What a great title.
There has been some unfocused discussions about coercion and rape in the official discord channel lately.
Consent - http://armageddon.org/help/view/Consent
Quote from: Consent Helpfile...There are few restrictions on roleplay in Armageddon. If you choose to roleplay adult situations, that is fine. However, before instigating such an act with another player, you need to OOC to make sure that the role play is consented to, in each scene it happens. You must do this as you can't be sure that you are alone in every situation, and as such consent must be addressed every time. 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.
Rape/Sexual Torture plotlines are not to be played out in the game. See 'help rape' for further elaboration on this subject and a definition of what is considered rape in Armageddon....
Emphasis Mine.
Rape -
http://armageddon.org/help/view/RapeQuote
...In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said imbalance is used as leverage for an adult situation, consent must be sought at the earliest possible juncture. Refusal by the 'weaker' party requires the instigator to adjust their intent or desire to avoid a sexual situation....
...Note that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out....
Emphasis Mine.
In my opinion,
there's a conflict here. I would like to see the concept of 'coercion/abuse of power' to be removed or updated.
I believe that coerced sexual favors constitutes rape and should be explicitly disallowed.
The no rape rule exists to protect player safety and by allowing rape in some forms it fails completely in this way.
I agree with mansa that the game should use the full definition of rape as part of the ban.
My main concern is that coercion as a tactic has a high possibility of OOC bleed where it is the Player who ends up feeling coerced into consenting.
To know that my character could find themselves in a situation where I would have to consent to a sexual plotline or have my character killed or denied a goal is not a situation I am comfortable with. I think the two wordings are unclear and leave too much ambiguity. It seems like if I figure out early on that the plotline will require sexual acts from my PC I can go OOC and request the plotline be altered to something else? I would really feel more comfortable if such plotlines were not allowed to be pursued in the first place.
I also think these sorts of plotlines tend to skew far too frequently with males coercing females which inherently goes against the atmosphere of the game where men and women are supposed to be equals.
Quote from: Ender on April 19, 2021, 05:14:44 PM
I agree with mansa that the game should use the full definition of rape as part of the ban.
My main concern is that coercion as a tactic has a high possibility of OOC bleed where it is the Player who ends up feeling coerced into consenting.
To know that my character could find themselves in a situation where I would have to consent to a sexual plotline or have my character killed or denied a goal is not a situation I am comfortable with. I think the two wordings are unclear and leave too much ambiguity. It seems like if I figure out early on that the plotline will require sexual acts from my PC I can go OOC and request the plotline be altered to something else? I would really feel more comfortable if such plotlines were not allowed to be pursued in the first place.
I also think these sorts of plotlines tend to skew far too frequently with males coercing females which inherently goes against the atmosphere of the game where men and women are supposed to be equals.
It should not be left unnoticed that some people play female characters to purposely coerce men or play on 'easy' mode.
Quote from: Dirtt on April 19, 2021, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: Ender on April 19, 2021, 05:14:44 PM
I agree with mansa that the game should use the full definition of rape as part of the ban.
My main concern is that coercion as a tactic has a high possibility of OOC bleed where it is the Player who ends up feeling coerced into consenting.
To know that my character could find themselves in a situation where I would have to consent to a sexual plotline or have my character killed or denied a goal is not a situation I am comfortable with. I think the two wordings are unclear and leave too much ambiguity. It seems like if I figure out early on that the plotline will require sexual acts from my PC I can go OOC and request the plotline be altered to something else? I would really feel more comfortable if such plotlines were not allowed to be pursued in the first place.
I also think these sorts of plotlines tend to skew far too frequently with males coercing females which inherently goes against the atmosphere of the game where men and women are supposed to be equals.
It should not be left unnoticed that some people play female characters to purposely coerce men or play on 'easy' mode.
I'd counter this with the revelation that female characters sometimes get ten times the drama in their role because they are seen as marks for 'easy mode'. Thus, the discussion at hand.
One of the things that Ender brought up in the Discord channel was how 'Tuluk as a Culture' implemented their social/sexual caste system, which enforced a hard "don't have sex with your minions" rule.
Tuluki Roleplay - http://armageddon.org/help/view/Tuluki%20Roleplay
QuoteRomance?
Nobles (and obviously, templars) do not have romantic or sexual relationships with commoners. It is unthinkable, and a monstrous violation of social protocols. Such relationships are considered a social fax paus. The caste system in Tuluk has been in place for years and is a fundamental part of Tuluki society and culture. Such relationships are liabilities for the House. If word were to get out, it would damage not only the noble's reputation, which is bad in itself, but it would also damage the House's reputation. As such, if such things happen, they are also dealt with behind closed doors. Claims of impropriety between a noble and a commoner might face just as much censure as the impropriety itself.
And as far as I recall,
it worked and players continued to play in that roleplaying space, and it didn't ruin the storylines that were being run there.
I continue to think about this subject, and different ways to reduce
the implication, as
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia puts it. I'm not exactly sure of the next steps to be taken, but I know I am
bothered by this, so I'm going to keep considering different possibilities.
i would have a much easier time with this topic if i didn't think it skewed heavily toward female pcs being coerced.
IF sexes were indeed equal i don't think this would be the case and i don't think it would be as much of an issue. sexes are often not treated equally, or at least not represented equally so we're left with a system that allows female pcs to be victimized in a majority of these scenarios.
it seems out of place and the justification behind removing more violent types of rape but not these softer forms is perplexing.
i can appreciate that zalanthas is harsh and harsh things happen. your boss saying bang or die is harsh. harshness doesn't have to be represented in a way that primarily ruins the experience of the players that have to deal with this shit. it's lazy and if we have to weigh the ruined experiences of the victims vs the victimizers... should come to a fairly obvious conclusion about what to do.
Thematically, whoring or trading/selling sex for favors or coin is not even blinked at. Genders are equal, and sex is not looked down upon. Sex is sex and that's all it is, to be used as one likes - for food, for kids, for favors, for fun.
Thus there is no thematic difference between extorting someone for sex, or extorting someone for coin, if there is no thematic stigma toward sex. It's just something else to barter with, and the 'strong prey on the less so' in every other aspect, as well.
I've always been very much of the opinion that you can just FTB past anything that makes you, the player, feel uncomfortable. And perhaps some games, books, and shows aren't meant for everyone. I have only played males and I have had other characters of both genders threaten me or offer money for sex, and it never bothered me as a player because I could ignore it, fight it, or FTB if I wanted to earn some coin for literally no rp or effort.
However, that's a selfish outlook on my part. People have spoken up about their discomfort, and ignoring a problem is being complicit to it. I don't think it's a widespread problem, but it doesn't have to be to be an issue. I don't want to be a part of traumatizing other players (through ambivalence) in a community that I am proud to be a part of, and I want other players to have fun playing the game that I like playing.
So... since this is a conversation. What actions can be taken, beyond just "I don't like this" and "It should be gone." What actionable plan can be put into place to protect players from the world they're playing in, and ensure that while people are MCBing all over, the people behind those characters feel safe and a part of the community?
Not really playing, but I am one of those players who does not and has never engaged in sexual activity in the mud. Any sort of coercion for sex, while realistic, is wildly distasteful to me. All sexual acts and activity should require a consent OOC. If you want to engage in sexually coercive scene, just check to see if your partner/s are okay with that beforehand. Just like you should in real life.
Coerced sex is NOT OKAY. It doesn't matter if you, the victim, is male, female, or non-binary - you said no and the other party or parties used things like threats, guilt-tripping, blackmail, or even drugs to force your consent their way. That is a culture that should NOT be fed.
Being badgered by a PC day in and day out for sex is /annoying/ and ruins the game for me when my PC said /no/ or showed /disinterest/.
Quote from: Coffeebean on April 20, 2021, 11:38:25 AM
Coerced sex is NOT OKAY. It doesn't matter if you, the victim, is male, female, or non-binary - you said no and the other party or parties used things like threats, guilt-tripping, blackmail, or even drugs to force your consent their way. That is a culture that should NOT be fed.
Being badgered by a PC day in and day out for sex is /annoying/ and ruins the game for me when my PC said /no/ or showed /disinterest/.
Not to mention it seems extremely lopsided which sex this happens to, and it also seems to come with IC consequences if sidestepped or ignored. I haven't seen it in a long time, likely due to style of PCs I play, but I 100% believe it happens. I've heard of it, through IC channels, and firmly believe any PC in a position of coded power/authority should not pursue storylines which involve sexual coercion, whether actual or implied, due to the thorny nature of OOC/IC consent. I'm not talking about relationships which evolve naturally or are being pursued/lopsided, I'm talking about, for example, a templar telling a female PC that they should do x sexual acts for them and heavily implying that they'll be killed if they don't. This actually happened to a female PC.
On the slight derail:
Do some female PCs play up the inherent sexism that remains and/or take advantage of it? Sure. Doesn't mean male PCs aren't equally culpable of falling for/feeding into the culture. The game culture has improved a lot over the last decade or so, but I think we still have work to do. Take a PC's personality as their personality, whether female, male, non-binary, and accept that there are different sexualities all across the spectrum, including ace, and treat it completely IC. Leave your westernized notions at the door, including the subtle and not-so-subtle double standards.
I can't tell you how many times, on my male PCs, I've noticed that the exact same behavior which would get me bullied or censured or gossiped about as a female PC, I was looked up to or given a pass for. This isn't just involving sex, it's involving attitudes, presentation, perceived masculinity, everything. Women who stand up for themselves = bitches, men who stand up for themselves = confident, women who are "one of the boys" = cool, men who are feminine = uncool... these sorts of outdated attitudes are still prevalent and form a strong undercurrent in how the game's "politics" are played.
tl;dr - the game environment is better, but we need to keep working to leave RL learned behavior at the door.
