you say it is, it's exactly the kind of thing, that needs to be exposed. It matters.

Especially things like torture and rape, it's only an amusement, to people who have never had to survive them.

i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

Quote from: Bebop on July 01, 2020, 08:19:40 PM
And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I concur and also apply that to rascism, and why I believe we need to be sure Staff can accurately understand the why behind these threads surfacing, and the manner in which they need to handle them.

Quote from: Doublepalli on July 01, 2020, 09:40:33 PM

Quote from: Bebop on July 01, 2020, 08:19:40 PM
And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I concur and also apply that to rascism, and why I believe we need to be sure Staff can accurately understand the why behind these threads surfacing, and the manner in which they need to handle them.

You have options if you don't want to deal with racism.. Play a human? I mean.. If you play an elf and you get upset that you are facing racism in the game because of it, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know -anyone- who would care about the color of your skin in game. Heck, most players don't even bother reading your desc.

What do you want, exactly? A lot of female players have been terrible staffers on Armageddon, just like a lot of male players have been terrible staffers on Armageddon. It's not because you put a female on staff that everything solve itself.

Quote from: Khorm on July 01, 2020, 09:21:49 PM
i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

I listed an alternative. I even listed it first.

It doesn't matter where, really, its about their being able to say what they need/want to say, without the fear of biased moderation or censorship. That's it.

Quote from: Vex on July 01, 2020, 09:59:36 PM

Quote from: Khorm on July 01, 2020, 09:21:49 PM
i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

I listed an alternative. I even listed it first.

It doesn't matter where, really, its about their being able to say what they need/want to say, without the fear of biased moderation or censorship. That's it.

Taking it to reddit is not productive for someone experiencing personal trauma who has an obsession with a game that reminds them of their personal trauma. A psychiatrist, a therapist, an emotional support group, a social worker - that's where they need to go.

I was in no way advocating healing. Their mental well-being isn't my problem, nor would I take it upon myself to make it my problem, uninvited.

I was suggesting if there was such a glaring misconduct, especially in regards to the rules of consent being ignored, or hand waved for someones protection, it should be exposed for what it is. Otherwise, they'll continue to think they're able to get away with it, and do it to someone else.

through the proper channels, like a character complaint. those types of complaints WILL get acted on as they break the rules.

I suspect the complaint is being reviewed. If it has been dismissed like Bebop has described, then it is a concern for everyone.

Quote from: Harmless on July 02, 2020, 12:23:04 AM
through the proper channels, like a character complaint. those types of complaints WILL get acted on as they break the rules.

Quote from: Bebop on July 01, 2020, 08:19:40 PMI also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

For the sake of discussion, the complaint was regarding a PC (Bebop's) being codedly subdued and then codedly whipped using a whip object that utilizes a script. The PC performing the whipping and the PC subduing Bebop's PC performed no additional emotes pertaining to the action of the barbed whip (the barbed nature of the whip being described in both the object's sdesc and its mdesc). The complaint was based upon the question: does coded, base gameplay in the game ever require asking consent?

Further to the discussion, here is what the whip script displays to the player being whipped:

[PC complaint is about] raises a wickedly barbed whip and lashes out at you.

*CRACK* Fiery pain dizzies you as the blow savages your back.

(Both of these echoes are automated).

The complaint was dismissed as it was determined that the requirement for consent regarding torture did not apply to the game at large - it is assumed consent is given to the coded game when a player chooses to play Armageddon. The are echoes within the code that describe being backstabbed (to death), being kicked and trampled (to death) and in very specific cases: vomiting one's insides out, being dragged beneath the sands and suffocated and being devoured by parasitic worms.

With these elements of the game being non-consensual (especially when enacted by NPCs with no human oversight), it was assessed that the scene in question, ironically because it was performed without any human elaboration (no emotes detailing the paring of the skin, nor the flensing of flesh), fell into the same category, and so didn't require consent -but certainly could benefit from it. Indeed most players would request consent before whipping - though such really only leaves death as an alternative.

As 'help consent' read at the time:


If you act out a graphic sequence without first obtaining the other
player's consent, and the player then complains within a reasonable
amount of time (so that the runlogs can be checked and the complaint
verified), you will be banned.