Right now, the stronger party is supposed to OOC early on and adjust their character's intent. This is different from say prostitution or a purely consensual scene, where either party can opt to fade to black. This is the only MUD I've seen with a rule addressing a power imbalance and not forcible rape (good on Armageddon!), but I think it leaves some big holes:
1) There's enough room for plausible deniability and maybe even genuine confusion. A character's boss may not think they're coercing the subordinate and don't intend to impose any consequences, but the subordinate might believe the threat exists.
2) Because the practice isn't specifically forbidden, players might be hesitant to report someone for not sending the OOC message until the second before clothes fly off. No one wants to tell on someone, and enforcing compliance of a bright line rule is easier.
3) IMO, Armageddon harshness is at its best when it's harshness players tend not to feel in real life. No one is getting eaten by giant insects, or attacked by poisoned blowdarts, or being shaken down by magic-wielding law enforcement. People are put in sexual situations that are not 100% consensual IRL, and we should adjust so they don't have to relive that through the game.
4) Maybe theoretically, men and women in Zalanthas are equally likely to coerce sex, but from my experience and these accounts, it's way more likely to happen to female characters. Disadvantaging female characters is worse for the game and bad for the player base.
I think there are a range of options, depending on the severity of the problem:
1) We ask the players to be aware of the situation and do better, maybe on starting pages and by staff reminders. That could marginally change game culture. This lets people that really want to have coercive storylines have them, but it probably won't have the biggest impact.
2) We could require the less powerful party initiate any relationship. This would solve a lot of the problems and might be enough. One person identified on our Discord channel that they felt uncomfortable saying no when the relationship was already initiated, and that problem would remain unaddressed.
3) We could have a Tuluk-style "no sleeping with subordinates" culture, and maybe even expand that to "you can be a jerk in every possible way but sexual". This would solve the problem completely and IMO is the best solution, but I think we'll have to do some major ret-conning. I suspect there are players that have been OOCly completely courteous whose characters should not be penalized for actions that were fine when they took them.
Quote from: Coffeebean on April 20, 2021, 11:38:25 AM
Being badgered by a PC day in and day out for sex is /annoying/ and ruins the game for me when my PC said /no/ or showed /disinterest/.
I bet, and I totally understand, but that's not coerced sex is it?
I think the entire playerbase should make some sort of pact to only play male characters, for shit and giggles.
Kinda like the 0 karma thing that lasted like 3 days.
I agree that these two statements are at odds with one another.
I think particularly people who are in positions of power should not be using sex as a tool of coercion.
I'm fine with any and all plots of rape or near rape or rape adjacent concepts being purged from the game. Can't we all just get along (AKA, murder each other with bone swords)?
My big concern with the situation, as it stands, is that it is a slippery slope from "I don't want to be forced to see a sexual scene" to "I don't want my character influenced by sex at all" to "I don't want to be exposed so other players will need to adjust their PCs goals and motivations."
That said? Don't lock people in rooms, insisting they perform sexual acts or they cannot leave alive, and try to skirt that rule. Up to and especially because this can lead to an OOC fear that there will be IC consequences if they don't 'play along'.
People joke about all the mudsex that goes on in game, but there's a lot of it. And thats fine, we code abusers need mudsex people to give us reasons to kill. But there shouldn't be a reason someone is "doing something rapey but its not rape hueheuheuhue".
Change the docs.
Bad Dude: I have you finally cornered, witch, and now you are about to die, muhahah!
Talia: Please.. No... I will do /anything/ to save myself!
Bad Dude: Well... I admit I always had a thing for you, seeing as I'm a witch too.. And, y'know.. We need more baby witches in this world...
Talia oocly says, "Hold on, I don't want that kind of roleplay in my Armageddon!"
Bad Dude oocly says, "Sorry about that, let me start over."
Bad Dude: Well, I'm willing to let you live, but that's going to cost you 5000 'sids!
Talia: I don't have that kind of money, is there /anything/ I can do for you....?
Bad Dude: Well, your lover is a pain to me, if you're willing to murder him, I might reconsider...
Talia: Nooo.. I love my lover! Is there anything else I can do for you...? I'm willing to do /anything/.
Bad Dude. JFC, just die already!
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 02:35:47 PM
Bad Dude: I have you finally cornered, witch, and now you are about to die, muhahah!
Talia: Please.. No... I will do /anything/ to save myself!
This is a case of
both of the following:
(1) Bad Dude's reason to kill Talia was bullshit
1,
and(2) Talia's player is crit failing on creativity
2.
1 Unless he was going to kill her regardless of what she did, which is very Armageddon.
2 Source: talked my way out of getting my whiran murdered by Sun Runners who had her dead to rights.
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on April 20, 2021, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 02:35:47 PM
Bad Dude: I have you finally cornered, witch, and now you are about to die, muhahah!
Talia: Please.. No... I will do /anything/ to save myself!
This is a case of both of the following:
(1) Bad Dude's reason to kill Talia was bullshit1, and
(2) Talia's player is crit failing on creativity2.
1 Unless he was going to kill her regardless of what she did, which is very Armageddon.
2 Source: talked my way out of getting my whiran murdered by Sun Runners who had her dead to rights.
I agree, but is there really anyone left on Armageddon in 2021 who still attempting to create rape or even rape'ish (I can't believe someone actually had to type a massively descriptive description of what is considered intercourse on Armageddon in the rape help file) scenes after all the discussions we've had on it?
I'm just left wondering if Bad Dude offering Talia (and or vice versa) sex in exchange for letting her live (ftb or not) is now considered going too far for Mansa (being a lame excuse or not is not really in question here, I bet 90% of what goes on Armageddon is probably considered lame for one reason or another depending on who you ask).
P.S.: I still think that you are a sweet lady no matter what your signature says!
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
...
I'm just left wondering if Bad Dude offering Talia (and or vice versa) sex in exchange for letting her live (ftb or not) is now considered going too far for Mansa...
Yes. That's the thesis.
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
I agree, but is there really anyone left on Armageddon in 2021 who still attempting to create rape or even rape'ish (I can't believe someone actually had to type a massively descriptive description of what is considered intercourse on Armageddon in the rape help file) scenes after all the discussions we've had on it?
That document was written because it
was a problem even if you did not personally experience it. And from talking to other players who have recently experienced versions of this that are still allowed by the rules, it is still a problem, and one that should be fixed. Just saying it's 2021 has not fixed many problems with our culture surrounding consent as much as we would like to think it has.
Quote from: mansa on April 20, 2021, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
...
I'm just left wondering if Bad Dude offering Talia (and or vice versa) sex in exchange for letting her live (ftb or not) is now considered going too far for Mansa...
Yes. That's the thesis.
i feel like this scenario is fundamentally different than being told by a templar that sex or suffer consequences. i think sex and sexuality as a bargaining chip is great and thematic, and seems healthy for the world so long as everyone is consenting and behaving like a functional member of society.
using coded or social or whatever power to fuck you or die/suffer consequences appears more like rape to me.
the first character is going to die and has a simple binary decision to make. they already know they're going to die.. if they agree to sex.. great. the second character is just trying to play an aide or something and is going about their business but now has to deal with roleplaying potential sexual trauma or have their shit ruined because they don't want to be forced into a sex scene.
i should point out that i've only engaged in like 5 sex scenes over 19 years. this is just my take as someone who has only been on the periphery of creepy armageddon sex shit.
Quote from: Ender on April 20, 2021, 03:49:33 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
I agree, but is there really anyone left on Armageddon in 2021 who still attempting to create rape or even rape'ish (I can't believe someone actually had to type a massively descriptive description of what is considered intercourse on Armageddon in the rape help file) scenes after all the discussions we've had on it?
That document was written because it was a problem even if you did not personally experience it. And from talking to other players who have recently experienced versions of this that are still allowed by the rules, it is still a problem, and one that should be fixed. Just saying it's 2021 has not fixed many problems with our culture surrounding consent as much as we would like to think it has.
Fair enough and I agree. I'm sorry to hear that this kind of problem is still going on in Armageddon.
Quote from: Delirium on April 20, 2021, 11:56:43 AM
Quote from: Coffeebean on April 20, 2021, 11:38:25 AM
Coerced sex is NOT OKAY. It doesn't matter if you, the victim, is male, female, or non-binary - you said no and the other party or parties used things like threats, guilt-tripping, blackmail, or even drugs to force your consent their way. That is a culture that should NOT be fed.
Being badgered by a PC day in and day out for sex is /annoying/ and ruins the game for me when my PC said /no/ or showed /disinterest/.
Not to mention it seems extremely lopsided which sex this happens to, and it also seems to come with IC consequences if sidestepped or ignored. I haven't seen it in a long time, likely due to style of PCs I play, but I 100% believe it happens. I've heard of it, through IC channels, and firmly believe any PC in a position of coded power/authority should not pursue storylines which involve sexual coercion, whether actual or implied, due to the thorny nature of OOC/IC consent. I'm not talking about relationships which evolve naturally or are being pursued/lopsided, I'm talking about, for example, a templar telling a female PC that they should do x sexual acts for them and heavily implying that they'll be killed if they don't. This actually happened to a female PC.
On the slight derail:
Do some female PCs play up the inherent sexism that remains and/or take advantage of it? Sure. Doesn't mean male PCs aren't equally culpable of falling for/feeding into the culture. The game culture has improved a lot over the last decade or so, but I think we still have work to do. Take a PC's personality as their personality, whether female, male, non-binary, and accept that there are different sexualities all across the spectrum, including ace, and treat it completely IC. Leave your westernized notions at the door, including the subtle and not-so-subtle double standards.
I can't tell you how many times, on my male PCs, I've noticed that the exact same behavior which would get me bullied or censured or gossiped about as a female PC, I was looked up to or given a pass for. This isn't just involving sex, it's involving attitudes, presentation, perceived masculinity, everything. Women who stand up for themselves = bitches, men who stand up for themselves = confident, women who are "one of the boys" = cool, men who are feminine = uncool... these sorts of outdated attitudes are still prevalent and form a strong undercurrent in how the game's "politics" are played.
tl;dr - the game environment is better, but we need to keep working to leave RL learned behavior at the door.
Echoing Delirium here:
One of the more annoying things about playing so many female PCs is the assumption that I am somehow at "an advantage". This isn't the case.
When I play confident females they are treated as "bitches" regardless of their environment. Politics, mercenary org, trade org, etc. When my PC does things or says things, they are disregarded as incompetent first and must crawl uphill to prove their competence. I have in excruciating detail experienced that when I play "new" or "inexperienced" females they are treated as sexual prizes to be won, (which is generally why I don't play 'inexperienced females'.) And by won, I mean sexual quid pro quo. It's exhausting.
Male PCs do not have this problem IG.
I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2021, 03:59:14 PM
I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.
either a third of the playerbase would evaporate overnight or there would be way more dope plots. maybe both.
i don't think this is a realistic solution.
possibly we should restrict it to three karma accounts though.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2021, 03:59:14 PM
I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.
Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2021, 03:59:14 PM
I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.
Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.
How would you know that fact? ;)
Quote from: Is Friday on April 20, 2021, 04:06:15 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on April 20, 2021, 03:59:14 PM
I think all situations involving sex should be FTB. That'd solve all problems I think. You'd never have to wonder if the person behind the keyboard is trying to creep out on you with a text-porn episode.
Most people just use Discord private channels instead of risking it in apartments these days anyway.
How would you know that fact? ;)
I'm drowning in private Discord invites, nerd!
I will say that this is a tricky subject overall. I'm not advocating for coercive sexual roleplay but I have played that out IG before with a mixed bag of results. I personally find relationship RP to be super interesting in general, so if the option for a boss/subordinate to have any intimacy was removed I'd be pretty upset about that.
But it's such a gray area - I've had good and bad experiences with it IG. I've been on both sides as the leader and as the subordinate for intimacy between boss/employee. I don't believe I've ever coerced others into a sexual relationship before IG as a leader. Typically I just let thirst-inducing hemotes take their course until the subordinate all but asks (or does ask.) But honestly I've been in so many freak show Tylder Durden insane partnerships who's to say what the heck I've done.
Please refrain from targeted remarks against fellow players in the community. Player complaints can be addressed via the request tool - Aromit
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 03:21:53 PM
I'm just left wondering if Bad Dude offering Talia (and or vice versa) sex in exchange for letting her live (ftb or not) is now considered going too far for Mansa (being a lame excuse or not is not really in question here, I bet 90% of what goes on Armageddon is probably considered lame for one reason or another depending on who you ask).
Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?
I thought we were talking about the Always Sunny implication (phenomenal reference, Mansa) where one party could reasonably believe that they will be denied employment or promotion or might be subject to action from the authorities unless they have sex with the person with more power. My understanding was, in those situations, the person with more power needs to seek OOC consent at the earliest possible opportunity, but because that's vague, some are advocating that this be discouraged or disallowed to varying degrees. FTB solves nothing because everyone is still roleplaying as if that happened.
I get why, in theory, you could have a gender-equal world where sexual coercion exists and it's gritty and interesting, but practice, it looks like it ends up targeting female characters and likely female players a lot more. At a minimum, it might affect the size of the player base, particularly because we all want a world that's generally harsh and everyone is terrible to each other. In a carebear world where you don't have to worry about dying of thirst or getting imprisoned for the shape of your ears, saying "no" is easier.
If culture forbids superior/subordinate relationships, that actually might help enforce class divides. Even if it doesn't, making the world unforgiving in this particular way doesn't seem worth it given the way this plays out in practice.
Quote from: Robespierre on April 20, 2021, 05:20:14 PM
Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?
I don't think it is...
QuoteNote that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.
I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 05:28:39 PM
Quote from: Robespierre on April 20, 2021, 05:20:14 PM
Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?
I don't think it is...
QuoteNote that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.
I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.
This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.
That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.
Further:
In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.
"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion
"Fuck me or die." < Rape.
Quote from: Shabago on April 20, 2021, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 05:28:39 PM
Quote from: Robespierre on April 20, 2021, 05:20:14 PM
Wait, I'm a little confused. "I'm going to kill you unless you have sex with me," regardless of whether I would kill you in the absence of sex, really seems to me like forcible rape. Isn't that barred by the rules already, regardless of a FTB or whether someone consents?
I don't think it is...
QuoteNote that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world. Also, the rule of consent still applies as to how and if the sexual scene would be carried out.
I think that's what Mansa is trying to change.
This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.
That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.
Further:
In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.
"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion
"Fuck me or die." < Rape.
why is there a distinction between okay rape and not okay rape? abuse of power is okay rape unless it's abuse of physical power?
trading favors for sex is like an entirely different tier of play and it can be abused in an entirely different manner.
i feel like the direction this thread is taking is making what is/is not okay even more arcane and confusing and open to interpretation.
prior comments removed.
Quote"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion
Just because you are calling this form of rape something other than rape does not change the fact that it is rape.
Quote from: Shabago on April 20, 2021, 05:47:46 PM
This would get you immediately banned. Immediately.
That isn't coercion - that is rape. If you are threatening or carrying out violence against someone in order to 'get sex' = Rape.
Further:
In the very paragraph being referenced, "Rule of consent still applies". This means that nothing graphic happens -period- if you do not wish to actively engage with it.
"You know Amos... I bet if I got some, I'd be less stressed out and could focus on that order of armor you wanted from Salarr." < Coercion
"Fuck me or die." < Rape.
Okay, I'm glad that I will never find myself in those situations, since that's not the kind of plotlines I'm after.. But I honestly don't really understand the difference between coercion and rape here.. Especially since coercion is in the rape help file and it pretty much mentions that it isn't against the rules to make that threat.
The definition of coercion is "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance." I'm telling you that if you don't fuck me, you'll die. How is that not coercion? How is that rape? I'm not forcing myself on you, I'm forcing you to make a choice.
I'm not saying that any of this is OKAY, I'm just saying that this is confusing as hell, and you're expecting a complete newbie who starts playing on a mud with the tagline "Murder, corruption & betrayal", in a city known for its coercion and abuse of power, to know the fine line between what is acceptable and what isn't.
Quote from: Khorm on April 20, 2021, 05:53:42 PM
i feel like the direction this thread is taking is making what is/is not okay even more arcane and confusing and open to interpretation.
Well, the nature of discussion is that difference are hashed out, and a general consensus is reached. Along they way there will be moments of chaos. That's par for the course, and I think it's alright.
So far, although there have been a few posts that ... came
real close to becoming flames ... you guys have done an admirable job keeping things on track regarding such a important and sensitive subject, so kudos to you all. Keep it up.
Quote from: Is Friday on April 20, 2021, 05:56:44 PM
@Coffeebean - Okay. Clarification: Gray area is not coercion, it is relationships between disparate classes and positions of power. I said in my post that I was not advocating for coercion sexual roleplay.
What does that even mean? Someone needs to define exactly what is coercion otherwise, as this thread shows, one person's definition of rape is difference that someone else's..
I personally think that this part of the help file:
QuoteAny other acts that might be considered 'sexual assault' such as inappropriate touching (grabbing asses, touching thighs, grabbing breasts, kissing, etc..) is not considered rape, even if done by physical force. Note that you should watch to avoid power-emoting, and phrase such actions as attempts.
only adds to the confusion.
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 06:18:19 PM
But I honestly don't really understand the difference between coercion and rape here.. Especially since coercion is in the rape help file and it pretty much mentions that it isn't against the rules to make that threat.
I support banning coercion here as well as rape, so I don't want this distinction to be read as justifying it:
From my read of the rules, whether or not someone is raped comes down to whether someone provided consent. ("Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.") All you need to do is determine whether someone provided consent, even if the circumstances of that consent are shady. Looking at a non-sex transaction might make this easier. Let's assume an employer wants some chalton hide boots an employee just made.
1) The employer grabs the boots out of the employee's hands. No consent was given. Same with physically imposing yourself on someone else.
2) The employer holds a knife to the employees throat and says "the boots or your life." A nod doesn't make the transaction consensual. Those are still the employee's boots. Same with the threat of violence for sex.
3) The employer gets the employee drunk, the employee passes out, and he takes the boots. No consent was given. Same with sex.
4) The employer says, "I'm going to fire you unless you give me those boots." There is consent here, even if there's a huge power imbalance. The employer and and employee have reached a valid agreement whereby the employee has traded her boots for continued employment. Here is the situation where, while it's not technical rape as the game is defining it, but a lot of people are advocating we ban it anyway, because boots and sex should be treated differently.
5) The employer says every day for a year, "I really like those boots and wish I had a pair," and the employer gives him her boots. This is clearly consensual. And if a threat hasn't been made, you can't really call the employer a rapist. Nevertheless, there's an implication that, IMO, we want to discourage.
Quote from: Malken on April 20, 2021, 06:30:18 PM
I personally think that this part of the help file:
QuoteAny other acts that might be considered 'sexual assault' such as inappropriate touching (grabbing asses, touching thighs, grabbing breasts, kissing, etc..) is not considered rape, even if done by physical force. Note that you should watch to avoid power-emoting, and phrase such actions as attempts.
only adds to the confusion.
We should ban sexual assault. That seems easy.
Quote from: Robespierre on April 20, 2021, 06:36:56 PM
We should ban sexual assault. That seems easy.
If we are banning sexual assault then we should also ban rape in all forms.
Please stop trying to use non-standard definitions to advance your arguments.