The argument that the complaint be upheld hinged on what constituted a graphic sequence due to the help file, as read, requiring consent in the following situations:
~ Sexual/Adult RP
~ Torture that results in functional damage to a character (e.g. eye loss)
~ 'Graphic sequences'.

The semantics around what defines a 'graphic sequence' was deemed too vague to enforce. But it was assumed to cover situations where a player is using emotes to describe, in graphic detail, the injury (that is not resulting in functional damage) to your character. So, in the case of a whipping this would be a PC forcing their victim to read emotes about their flesh being shredded, the action of their spilled blood, etc. - for a captive audience, this would be deemed unfair and in-line with our other consent rules which seek to retain the reality of the game world while allowing players to not engage with parts of it that resemble the real-world we are playing a game to get away from.

As the scene did not involve such 'graphic' emotes and was instead relying upon base elements (hard-coded) of the game that the accused had no control over, we assessed that they were simply using the mechanics available to them and no action was taken beyond asking said player to consider asking for consent in the future - in case emotes from others involved occur.

This all said: I do not believe this complaint precludes a staff complaint about certain hard-coded elements that staff is responsible for crossing the line in terms of 'graphic content'.

Nice answer.

And to make sure nobody missed that part...By playing the game you are giving consent to the coded aspects of the game. One would think that is self evident but....meh.

I hate these threads myself and rather not post in them.

Still I can't help but find it amusing since it shows how close minded and bias people can be when it comes to proper RP within the game.

This type of close minded mentality also exists within staff, and caused me to just walk away from the game years ago after a particularly bad conversation with various staff members all at once after encountering a Staff PC, lover or good buddy who had some really minor issues with my RP. To give some context the worst offense was they did not like my to ask to go train archery since archery was a name of a skill. Umm, sure.  :-\

Oh how times have changed, the even the language staff used in that conversation would probably not have well gone now in this new era of 'Woke'. lol  :P

Quote from: Dresan on July 02, 2020, 09:04:30 AM
I hate these threads myself and rather not post in them.

Still I can't help but find it amusing since it shows how close minded and bias people can be when it comes to proper RP within the game.

This type of close minded mentality also exists within staff, and caused me to just walk away from the game years ago after a particularly bad conversation with various staff members all at once after encountering a Staff PC, lover or good buddy who had some really minor issues with my RP. To give some context the worst offense was they did not like my to ask to go train archery since archery was a name of a skill. Umm, sure.  :-\

Oh how times have changed, the even the language staff used in that conversation would probably not have well gone now in this new era of 'Woke'. lol  :P

dismissing and deriding an entire point of view only feeds into the problem that you identify as having an issue with.

a different perspective is an important and critical part of any conversation. i don't think you have to agree with it, but you should at least make an intellectually honest attempt at understanding or empathizing.

Everyone is welcomed to their opinion.

I dislike threads like this with OOC content, in the same way I dislike OOC general discussion board. To put it politely, too much information about players and their OOC views for me due to this just being a text game.

While browsing through this thread  though what stood out to me is how close-minded and biased people can be in regards to RP in general, especially when it can be interpreted in many ways.

We encounter the same problem with skills. People having different yet still biased close minded opinions when and how a skill should be used and RPed with what flowery emotes.

Unfortunately unlike with discussions regarding RPing skills I have no interest in engaging in OOC fueled discussions within a text game. Sorry  :-X

Quote from: Rathustra on July 02, 2020, 03:27:27 AM
For the sake of discussion, the complaint was regarding a PC (Bebop's) being codedly subdued and then codedly whipped using a whip object that utilizes a script. The PC performing the whipping and the PC subduing Bebop's PC performed no additional emotes pertaining to the action of the barbed whip (the barbed nature of the whip being described in both the object's sdesc and its mdesc). The complaint was based upon the question: does coded, base gameplay in the game ever require asking consent?

Thank you, for the transparency on this.

AFAIK, I was around for that particular incident, if it's the one I'm thinking. I wouldn't have qualified it as 'torture', per the usual understanding of torture/consent rules.