Rape - While there are slight differences around mainstream definitions, the key is usually that the penetration occurred without consent. That consent part, in conjunction with specific sexual activities, is what is key.
Sexual Assault - A range of acts that can include inappropriate touching, groping, kissing and yes, rape. Key here is that rape is a subset of sexual assault activities. Not all sexual assault acts are rape. If you are equating the two you are not using a mainstream definition of the terms.
Sexual harrassment - Traditionally only for work environments, although folks are starting to use it more broadly. Coercion is a form of sexual harrassment, when it is non-phyiscal and does not remove the ability to consent. Coercion of ("do this and I will give you a raise/Salarr Armor/take back my lie to the Templar) this sort is not sexual assault and certainly not rape. Unwanted sexual attention can also be sexual harrasment (and can also be sexual assault and/or rape) like the prototypical hostile work environment due to unwanted sexual advances. Gender harrassment is also lumped in here.
We disallow rape. It is a subset of Sexual Assault and a subset of Sexual Harrassment. Threatening physical violence removes consent, just as forcibly performing the act does in RL, and thus is rape.
The rules do not prohibit those Sexual Assault or Sexual Harrassment activities that aren't rape.
That said, if we feel you are getting your jollies off with a persistent pattern of sexual harassment, gaslighting or other fuckwad activity that may be otherwise within the lines, we reserve the right to do anything from talk to you to store or ban you without notice.
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 07:16:53 PM
We disallow rape.
The rape helpfile describes exactly what forms of rape are allowed.
QuoteNote that Wikipedia includes 'coercion' and 'abuse of power' as two ways that rape can be carried out. We are excluding these from our definition, as we feel they are part of the game world.
It is disingenuous to claim that rape is disallowed in ArmageddonMUD when the rape helpfile explicitly allows rape. It does not allow all rape but it does allow some rape. Rape is rape and none of it should be allowed.
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 07:16:53 PM
Please stop trying to use non-standard definitions to advance your arguments.
The definition of rape I am using in my arguments is the one on Wikipeida which is explicitly mentioned as a valid definition of rape in the rape helpfile.
Lets see what the first line of wikipedia says:
QuoteRape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.
The next line is I think what you are getting on about, but you need to look at the references and then the 3rd line:
QuoteThe term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.
Sure, it is used that way. Incorrectly, or at the least expansively. At least when using California legal definitions. Which is pretty much precisely what the first line is, while when incorporating the second line it becomes what California legally calls sexual assault.
There is also some background knowledge that you would need when correctly interpreting the wikipedia entry, remembering that some of the terms used are going to be in the legal context and not the layman's definition. For example, when talking about coercion they are not talking about layman's definition, but rather coercion through violence or threats of violence. Which is congruent with our disallowing threats of violence as equivalent to using force.
from wikipeida
QuoteThe act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent.
This snippet even contains a helpful link to the article on coercion which has the following snippet in its opening paragraph
QuoteIn law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.
Rape via coercion is still rape and my opinion remains that the forms of rape explicitly allowed by the rape helpfile should be explicitly disallowed. Just because the form of rape I am describing does not fall under some cherrypicked definition of rape does not mean it isn't rape.
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 07:27:35 PM
That said, if we feel you are getting your jollies off with a persistent pattern of sexual harassment, gaslighting or other fuckwad activity that may be otherwise within the lines, we reserve the right to do anything from talk to you to store or ban you without notice.
If you'll ban someone for working within the current "letter of the law", then the rules should be updated to prevent the ambiguity. The players who are on the receiving end of the sexual harassment shouldn't have to come forward.
Sexual harassment disproportionally has females as the victim, and this is against the rules of the mud - that gender is an issue at all within the playerbase.
I don't think we should allow this within our community.
An example of coerced sex. I was the one who was doing the coercion.
I played a Red Fang Elf (male) and encountered a desert elf of another tribe (female).
I knew the other elf was hoping to kill me and feigned being wounded, ran off to a distant cave and pretended to sleep. She tracked me down and engaged. I knocked her out and robbed her. In the process of robbing her I have stolen a very very important object. The object if she lost it would spell great shame and exile from her tribe. Losing that item was unthinkable.
When the elf came to, she ran away instantly. But that's okey, because she later realized her special object was gone. She used some stuff to try and rip me apart, but I survived them. Finally it came down to negotiations.
My terms were:
One year she is to follow my lead. During this year, she is to give birth to at least one child from my blood. After one year, she can challenge me to a duel and if she wins, she is free. If she loses, it's one more year.
Now, I died within like ... a rl week. So it didnt go to any proper culmination. But the terms did result in an FTBed ... insemination.
Where do you guys place this plot on your whole coercion/rape spectrum.
That is rape and should be disallowed.
Here's the message that the player of that elf sent as kudos after my elf died.
To the player of Gortok's Cowl - the scar-etched, long-haired elf:
I cannot begin to say how much more enriching and
interesting you made the entire situation out to be. For myself, I think
it would have been very interesting to see the plot played out further.
But for my character, of course, the unexpected ending was a breath of
relief.
I just want to thank you, above all, for being the better player and
thickening the plot, rather than ending it. And also giving my character
such an unbelievable story to add to a multitude of tribal emotional
scarring.
I know it sucks to see a character die, but don't give up! I wish there
were more players like you out and about.
I don't know what to really suggest to you, Lotion. We're playing in a game world that's ment to be ruthless. It's easier to say this for me. I'm a male and therefore have not experienced what women experience every day. But in my opinion, if we are going to soften every sharp angle in our stories, then we can no longer claim the motto of murder, corruption, betrayal. We should also not watch anything GoT and villify Drago.
Quote from: Lotion on April 20, 2021, 08:10:05 PM
from wikipeida
QuoteThe act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent.
This snippet even contains a helpful link to the article on coercion which has the following snippet in its opening paragraph
QuoteIn law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.
Rape via coercion is still rape and my opinion remains that the forms of rape explicitly allowed by the rape helpfile should be explicitly disallowed. Just because the form of rape I am describing does not fall under some cherrypicked definition of rape does not mean it isn't rape.
It tends to be specifically coercion through violence or threats of violence, as opposed to other types of coercion such as emotional coercion, that leads to something being considered rape.
Take for instance
quid pro quo, which is recognized as a form of sexual coercion. However, it obviously doesn't fall under rape laws, but rather sexual harassment laws. It is not all coercion but a specific kind of coercion that raises things to the level of rape. This isn't a circle within a circle, it is a Venn diagram where the intersection of different sets is considered rape, not the everything within the set itself. Different intersections leads to different outcomes, such as sexual assault or sexual harassment.
Quote from: mansa on April 20, 2021, 08:13:11 PM
If you'll ban someone for working within the current "letter of the law", then the rules should be updated to prevent the ambiguity.
If one has the idea that the rules should be all-encompassing and absolutely govern how the staff/player relationship works, perhaps.
If one has the idea that the rules may need the good judgement and consensus of those overseeing the game to overrule them in certain circumstances, then no, because we can't anticipate every exception we would need to incorporate.
Quote from: mansa on April 20, 2021, 08:13:11 PM
The players who are on the receiving end of the sexual harassment shouldn't have to come forward.
Agreed, but coming forward is also the only way to guarantee something will be seen and looked at. There is plenty that goes on that we do not see.
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 09:20:51 PM
If one has the idea that the rules may need the good judgement and consensus of those overseeing the game to overrule them in certain circumstances, then no, because we can't anticipate every exception we would need to incorporate.
I agree with you that the expectation should be on players to try to make the community fun and adversarial at the same time. I think even if the rules had guidelines, like banning sexual harassment and repeated unwanted sexual advances, players would be more likely to report. The offenders would be more likely to regulate their behavior without needing to be reported. If people are leaving the game because of repeated sexual harassment, I think that's fundamentally different than people leaving the game because players are mean to elves or because it's too easy to die.
Quote from: Dar on April 20, 2021, 09:07:50 PM
Here's the message that the player of that elf sent as kudos after my elf died...
Just like the forcible rape ban stops two people that want to RP a forcible rape story, you're right that a coerced sex/rape ban (desperately trying to stay out of the definitional fight) would stop people from pursuing storylines they both want to pursue. By allowing it to happen even with OOC consent, you pressure players that may have experienced that in RL to play those plots. I think the loss in grittiness in just this one form is a smaller loss than the harm we're seeing to players that exclusively play females.
There's a difference to me between rape and sexual harassment. Rape is something I'm happy to have out of the game 100%, there are too many avenues to do it codedly (whether ftl or played out) and it's not worth it. Even if it's thematic to the game world we don't need that reputation as a community. I'm very glad there are strict rules against it.
Sexual harassment can take many forms. They can bring value to RP, I've seen plots develop from it both from players slowly welcoming the advances and from players absolutely hating them. The key here is consent. Does the player on the other side want to roleplay out the harassment of their PC? If not they need an avenue to get it to stop even if there are IC consequences. Otherwise it could make playing that PC absolutely tedious.
I think the onus is on players playing a 'creepy PC' to OOC to check if that roleplay is okay with the other side. Particularly if it's long term or frequent like in an employer/employee relationship. Those being harassed should also have the avenue to either OOC and/or send in a report to get it to stop. This is an issue that hits home with all too many people in the real world (and let's be honest, women deal with this shit a lot more than men) and I feel we should strive to have a system in place that allows players to avoid that kind of RP if they do choose. I don't know where the line should be exactly but players of PCs doing sexual harassment should be checking to make sure their victim consents to that RP if it will be a regular thing.
Be a creep IC. Don't be a creep OOC.
Spy, I think if that works, it's a great solution. My only concern is that this rule is in place for abuse of power situations, like employer/employee, and it sounds like it isn't being followed.
I'd love to know if there are any female players playing female characters that have been part of a sexual harassment plot they found fun? I think those are really important voices to consider before taking away this sort of plot presumably to benefit them.
So that time a PC wouldn't stop making "haha what if we had sex jokes" to my PC nearly a year ago even after I repeatedly showed a complete lack of interest wasn't okay? Would have been nice to know
As a nonbinary person I very much did not enjoy my femmecoded nonbinary character being subject to a sexual harassment plot.
So it sounds like, basically, any sexual crime that involves violence or incapacitation is banned, and any sexual crime that does not involve violence or incapacitation is alright, in terms of what's allowed and what's not.
Additionally, any sexual act is banned if any one of the players involved in it does not OOCly consent to it, and, OOC consent must be asked for before engaging in such acts.
Additionally, such an OOC refusal may come long before said act is instigated, even in the birthing stages of the plot.
That seems to be the simplified long-and-short of our current sexual roleplay rules.
If you live in an area where terrorists killed some of your family, and you were playing arm, would you feel you have the right to impose rules on the playerbase to -not- engage in plots where thugs will come to your apartment building, break into all the apartments, and kill anyone they find behind the doors?
If you were once a soldier whose gunfire took the lives of civilians, would you feel you have the right to impose rules on the playerbase to -not- engage in plots where mundane random residents of an area were killed?
If you once lived in Flint Michigan and saw the horrors of what happens when an entire community drinks unclean water, would you feel you have the right to impose a code change in the game removing the ability to poison water?
The staff has already moved the line of "what is acceptable" a few times on this. They changed the minimum age a character is allowed to be, so as not to promote the child-sex creep factor. They made using a word to describe an elf of any color at all, verboten to use because it is similar (not even the same word) to a derogatory used to describe a human of a certain color in the real world. They implemented the consent rules, which eliminate the ACT of rape and sexual torture (not the threat of it, just the act).
If we move the line to reflect the sensitivities of all players who might have experienced any kind of trauma, because it was traumatic and they shouldn't have to experience it in Armageddon, then our game would no longer be allowed to present conflict of any kind. And, if we keep moving the line to accommodate less than a handful of people who have those sensitivities, while the entire rest of the playerbase either a) doesn't care, b) actively prefers it the way it is, or c) isn't loving it but knows it's IC and deals with it IC or d) is fine reporting a real-world creep if they think it's getting out of hand... then we change the game into something only a handful of people actually want to play.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 21, 2021, 09:35:19 AM
then we change the game into something only a handful of people actually want to play.
Might be controversial but I entirely agree with Lizzie on this one. I had written my own post, but frankly, she put it much better.
The only potentially solvable problem I see here...is just making sure the rules (as they are) are clearer and players OOC'ly are empowered and aware enough to only consent when they actually want to. Some of that might be on the game, some of that
might be on the players. You're adults....Mostly.
I feel like Dar's Red Fang insemination example is the tribal elf equivalent of every GMH or noble house marriage contract I've seen in game. These are political arrangements, with production of a progeny as a stated condition of the contract.
The actual sex act can be FTB, but the PCs are effectively coerced by their house seniors saying "get with this person we're designating and create an offspring to carry on the family name, or surrender the comforts and privileges of your rank."
I havent seen coercion / quid pro quo used for obtaining sex more than a few times in game, and I have had a lot of sezually themed rp over a decade or more of playing, so while I agree this conversation is important, I am glad to say this seems very uncommon. I would actually be sad if there was no way to oocly consent to such tactics.
Fyi I have definitely seen coercion for sex from a female towards a male. I once played a salarri hunter dude who had a female sergeant that basically coerced him into sex. We all did the consent thing every time and the plot that ensued was fun, because higherups to the sergeant were unhappy about this happening. However, I was deeply puzzled why it got the sergeant in any trouble. It seemed entirely thematic to me if a superior offered perks for sex in a corrupt world and I didn't think it made sense that the sergeant's superiors gave such a shit about what she did to her underlings, espwcially considering my hunter was just some sandblood fella, so I will have to say that I kind of disagree with mansa in the rulw change department; consent was used in my case and everything seemed kosher to the rules and nobody was hurt emotionally afaik.
Also, I typically play females and I have seen once there too some coercion, but honestly I laughed it off. A famous Kuraci coerced my character and her sister (his bards) to paint a portrait of him nude. It was an icky scene but I was laughing because of the skilled writing/artistry of my sister bled a tongue in cheek humor about it all. In the end the scene was one of the most memorable and if rules were changed it may not have happened. Everyone consented and again, nobody was hurt (except mister kuraci who was later assassinated; in fact later my character became an aide and indirectly humiliated said kuraci and stained his reputation.)
So, I think in the hands of a mature playerbase, I don't think the rules should be changed. What I have been asking for is for arma to become age of consent only (for players) and a consent flag state with multiple options to specify someones ground rules.
Just tell new players that the game they are about to play is harsh, unfair and unforgiven and if they seek an escape from the horror of the real world then Armageddon is probably not their best bet at the moment.
Armageddon is super niche, stop trying to make it appeal to the general gaming population, it's never going to happen and all you're doing is driving away players who came to Armageddon for what it advertises itself to be. I think we all agree that rape is bad and shouldn't be part of the game, but rape isn't the only traumatic event that a player can experience irl - witnessing a murder is also a traumatic event but we witness it in the game all the time. Witnessing the loss of a loved one is another traumatic event but the game is perma-death so we go through this on a daily basis. Again, I think that rape is awful and shouldn't be part of the game but hopefully you guys see where I'm going with this.. As Lizzie said, different players will come to the game with different traumatic events in their past. We can't make every single player as comfortable as we would like.
Or just re-open Tuluk so that people who dislike an in-your-face brutality and daily remainder that Zalanthas sucks have a place to play to "re-coup" if they need to escape for a minute or two. I'm serious and this is not a dig to Tuluk - 95% of my characters have been played in Tuluk and I love playing there just for the reason I stated previously.
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 09:20:51 PM
Agreed, but coming forward is also the only way to guarantee something will be seen and looked at. There is plenty that goes on that we do not see.
is it possible for more of this sort of sentiment to be included in the helpfiles? in rape/consent? maybe like at the very beginning to make it clear that players have an avenue for this.
the discussion about california legal definitions versus laymen's definitions of rape strikes me as the polar opposite of what you want to express to the player demographic that is sensitive to this area of play. i can appreciate that it's able to all be boiled down to logical explanations however i don't think that's the right approach to take when talking to players about something as destructive as rape. it's fine to express as reasoning for why the policy exists the way it does, but to present it as a defense of the types of okay rape that are present in the game seems a little too detached to then expect players to think they'll be taken seriously or treated with respect when approaching staff with these issues.
rape is fucked up. whether we want players to experience it or not, we for damn sure should make certain they have
genuine avenues to review and process these scenes. whether you signed up for it or not i think there should be a greater effort or level of attention brought toward having a supportive atmosphere if you're going to run a game that allows rape as a thematic element.
I have a few leading questions that I've been pondering.
a) At what point should players Ask for Consent within their roleplaying session?
b) Does the act of Asking for Consent and Replying to a Consent Request have any pressure imposed on the participating players to continue scene?
c) If a player does not want to roleplay out the particular scene, how does this conflict get resolved, and would it be resolved in a different way if the scene continued?
d) If a player does not want to roleplay out a particular scene, and no participating players have Asked for Consent, when should the player let their discomfort be known? How should the player let their discomfort be known?
Here's an idea for a way to potentially mitigate a lot of the issues with consent right now:
Command: optout (player)
Sends a private OOC message to a character that you are opting out of any sexual role play with them, and flags the administrator log. A player that receives this message is obligated to immediately steer any sexual role play they were engaged with directed at your character into role play of a non-sexual nature (yes, this wording needs work). This command is not meant as a rebuke, and does not go on the player's records in any fashion unless the request is ignored.
This command has the same range of the contact skill, but with no chance of failure.
I'm on my cellphone and I rarely get on GDB. But when I can, I'll leave my two cents.
-stoa
Quote from: Narf on April 21, 2021, 12:53:06 PM
Here's an idea for a way to potentially mitigate a lot of the issues with consent right now:
Command: optout (player)
Sends a private OOC message to a character that you are opting out of any sexual role play with them, and flags the administrator log. A player that receives this message is obligated to immediately steer any sexual role play they were engaged with directed at your character into role play of a non-sexual nature (yes, this wording needs work). This command is not meant as a rebuke, and does not go on the player's records in any fashion unless the request is ignored.
This command has the same range of the contact skill, but with no chance of failure.
I like that idea.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) I can foresee some characters completely losing interest of any kind in rp'ing with the flagger the minute they receive that optout flag.
There's a lot of hand-wavium when it comes to ArmageddonMUD, for better and for worse.
Case in point -- Half-Elves. Stated in the help file that they are products of rape:
Quote
Notes:
If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that many half-
elves are the product of rape, but this does not mean that you should
feel obliged to make your character the result of such an act.
So, this makes 'rape' thematic to the game, in that a race of people are often times a product of it. This happens entirely virtually, of course, particularly now with the adjustments to the rape / sexual assault help file. Just because it happens off camera doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the game world. Similarly, consensual sex between an elf and a human is incredibly taboo, so by in large, one must assume most of that sex is not consensual.
Taking other races by example -- Half-giants --
Quote
Half-Giants (Races)
Created by some magick far in the past, the race of half-giants were
the result of special cross-breeding of humans and the giants rumored to
inhabit the islands in the Sea of Eternal Dust.
It states this as something that happened far in the past, and it's always been pretty ambiguous and vague as to how half-giants propagate. One assumes it is half-giants having babies with other half-giants, but it's never explicitly stated anywhere.
So I suppose what it comes down to is explicit vs. implicit. There are a lot of assumptions of how to play the game, but it is never written anywhere in the documentation, it's simply player culture and staff culture that has propagated those beliefs. It is explicit in the documentation that half-elves are often the product of rape, but it isn't stated in documentation for that race or for humans that consensual sex between races is frowned upon, that is implicit.