Excessive and bordering on grief play, but not in the realm of what I'd ever expect/offer consent OOC's over.

Quote from: Consent HelpfileConsent Not Required:
-A tattoo is forced upon your character. (Mutilation is considered the loss of a body part, such as a limb or an ear.)
-You are in a room with another player who is in a state of undress, though no sexual connotations can be discerned. (Certain cultures in game may be more liberal with their view on clothing.)
-You are being whipped with the 'whip' command, but no gruesome or visceral emotes are being emoted. (Command echoes are not considered 'mutilation', and are a part of the game.)

I've whipped a couple of characters before and both were pushing IC issues that definitely warranted worse than a whipping per the docs.  I don't tend towards killing characters.  I'd rather them have an opportunity for additional roleplay and development, maybe even conflict.  So if both characters didn't want whipped, they would've been killed.  End of Storyline.

I'm not into that.

Neither player of the whipped characters stated that they were uncomfortable.  One mocked me OOC'ly for not knowing that you had to have their character subdued.  The other threatened a complaint if I was wrong about quoting the above rules, which can be found on the website or even when you type HELP CONSENT in game, which I noted to both.

So again, neither player said they were uncomfortable, but both were OOC'ly responding with threats that felt more like they were taking it personally that their characters were being whipped.  I didn't feel like getting into an OOC debate about how the docs state after what their characters did, they deserved death, and felt it more important that the others around be witness and see a punishment dealt out that wasn't death.

End result.  One left.  One stayed.  And surprisingly, the one who threatened to report ended up staying and IC'ly, had a change in attitude.

If you're going to be in an organization with posted rules about IC play and you decide to break those rules, expect IC repercussions.  And when the leader decides to lessen the punishment to whipping instead of death, ending all your plots and story lines (unless of course you wanted to play a martyr), then maybe a different response is warranted?

"Hey, I'm going to break a few rules that the docs say warrant death for this clan, then when you decide to whip my character instead of killing them, I'm going to file a complaint against you."

I've never been in a scene where a player is upset with the proceedings, and I felt the need to press it to the hilt to maximize their displeasure. I'd rather kill the character, than force a scene that is going to risk their leaving the game. It isn't difficult to read the flow of text, or how the character is responding. If they're losing it to such a degree, they're throwing out upset ooc comments? The integrity of the scene, is probably going to be the least of my concerns.

But, hey, you do you.

The thing about whipping is even if the other players only use coded functions to make the server send the whipping echoes to your screen you as a player are still expected to roleplay a character who has just been whipped which is an equivalent violation of the player's agency to non-consensual IC torture. I'm not sure if there have ever been cases of a PC being whipped and then deleted by staff because they did not adequately RP as a recent victim of extremely painful flagellation but it's not something I find unimaginable.

Using the OOC command to tell a player that them that they are going too far is acceptable.

Using the OOC command to tell a player you are going to complaint them without first trying to work it out with them is at best naive and unaware, and at worst and far more likely an attempt at posturing to get a more favorable outcome.

Quote from: Lotion on July 03, 2020, 01:02:13 AM
The thing about whipping is even if the other players only use coded functions to make the server send the whipping echoes to your screen you as a player are still expected to roleplay a character who has just been whipped which is an equivalent violation of the player's agency to non-consensual IC torture. I'm not sure if there have ever been cases of a PC being whipped and then deleted by staff because they did not adequately RP as a recent victim of extremely painful flagellation but it's not something I find unimaginable.

As far as this goes, the same could be said of anyone who uses kick or bash or attack. Striking someone in the head results in a cut to the head. The exact same as a whip to the back results in a cut to the back. Why is there any distinction at all? Your PC is being hit with a weapon, there is no reason to be upset by it.

I've played Byn Sergeants before who's recourse is either execution or whipping. I think the situation is pretty cut and dry.

Whipping typically requires some OOC finagling -- The person needs to not be wearing a backpack, be subdued, and otherwise 'submit to whipping'. It falls in line that OOC consent to coded whipping can be obtained, much in the way that non-coded torture must be consented to. If the disagreeing party (the one to be whipped) does not give consent to being whipped, they should then be killed, just as is the case with torture RP/consent.

The rule simply needs to be altered to include 'coded torture' in the same way 'non-coded torture' is considered.

Similarly, using OOC to threaten to complain against another PC to Staff is not acceptable behavior, regardless of the circumstance. You can file a player complaint at any time, for any reason, valid or not. There is no need to also break the rules of OOC in the game to threaten other players with that assertion. OOC should be used sparingly, most often for clarification of event times, and informing another player of what actions to take to join a clan forum. That's it.

Isn't there something called the nursery or cuddler that also have coded torture echoes?

Quote from: Lotion on July 03, 2020, 01:12:56 AM
Isn't there something called the nursery or cuddler that also have coded torture echoes?

Sure, there are other forms of 'coded death or torture' that could similarly ask for OOC consent before using. There is the executioner (Templar, in that case). They can ask OOC for consent to kill them using the Nursery or the Cuddler. If the offended party (the victim) decides they would rather be unceremoniously killed by half giant NPCs, I would say grant them the unimaginative death they desire.

I don't think a player should lose their character if they don't consent to a particular scene, unless there are absolutely no alternative and the IC consequences warrant a PC death. There's also alternative methods of creative punishments that can be vetted out to the PC in question, without the PC dying. I am speaking as someone who's also played a Byn Sergeant, and has been faced with scenarios where a PC has to be punished ICly. I don't think there's anyone that said no to a whipping, but there's also been other forms of punishment that isn't just execution or the whip (or even mutilation).

Quote from: Kankfly on July 03, 2020, 01:19:23 AM
I don't think a player should lose their character if they don't consent to a particular scene, unless there are absolutely no alternative and the IC consequences warrant a PC death. There's also alternative methods of creative punishments that can be vetted out to the PC in question, without the PC dying. I am speaking as someone who's also played a Byn Sergeant, and has been faced with scenarios where a PC has to be punished ICly. I don't think there's anyone that said no to a whipping, but there's also been other forms of punishment that isn't just execution or the whip (or even mutilation).

Right I guess I'm saying if it's between punishment V death, it's entirely up to the victim player to decide if they want to go through with the coded torture/punishment, or death. If they decide they'd rather choose death, that's up to them. When I'm in a position of power like that, I have no qualms honoring their wish. The same could be said of antagonistic conflicts between Raider V Victim. If they choose the way of pain/death, that's usually up to the victim, not the Raider.

There are obviously other solutions -- exile/banishment, kicking out of a clan, stripping them naked (though in this line of thinking, that might require consent too). When someone's done Enough Bad for either maiming or death, well. I feel it's up to the rules to decide what is kosher -- If it requires OOC consent, that should obviously be obtained. If it doesn't (as is currently with whipping, the Cuddler, the Nursery, or even a Wezer Dome), then I suppose either the rule should be changed, or we should abide by it.

Quote from: Kankfly on July 03, 2020, 01:19:23 AM
I don't think a player should lose their character if they don't consent to a particular scene, unless there are absolutely no alternative and the IC consequences warrant a PC death. There's also alternative methods of creative punishments that can be vetted out to the PC in question, without the PC dying. I am speaking as someone who's also played a Byn Sergeant, and has been faced with scenarios where a PC has to be punished ICly. I don't think there's anyone that said no to a whipping, but there's also been other forms of punishment that isn't just execution or the whip (or even mutilation).

Disagree, especially where torture is concerned. If my PC has to torture yours, your PC has done something to warrant it. Refusal of consent makes me question what their reaction after the torture will be, so for safety's sake best just to kill your PC and then arrange your corpse in to a suitable example.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 03, 2020, 03:17:50 AMRefusal of consent makes me question what their reaction after the torture will be, so for safety's sake best just to kill your PC and then arrange your corpse in to a suitable example.

You make it sounds like, people who refuse to engaging in graphic torture scenes, are dodgy players, or something.

I assume all players are dodgy players.

And while I can't speak for why others do it, my PCs have only ever resorted to torture (or discipline, which is the source of the complaint in this thread) when other PCs have required correcting. If I'm torturing your PC, your PC has done something to earn it. I'm usually torturing you for information, to send a message to you and your friends, or to punish you for a transgression without having to resort to killing your PC.