Hopefully with the help file revamps, some of this explicit vs implicit can be addressed over time. It's always good to have documentation to back up opinion of how things should be, rather than leaving it in a fuzzy grey area to be interpreted both ways, except when being vague serves the purpose of the documentation (Things like help consent, for instance, don't list every example of when consent should be sought, but implies when in doubt, you should seek consent).
Quote from: Malken on April 21, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: Narf on April 21, 2021, 12:53:06 PM
Here's an idea for a way to potentially mitigate a lot of the issues with consent right now:
Command: optout (player)
Sends a private OOC message to a character that you are opting out of any sexual role play with them, and flags the administrator log. A player that receives this message is obligated to immediately steer any sexual role play they were engaged with directed at your character into role play of a non-sexual nature (yes, this wording needs work). This command is not meant as a rebuke, and does not go on the player's records in any fashion unless the request is ignored.
This command has the same range of the contact skill, but with no chance of failure.
I like that idea.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) I can foresee some characters completely losing interest of any kind in rp'ing with the flagger the minute they receive that optout flag.
Emphasizing that the command isn't meant as a rebuke will mitigate that to some degree, but yes that's unavoidable. I'd call that the lesser of two evils though for a person that's uncomfortable with the current rp.
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
I have a few leading questions that I've been pondering.
a) At what point should players Ask for Consent within their roleplaying session?
I'm trigger happy when it comes to consent. Often, if I'm going to commit an RP'd act of violence against someone and not use crime code (particularly in positions of power like the AoD or Captain of the Garrison), I ooc something like 'Consent to mild violence instead of going full ham with combat?'. I think at the onset of a scene (whether it be particularly gruesome or particularly kinky) it should be a habit to OOC for consent.
Quote
b) Does the act of Asking for Consent and Replying to a Consent Request have any pressure imposed on the participating players to continue scene?
I hadn't thought of this before, but yes, I think it does create an imposition on participating players to continue the scene. For example, if four people are in a jail cell (1 templar, 1 criminal, 2 soldiers) and everyone but the criminal quickly agrees to 'consent to torture', it puts pressure on the criminal to also consent to torture. Whether or not they succumb to peer pressure to continue the scene is up to them, but I would say the more people involved in the scene, the more pressure it puts. On a 1v1 consent scenario, the person who initiates consent (OOC Consent to <blah>) also has the advantage of initiating contact. Typically when I consent or ask consent, I offer the options that are available (Consent or FTB?) or (Consent to Torture? It will not permanently maim your character, but if you want to forego the torture, it will lead to a death scene).
Upon reading that though -- That's kind of fucked up and a form of not-sexual coercion in itself. It's basically putting you the player in an OOC pickle. "If you are not comfortable with RPing out an extended torture scene via graphic emotes, and sometimes traumatizing image play, you will lose your PC. If you do go ahead and do the scene, your PC will likely survive." But I do suppose the option is available either way, and the choice is ultimately the player's.
Quote
c) If a player does not want to roleplay out the particular scene, how does this conflict get resolved, and would it be resolved in a different way if the scene continued?
It's stated pretty explicitly in the consent file that if one or more parties does not consent to the scene as described, it does not take place, and does not get 'glossed over'. In the case of a torture scene, it states:
Quote
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. After much deliberation, castration/sterilization
is classified as a form of maiming. However, such actions should be very rare, very specific
punishments (eg in the case of a violation of a GMH/Noble House marriage contract) and should not be
acted out in gory detail to avoid veering into sexual torture.
This points out that if your PC is in a position where they can be tortured or killed, they can opt out of being maimed/tortured and request to be killed instead. Ostensibly, this is the same as being killed by a PC or NPC at any point, wherein you do not require consent to do so (We have Unlimited PK, as opposed to Monitored PK).
Quote
d) If a player does not want to roleplay out a particular scene, and no participating players have Asked for Consent, when should the player let their discomfort be known? How should the player let their discomfort be known?
Immediately. If a consent is not answered (You initiate consent, the other party does not, and just continues with the scene as if you did not ask for consent), wish up immediately. If no Staff are available, Quit OOC, and file a player complaint immediately. Consent (and the help file for it) are very explicit about this:
Quote
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. If you enact a rape plotline or an act of rape, you will be banned.
In either case, you will be banned for thirty (30) days for the first offense, permanently for the
second offense. If the Producers deem an act that is a first offense especially egregious, you will
be permanently banned. Please use common sense and have respect for other people's sensibilities.
Quote from: Narf on April 21, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 21, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: Narf on April 21, 2021, 12:53:06 PM
Here's an idea for a way to potentially mitigate a lot of the issues with consent right now:
Command: optout (player)
Sends a private OOC message to a character that you are opting out of any sexual role play with them, and flags the administrator log. A player that receives this message is obligated to immediately steer any sexual role play they were engaged with directed at your character into role play of a non-sexual nature (yes, this wording needs work). This command is not meant as a rebuke, and does not go on the player's records in any fashion unless the request is ignored.
This command has the same range of the contact skill, but with no chance of failure.
I like that idea.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) I can foresee some characters completely losing interest of any kind in rp'ing with the flagger the minute they receive that optout flag.
Emphasizing that the command isn't meant as a rebuke will mitigate that to some degree, but yes that's unavoidable. I'd call that the lesser of two evils though for a person that's uncomfortable with the current rp.
I'm curious if there's a way to make this a function of the 'assess' command, combined with preferences stated at character creation (or that can be entered at a later date, maybe with a 'consent' command).
>assess <soandso> ooc
They are opting out of sexual role-play.
They are opting out of torture role-play.
They are opting in for graphic-violence role-play.
It wouldn't replace consent, but would enhance it, perhaps helping people who want to avoid these kinds of plots altogether not get approached for them in the first place.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Veselka on April 21, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
They are opting out of sexual role-play.
They are opting out of torture role-play.
They are opting in for graphic-violence role-play.
It wouldn't replace consent, but would enhance it, perhaps helping people who want to avoid these kinds of plots altogether not get approached for them in the first place.
Just a thought.
No - we had that conversation in the past and most agreed that (again, unfortunately) not opting out of sexual role-play could be seen by some as actually /welcoming/ sexual role-play. A whole new nightmarish situation for female characters.
Quote from: Malken on April 21, 2021, 01:23:29 PM
Quote from: Veselka on April 21, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
They are opting out of sexual role-play.
They are opting out of torture role-play.
They are opting in for graphic-violence role-play.
It wouldn't replace consent, but would enhance it, perhaps helping people who want to avoid these kinds of plots altogether not get approached for them in the first place.
Just a thought.
No - we had that conversation in the past and most agreed that (again, unfortunately) not opting out of sexual role-play could be seen by some as actually /welcoming/ sexual role-play. A whole new nightmarish situation for female characters.
As a side note, not to derail the conversation more, but anything like this would definitely default to opt-out when you log into each play session, and would have to be opt-in every play session. You can't permanently opt-into these types of situations.
Quote from: Malken on April 21, 2021, 01:23:29 PM
Quote from: Veselka on April 21, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
They are opting out of sexual role-play.
They are opting out of torture role-play.
They are opting in for graphic-violence role-play.
It wouldn't replace consent, but would enhance it, perhaps helping people who want to avoid these kinds of plots altogether not get approached for them in the first place.
Just a thought.
No - we had that conversation in the past and most agreed that (again, unfortunately) not opting out of sexual role-play could be seen by some as actually /welcoming/ sexual role-play. A whole new nightmarish situation for female characters.
Hmm. Fair point.
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
a) At what point should players Ask for Consent within their roleplaying session?
When the line of PG13 to R for disturbing content (aside from general murder) is crossed I think that's when it should be asked for. If you were to knock someone out and then do a gratuitous emote about murdering their VNPC baby you should ask consent first and if they don't give it just murder them before killing the baby.
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
b) Does the act of Asking for Consent and Replying to a Consent Request have any pressure imposed on the participating players to continue scene?
Yes. This can make things especially awkward when people ask for a scene that is likely to need consent in the near future but does not need it yet. i.e. You're probably going to be kanking in like ~10 minutes but they ask consent before the foreplay which you would want to play out but then fade on the kanking.
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
c) If a player does not want to roleplay out the particular scene, how does this conflict get resolved, and would it be resolved in a different way if the scene continued?
There have absolutely been situations where I wanted to just write "ooc I don't have the available emotional output. Can we just fade the scene?
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
d) If a player does not want to roleplay out a particular scene, and no participating players have Asked for Consent, when should the player let their discomfort be known? How should the player let their discomfort be known?
[/code]
They should but I don't really know a well accepted way.
Helpful reply template:
[quote author=mansa link=topic=56780.msg1059867#msg1059867 date=1619022975]
a) At what point should players [b]Ask for Consent[/b] within their roleplaying session?
[/quote]
[quote author=mansa link=topic=56780.msg1059867#msg1059867 date=1619022975]
b) Does the act of [b]Asking for Consent[/b] and [b]Replying to a Consent Request[/b] have any [i]pressure[/i] imposed on the participating players to continue scene?
[/quote]
[quote author=mansa link=topic=56780.msg1059867#msg1059867 date=1619022975]
c) If a player does not want to roleplay out the particular scene, how does this conflict get resolved, and would it be resolved in a different way if the scene continued?
[/quote]
[quote author=mansa link=topic=56780.msg1059867#msg1059867 date=1619022975]
d) If a player does not want to roleplay out a particular scene, and no participating players have [b]Asked for Consent[/b], when should the player let their discomfort be known? How should the player let their discomfort be known?
[/quote]
Quote from: Veselka on April 21, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
>assess <soandso> ooc
They are opting out of sexual role-play.