My post has prompted several replies with a few hypothetical scenarios so I'd like to quickly address them:

~ Death is always an option when it comes to torture. Though whipping does not fall under torture insofar as consent is required  - there is the following caveat in 'help consent':


   Armageddon is a game with some mature themes, and included among those are things that some players may find more or less appealing to play out for any number of reasons. If you find yourself in a situation that does not go against the rules listed above, though you would rather not play in that situation you still have a recourse available to you: You may WISH ALL to request direct assistance from staff (please provide applicable information and see HELP WISH). When possible we will offer an avenue out of the scene, and when not we will offer a swift end to your PC. (In situations that call for a swift end.) None of this will be done without confirmation from you, the player, first.


Though this does require staff to be present and able to respond (not guaranteed). Staff also reserve the right for the resolution to be simply death, storage, or staff puppet your PC until such a time as they are stored post-scene. This alternative is here to avoid you playing through something you don't want to - it isn't there to invalidate the game world.

~ If you are whipped you are expected to RP appropriately - in just the same way you are expected to RP in response to other coded and uncoded parts of the world. If poisoned you cannot RP that you are not poisoned. If close to death, you should not RP being hale and at full physical capacity. Consent rules are not in place to protect player agency from the game - but from the RP of other players  when deemed graphic or gratuitous. A PC's response to being whipped can be as graphical as they like - but their PC has still been whipped.

~ Using OOC to ask someone to tone things down is acceptable - especially if the scene is breaking the rules on consent. When these rules aren't being broken, it falls to individual players to choose whether to respond to such an OOC message. As I said in my last post, consent is sometimes requested for things like whipping as a courtesy - this is fine and I think its good practice to treat other players kindly, even if you horribly abuse their PCs.

~ Using OOC to threaten people is not acceptable. Just file the complaint - but be willing to hear out staff's rationale either way. If you feel consent has been broken, using OOC to shut down the scene is acceptable. But so is wishing up for assistance.  We are not going to alter the rules on consent to cover coded aspects of the game.

~ Some torture devices in-game can only be operated by PCs of certain clans and those clans have documentation on their use. 'The Cuddler', for example, requires consent as it codedly cripples - but not to death - a PC. If a PC does not consent to the Cuddler, it cannot be used.

~ There are a legitimate discussions around creative alternatives to murdering PCs as a punishment. Exile (with or without gear), being attacked to unconsciousness and dumped somewhere, etc. are all good examples. However, whipping is also an example - as is other corporal punishment such as being severely beaten. In a situation where physical torture must be consented to, the help file states that the victim can make no negotiations over alternative punishments. It falls to the PC doling out the punishment to decide how to act. But also how graphic and gratuitous to be.

~ Consent is not required to strip another PC. Consent is required to emote around that nudity in an adult way: being nude is not inherently sexual, however references to genitals and secondary sexual characteristics are inexorably tied to adult content. In a scenario where a PC was being stripped and thrown in the desert, such a scene could be portrayed in a non-graphic, non-gratuitous way and thus doesn't require consent.

---

All in all, the rules around consent exist to help balance a player's ability to avoid content produced by other humans (staff or PCs - you can refuse to consent to torture by a staff-animated NPC just as much as a PC) that can vary wildly in graphic content against the theme of the world: a violent, dystopian, post-apocalyptic material and psychological wasteland. Armageddon is not a MUSH: there is no expectation of PC sovereignty over what they experience, what scenes they encounter and how the world treats them - these things are mediated by coded means, augmented through RP. There are areas of the game where there are few coded features and more activity is mediated through RP - such as social interactions - so it is here that the consent rules naturally become more important. However at the end of the day you are expected to be willing to experience all the possible coded content of Armageddon when you log in and that includes being forcibly restrained and whipped. Staff will strive to ensure that the coded content avoids reveling in gore or being graphic for the sake of shocking - and if that falls short, a staff complaint will prompt a review. However, nasty things can and will happen to PCs.