They are opting out of torture role-play.
They are opting in for graphic-violence role-play.
I think I might need some rules clarification with these comments on torture and graphic roleplay. I thought:
1) If my character wants to mutilate another character, the victim's only option is to request a FTB, but the character remains mutilated.
2) If my character wants to coerce an employee into sexual activity on pain of losing their job, my character needs to state this intent OOCly at the earliest possible opportunity, and if the victim does not consent, my character needs to adjust his motivations. The victim may also request a FTB.
3) If my character wants to rape another character, even with the victim's consent, we may not do that, either narratively or even by FTB.
Is the above not correct? And if so, how (so I don't inadvertently break any rules)?
This has gone off on a derail and there are multiple threads here.
The issue isn't how the game handles consent. A new thread for discussing how consent works might be better.
As of right now, you can consent or not consent to a graphic scene, which means that although it was not role-played out, it did indeed happen in game and it will be role-played about.
The issue that was brought up is whether or not sexual coercion should be included in the small list of things that are not allowed to be role-played about, whether or not players want to. This isn't about someone finding it distasteful, there's tons of shit in the game that's distasteful. How muls are made, slavery, half-breeds, murder, etc. Finding something distasteful doesn't really have any bearing on the game, that's your choice to play, and muls are going to explode out of their mothers whether or not you care.
Instead, it's a question of whether or not the line should move on what is allowed to be role-played - theme and player fun balanced against the potential traumatization of fellow players in our community.
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
Consent is an important part of ensuring player safety, especially considering minors are allowed to play.
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
Lots of us don't agree and would like some boundaries on our harshness. There are however games that explicitly allow rape in the RPI community if you want to go there instead.
I think this is the best answer we'll get on this subject:
Quote from: Brokkr on April 20, 2021, 07:27:35 PM
That said, if we feel you are getting your jollies off with a persistent pattern of sexual harassment, gaslighting or other fuckwad activity that may be otherwise within the lines, we reserve the right to do anything from talk to you to store or ban you without notice.
If you're in doubt, ask for consent.
If you think you're about to do something that may make the other player feel uncomfortable, it doesn't hurt to ask for consent even if it's "within" the rules.
If you think you're about to do something that may get you in trouble with staff, then it's probably better not to do it and find another plotline to pursue, or at the very least email or wish up to staff before pursuing it.
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
I disagree with you and while I don't think we can always cater to everyone, I think the updates and changes to these lines have been for the best and we should always be mindful of our other players. I'm interested to know why you feel this way. The world of Zalanthas is horrible and full of many disturbing and gory things and while this is true, there are some aspects that are important to keep in mind.
To name just a couple:
1. Requesting consent tries to keep us safe from possible legal issues, much like a signed waiver that you're of age.
2. While people enjoy RP, there are items that are just going pretty far for some people's tastes and it allows us to cater to both sides of the fence.
Personal attacks are not allowed here. -Hestia
Quote from: mansa on April 21, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
d) If a player does not want to roleplay out a particular scene, and no participating players have Asked for Consent, when should the player let their discomfort be known? How should the player let their discomfort be known?
I think at any point you are uncomfortable continuing, you should OOC that you would like to fade. You should not have to explain why, and the other side should do nothing but OOC: Fading the rest of the scene. Intention was to end with "X" if that is alright.
However, on the main topic of coercion...
Rape was banned. Engaging in a rape plotline is banned. Having a character talk about rape is banned. Rape in any way has been removed from the active world.
Rape-LIKE things were not banned, and still require consent. This applies directly to coerced sexual encounters, where someone in a Superior political or societal position suggests that you will be killed or murdered or "will not leave this room alive" with the insinuation of sexual favors to be allowed to stay alive.
Brokkr lists this as sexual assault, and not rape, because there is no penetration. This is allowed, so long as both parties consent.
We're asking that this NOT be allowed, regardless of consent. No player should be made to feel that they either have to engage in a triggering or traumatic scene because they feel there will be IC repercussions if there are not.
It is not about whether someone needs to consent sooner, or if not giving consent might lead to death. Its that this situation is potentially traumatizing, and it causes an undue burden on the affected player to acquiesce or suffer in game consequences.
I submit that at that point, this no longer represents a roleplaying game, but a fetish simulator that is willfully and purposefully allowing such acts to take place, in the name of "harshness".
Quote from: Riev on April 21, 2021, 03:59:41 PM
This applies directly to coerced sexual encounters, where someone in a Superior political or societal position suggests that you will be killed or murdered or "will not leave this room alive" with the insinuation of sexual favors to be allowed to stay alive.
Shabago said this is rape. His example of "coercion" was "You can get this Salarri armor if you do this sexual favor for me."
Yes, as far as I know, any threat of death, or violence, connected to sex, is banned, and may not be played out even if both parties are alright with it.
I don't happen to agree that two consenting players can't play out their twisted story, but I very much support the idea that you must ask Consent for any sexual scene, and I support players being able to even avoid sexual harassment by OOC no-consenting.
Quote from: Robespierre on April 21, 2021, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Riev on April 21, 2021, 03:59:41 PM
This applies directly to coerced sexual encounters, where someone in a Superior political or societal position suggests that you will be killed or murdered or "will not leave this room alive" with the insinuation of sexual favors to be allowed to stay alive.
Shabago said this is rape. His example of "coercion" was "You can get this Salarri armor if you do this sexual favor for me."
The issue is that this has REPORTEDLY happened at some point in recent history, in a similar fashion as I have described. It was not deemed as against the documentation, so far as I'm aware.
Shabago may have said that it is rape, but he is not the only staff, and his is not the only word which bears weight. Hence... we need to change the docs EVEN IF WE AREN'T CHANGING THE RULE to be more explicit.
Maybe, enforce but not restrict with a simple change to the process of allowing leaders, allowing these typically higher karma, "mature" veterans who have received these roles to be the gentle nudge without being the -forced- mandate of rule? I mean, it makes sense anyway that the more powerful your role is, the more careful you have to be to not step in shit. So if you are high, high power and influence, the onus is on you as a player to be equally careful to respect that responsibility?
On getting an acceptance letter for a role-call or "powerful" special application, once the staff says "You have been selected", why not just have the next step in the process be:
"Do you agree to requesting or requiring consent for (the following actions) that are grey area in the rules, but not explicitly covered in them, without consulting us first via wish or request?"
Check Box: Yes [] No []
Yes, the Uncle Ben Doctrine.
Is it considered coercive rp for a female character's player to reach out to a male character's player with an OOC channel to offer pregnancy rp, and the chance to refuse?
Or is that exactly the sort of conversation we should be having in game between players, to not force situations on one another?
I have seen it time and time again where female characters roll up pregnant suddenly, and then kick off when the male wants nothing to do with it, or, isn't wanting to play parental rp.
It is basically Ambush Pregnancy/Parental RP.
I have generally whenever these situations arise IG, ooc'd to the 'other party' if they are happy with parental RP, as, some people are generally not.
I mean ... if the characters had sex, in theory, it's a pretty natural thing for there to be a chance of pregnancy. I guess OOC consenting pregnancy would be polite but I really don't know if I would create an actual rule for it.
Quote from: zeia on April 21, 2021, 04:45:55 PM
Is it considered coercive rp for a female character's player to reach out to a male character's player with an OOC channel to offer pregnancy rp, and the chance to refuse?
Or is that exactly the sort of conversation we should be having in game between players, to not force situations on one another?
I have seen it time and time again where female characters roll up pregnant suddenly, and then kick off when the male wants nothing to do with it, or, isn't wanting to play parental rp.
It is basically Ambush Pregnancy/Parental RP.
I have generally whenever these situations arise IG, ooc'd to the 'other party' if they are happy with parental RP, as, some people are generally not.
That's a fairly big derail there. IMO, no. Make your bed and lie in it - that's an IC situation and a fairly realistic one, so it should be dealt with IC, by refusing to have anything to do with it, if that's the way the character would go. Or take whatever precautions for it not to happen...IC.
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
ArmageddonMUD should not be a power fantasy for a select few. It ought to be a game which uses cooperative storytelling.
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
***Re-written to remove any hint of personal attacks***
100% Disagree, This is probably one of the most disgusting post I have ever read in my entire Armageddon career. If you, not you specifically Magnate but anyone, believe that allowing people to opt out of sex, rape, or something that makes them uncomfortable is NOT OK, maybe you should check yourself and ask yourself these questions:
1. How does, effectively, forcing people to do sex/rape/fantasy scenes that they would rather opt out of enriching the game/Storyline?
2. Why do I have a problem respecting other players' boundaries?
3. Why do I feel everyone should be forced to go along with a scene I am pushing that makes the PLAYER uncomfortable?
One last question for everyone:
1. Why does anyone think Rape RP, being played/emoted out and forced onto another player, of any kind is ok and enriches the game?
Quote from: Is Friday on April 21, 2021, 05:25:15 PM
ArmageddonMUD should not be a power fantasy for a select few. It ought to be a game which uses cooperative storytelling.
True. The game has to have a level of cooperative storytelling.
A lot of people, including me, wouldn't want to invest in the experience without at least some rules to protect them from scenarios that involve violent scenes of sexual abuse. The problem stems from the "Direct threat of rape isn't allowed" so people believe there's the potential window for other forms of sexual abuse to still occur, and this's true to some degree. I don't think it would hurt to expound the file with a few more well written lines to explicitly cover scenarios that staff have already outlined as NOT OKAY.
It isn't to deprive people from aspects of storytelling but to protect people from depravity. There is, though, a great big dichotomy since it's perfectly in theme for a character to gratify their own sense of self worth and exhibit power over others. On an OOC level, we all should be trying to respect our peers even if this means we have to set boundaries for our characters sexuality.