The caveat to consent mentioned above - where you can wish up to extricate you (the player) from a situation exists as a release valve to this - but it is unreliable and has the potential to be fatal for a character. Again - this is an OOC solution to an OOC situation - where a player wishes to disengage from a situation their PC cannot.

I'd like to point out that not giving consent to torture, does not nullify the  torture, it removes the need to RP the process of the actual torture.

Quote from: HeeBeeGB on July 03, 2020, 01:14:18 AM

Quote from: Lotion on July 03, 2020, 01:12:56 AM
Isn't there something called the nursery or cuddler that also have coded torture echoes?

Sure, there are other forms of 'coded death or torture' that could similarly ask for OOC consent before using. There is the executioner (Templar, in that case). They can ask OOC for consent to kill them using the Nursery or the Cuddler. If the offended party (the victim) decides they would rather be unceremoniously killed by half giant NPCs, I would say grant them the unimaginative death they desire.

The problem with requiring consent for that, is that if it's a newish player, or one who has simply never seen either of these things in action, they'd probably want an ooc explanation of what the thing is and what it does to the character. In other words - it would stop all roleplay while an OOC explanation and possibly give-and-take conversation happens.

I'm personally not a fan of the cudder or of the nursery. But then I also quit out during an arena exhibition when a quirri or rantarri was set on fire and we had to watch the coded echoes of its thrashing an caterwauling in agony. I know MY limits. I had nightmares about that for a week. I still don't feel the game should change to accommodate MY sensitivities.  I just step aside and let those things happen while I'm "off-camera", and return when those things have finished. Problem solved.

Some comments:

Someone in this chaotic thread posted that sexual torture was outright banned. This kind of upsets me because I kind of always hoped I might be able to one day give consent to having a character being sexually tortured and now I won't be able to. I have no problem with the rape ban because rape is something that is by definition non consensual. But people in RL consent to sexual torture all the time. For a RL media reference to how this is possible, see the classic Japanese movie "Ichi the Killer."

Also, I want to say I don't read every post here but I took note of Rathustra's explanations and I am happy he explained things thoroughly and I accept all his explanations, they make sense. Yeah, if all that was done to me was a non consenting use of the whip object I wouldn't have thought to file a complaint either. That wasn't clear in the OP.

Oh and sometimes I do what was just said and step away from scenes too. I didn't want a lot of detail once about dying to the cuddler either so I ooced that I just wanted a quick coded result and that is what was given to me. I ooced I needed to break from a different execution scene once also when I felt my personal anxiety go up and then I came back and finished the scene thankfully and I felt fine. The game gets very real and players I find are very understanding of that. It is a mature environment.

I do think being of age of legal consent in your area should be required to play the game for these reasons. I would hate to find out I was enjoying some mature RP and my partner for the scene was a minor. A lot of players maintain this and I do feel it should be in the documentation.

If someone kills a player for not consenting to torture, I think that's grounds for a player complaint.

Quote from: tapas on July 03, 2020, 10:39:59 AM
If someone kills a player for not consenting to torture, I think that's grounds for a player complaint.

From the consent helpfile:

If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you uncomfortable, please OOC that they should stop. If they continue despite being told to stop, please wish up. This rule is not meant to be abused in order to allow characters to escape the consequences. Perhaps a good analogy is the movie ratings system: some people may wish to see the details acted out in a way which would deserve an R rating while another, younger player might prefer that the details be communicated in an OOC fashion and left offstage.
...

In the case of mutilation, an action that would cause a character to lose their ability to function in some way, the victim may request that they be killed by the procedure. It is then the instigator's responsibility to attempt to kill the victim, or take some other appropriate course of action. The victim should not request other punishments, bargain, or otherwise discuss the situation out of character beyond this provision.

...

Armageddon is a game with some mature themes, and included among those are things that some players may find more or less appealing to play out for any number of reasons. If you find yourself in a situation that does not go against the rules listed above, though you would rather not play in that situation you still have a recourse available to you: You may WISH ALL to request direct assistance from staff (please provide applicable information and see HELP WISH). When possible we will offer an avenue out of the scene, and when not we will offer a swift end to your PC. (In situations that call for a swift end.) None of this will be done without confirmation from you, the player, first.



From the rules helpfile:
You must ask for consent from all visible players in the room before pursuing sexual or torture scenes. There is no such thing as implied consent from past consent grants - you must ask every time. If someone does not give consent, or requests that the scene "fade to black" or "FTB", you must honor that. If you engage in a graphic scene that another player did not consent to, your character will be stored and karma reduced, and your account will be banned for a month at the first occurrence, and your account will be banned permanently on the second occurrence.

---

On one hand, you have the consent helpfile saying that you can't barter or request another type of punishment in a torture situation.

On the other hand, you have the same helpfile saying the staff will allow options to exit the scene.


In my opinion, if someone says "stop" the gameplay should immediately be paused.  Someone should wish up and request an immortal to observe / mediate. 
Perhaps it could even be suggested that if you're about to torture another character you should wish up beforehand, much like the suggestion when you're about to kill another character.

In my opinion, Killing a character for not wanting to play out a scene isn't breaking the rules.  If I was in control of a torture situation, and someone said "stop", I'd give that player options for what to do next, and killing them would be one of them.

Quote from: mansa on July 03, 2020, 11:05:59 AM
On one hand, you have the consent helpfile saying that you can't barter or request another type of punishment in a torture situation.

On the other hand, you have the same helpfile saying the staff will allow options to exit the scene.

I think Rath addressed what they mean by that. They're not talking about giving the character an option to exit the scene, but only the player.

They could do this through means like staff puppeting the character until the scene is over and the character can be stored. The consent rules aren't there to prevent the character from going through something the player doesn't want them to go through. It's just to prevent the player from having to witness it/play through it, as Rath said.

That bahamet npc that is about to gore me for 3/4 of my health in one shot should ask me for consent first, I don't want to have to play a crippling wound for a week after that.

As a Templar, before a punishing scene, I'd ask OOCly for consent. I'd say 90% of consent was given. The other ones we just FTB and assumed it happened (and in case of death, I'd just wish up and staff would beep the PC instantly). Its just a little awkward when you have gathered some PC's for a public punishing/torturing scene (in order to make things happen and interesting for players) and its about to  start off and then we FTB cause we respect the target's wishes.

And I'm going to be really frank here, probably an unpopular opinion: At times, when the above FTB happened, I did think to myself: Why do you play this game, this role, this PC, knowing that there are certain consequences for that particular action, and do not consent to this? It felt, partially, as if the player tried to save the PC's name and pretend it didn't happen at all.

Quote from: FamousAmos on July 03, 2020, 06:56:36 PM
And I'm going to be really frank here, probably an unpopular opinion: At times, when the above FTB happened, I did think to myself: Why do you play this game, this role, this PC, knowing that there are certain consequences for that particular action, and do not consent to this? It felt, partially, as if the player tried to save the PC's name and pretend it didn't happen at all.

i've ftb a torture scene and I'd ftb torture scenes in the future. i ftb sexy time too. i feel like I have enough stress or garbage in my real life that i don't need extreme ends of the spectrum, like passion or phsycial / mental anguish to enter the equation while i'm playing a game. it's not interesting to me and i have an extremely hard time playing it out. it's a shitload to process and react to and it can take a very long time for me to come up with appropriate responses. so i don't do it.

if my character is a shithead or fucked up or just got caught - great - I'm not protective of the character.. I inflicted that on them. I'm protective of my time and mental energy.

Quote from: FamousAmos on July 03, 2020, 06:56:36 PMIt felt, partially, as if the player tried to save the PC's name and pretend it didn't happen at all.

I opt out of torture, as a rule. I have personal RL reasons.

There is nothing wrong with washing your hands of something, that leads to feel bads.

Fixed that for you and you're done, as despite popular belief, you don't get to bash players as you see fit or on a whim.

When I do torture scenes...and that is rare...I only do it to not have to kill a PC I think is well played...yes, I admit it is totally OOC but I do not care. I will give the player that out to keep the PC. If refused,,,and that is your right...well...Welcome to Armageddon....

Long scampered by OP into flaming, baiting and insulting one another.

Locked.