Some people have a better time in cooperative storytelling. There'll be people who get to have incredible stories that they've enjoyed more than others, due to many things: luck, better time investment, syncing with the role they're in, or GREAT INCREDIBLE STATS or etc. Some players will have more power to influence the game and others. There has to be a tangle effort to include everyone. This extends, especially, to protecting others from traumatic stories that'd bring harm to them. The rule exists to provide some protection from psychologically harm. The rule for consent for sexual scenes shouldn't even be debated in this thread. They're necessary. People can cause psychological harm to other players by showing the worst face of humanity. This's true even in other mediums where you can't physically harm others, like a phone calls, discord dms, or even a text game.
Take into consideration people can find enjoyment in others suffering or ways to scar someone who's spurned them. Psychopaths delight in it, and there might be a couple of those here. At the end of the day, staff have to make note of those in the current system, and the community has to trust the admins to handle situations when lines are crossed. If there's a situation where it's even felt a little iffy, there's no harm in opening a dialogue through appropriate channels.
As stated before, personal attacks are out.
Quote from: Wedi on April 21, 2021, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
One last question for everyone:
1. Why does anyone think Rape RP, being played/emoted out and forced onto another player, of any kind is ok and enriches the game?
Looking over the posts on this thread so far, Magnate's opinion is clearly an outlier and this question has little baring on, and is a gross distraction from what is actually being discussed.
As the rules stand, a player may request a fade for any scene of a sexual nature, regardless of any other circumstances. What is being discussed is whether or not there should be a rule against coercion that doesn't quite meet the criteria of rape, and how that rule should work.
Came back to eyeball the discussion because it -is- important.
It's not about protecting snowflakes, it's about making sure the "community" aspect isn't blatantly disregarding the fact that everyone has a voice, if they choose to use it or not. Empowering players to be able to define their characters is not a bad thing.
Next direct attack towards a player results in a lock.
Quote from: Shabago on April 21, 2021, 07:06:54 PM
Next direct attack towards a player results in a lock.
Would you be willing to consider banning problem users temporarily from posting rather than ending a discussing that appears to be otherwise productive.
Quote from: stoicreader on April 21, 2021, 12:54:58 PM
I'm on my cellphone and I rarely get on GDB. But when I can, I'll leave my two cents.
-stoa
Poor Stoa, he/she may never get that chance :(
So, I've decided to rewrite the consent policy to something I like a bit better.
Please give any feedback for the changes.
Consent
There are few restrictions on roleplay in ArmageddonMUD.
Rape/Sexual Torture plotlines are not to be played out in the game. See 'help rape' for further elaboration on this subject and a definition of what is considered rape in ArmageddonMUD.
Erotic roleplay and graphic torture are permissible roleplaying scenes to explore in ArmageddonMUD. However, before instigating such an act with another player, you need to communicate using the OOC command to make sure that the role play is consented to, in each and every scene it happens. You must do this as you can't be sure that you are alone in every situation, and as such consent must be addressed every time. As well, fellow players may be comfortable in roleplaying these scenes during some days, and may not be comfortable the next day. Perhaps a good analogy is the movie ratings system: some players may wish to see the details acted out in a way which would deserve an R rating while other players might prefer that the details be communicated in an Out-Of-Character fashion and left offstage.
Some examples would be:
OOC Consent to torture?
OOC Sure, bring on the blood.
OOC Consent to erotic roleplay?
OOC I want to fade-to-black and pick up after.
If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you uncomfortable, please use the OOC command to state that they should stop. If they continue despite being told to stop, please use the wish command and 'wish all' immediately to notify the staff.
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 for thirty (30) days for the first offense, permanently for the second offense. If the Producers deem an act that is a first offense especially egregious, you will be permanently banned. Please use common sense and have respect for other people's sensibilities.
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. Castration/sterilization must not be roleplayed out in gory detail, as it is a form of sexual torture.
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.
Consent 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.)
If there are any questions to be had regarding this rule, please submit a Game Related Question Request at your earliest possible convenience.
Notes:
You must be 18 years of age or older to ask for or give consent for sexual roleplay.
I rearranged the policy to state:
- Some things aren't allowed
- Rape
- Other things are, however, you must do this action. Reason why.
- Example how to ask for consent
- What to do if you're uncomfortable
- What happens if you don't ask for consent
- Clarification of mutilation with regards to loss of character function, plus castration
- Summary
- Clarification of specific events for when consent is not required.
I've changed 'adult roleplay' to 'erotic roleplay'.
I've removed the line about 'This rule is not meant to be abused in order to allow characters to escape the consequences.' - this is a troublesome line, when NOT talking about torture.
I've edited the line about 'younger players' and just made it 'other players'.
I've added specific examples on how one should ask for consent
I've removed the double-reference to rape being banned.
Well done Mansa, I like it a lot.
My one qualm is this phrasing:
QuoteCastration/sterilization must not be roleplayed out in gory detail, as it is a form of sexual torture.
I would rephrase it as:
Castration/sterilization must not be roleplayed out in gory detail, as then it would cross into the realm of sexual torture.
Quote from: Wedi on April 21, 2021, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
***Re-written to remove any hint of personal attacks***
100% Disagree, This is probably one of the most disgusting post I have ever read in my entire Armageddon career. If you, not you specifically Magnate but anyone, believe that allowing people to opt out of sex, rape, or something that makes them uncomfortable is NOT OK, maybe you should check yourself and ask yourself these questions:
1. How does, effectively, forcing people to do sex/rape/fantasy scenes that they would rather opt out of enriching the game/Storyline?
2. Why do I have a problem respecting other players' boundaries?
3. Why do I feel everyone should be forced to go along with a scene I am pushing that makes the PLAYER uncomfortable?
One last question for everyone:
1. Why does anyone think Rape RP, being played/emoted out and forced onto another player, of any kind is ok and enriches the game?
I am not certain why you are fixating on the sexual aspect of the consent rules but since that is all that you seemed concerned about, I am happy to offer my opinions and answer your questions.
1) It is a harsh world where characters are treated in absolutely horribles ways. It is like going in to watch a R-Rated movie and then complaining that the content that you watch disturbs you and demanding everyone else in the theatre censor it.
2) Boundaries are a good thing. We are talking about a text-based-game and words, not real situations.
3) No one is forced to play the game (or the movie, like referenced above). With that same logic, why should others be forced to adjust themselves for you?
With that said, you seem to be trying to present me as some sort of sexual deviant who thrives on rape scenes. I have been playing Armageddon since the 1990s and I do not believe that I have EVER initiated any sort of sexual torture, rape, or anything similar. I do not enjoy sexual scenes and I fade to black when I find my character in that situation - it just isn't my thing. Fading was an option for many years and still ought to be instead of simply cancelling something that, as unpleasant as it might be IRL, is part of the game and likely rather rampant in the virtual world.
I do not believe that I have anything further to contribute so I doubt that I will reply (or even read) here any further but since you wanted to make assumptions about me, I thought that I might take a moment to respond. If you look at the other replies to my comment, most of them are just toeing the line of personal attacks and aren't really worth the recognition. I find it to be a sad state when cancel culture has gone so far as to infiltrate a text-based game that has always marketed itself as being harsh and "if you don't like it, too bad" and that when someone expresses an opinion contrary to someone else's they seem to just initiate personal attacks (which also don't hurt, by the way...they are just words).
Edited to add:
I should clarify, I am not advocating to force people to play out scenes that they do not want to. Fade-to-black is a thing and has worked just fine for a very long time. I AM advocating against simply banning or cancelling anything that could take place in the environment that we play in.
Quote from: Magnate on April 22, 2021, 08:32:45 AM
I find it to be a sad state when cancel culture has gone so far as to infiltrate a text-based game that has always marketed itself as being harsh and "if you don't like it, too bad" and that when someone expresses an opinion contrary to someone else's they seem to just initiate personal attacks (which also don't hurt, by the way...they are just words).
I don't think anyone is trying to cancel you over expressing your opinion of the rules. No one suggested you should be banned from the GDB, the game, the discord, or any other forum by which you might express your opinion. To the extent there was an ad hominem attack, staff stepped in and stopped it, so even if expression could constitute cancellation (which it does not), it certainly has yet to infiltrate Armageddon.
Can we switch the two?
QuoteSome examples would be:
OOC Consent to torture?
OOC I want to fade-to-black and pick up after.
OOC Consent to erotic roleplay?
OOC Sure, bring on the blood.
Throwing my 2 cents in..I have been playing Arm nearly two decades. I have totally stored characters because of sexual harassment. Like I have dealt with that in real life I have no desire to repeatably make it clear to you that I don't want to see your characters naughty bits. If your in a position of power over another PC you absolutely should ask for consent in my humble opinion. I stored a beloved 1+years played aide because the new boss was getting seriously rapey and it was making playing unbearable for me. I will say it has gotten way WAY better since rape was banned from the game.
Not going to call anyone out but there are players I know are men that play woman and are horrible with sexual harassment stuff. I can literally tell who they are by the behavior. I don't think we need more rules though. I think if someone is under you, you as a player should maybe ask consent before putting another player in a situation where they may not feel like its okay to say no. Also no means no if you get the impression they aren't interested read the room and move on.
Also I have seen female PC's die by the hands of the PC that was sexually harassing them. I am not gonna dig up old issues but it seems like the murderer always avoids trouble for it by using a thinly veiled excuse to blame it on some other reason.
You should ask for consent for any scene that could be harassing, as far as I am concerned, whether you rank higher or lower, but I also think the person being harassed needs to feel free to express malcontent as well. I say this latter bit because you may begin the scene thinking that you'll be cool with it, and then it goes too far. At which point you should absolutely feel comfortable with withdrawing your OOC consent.
As a whole, we need to all be comfortable with both expressing our limit and accepting other people's limits. The only thing I dislike about the current system, is that certain scenes are not capable of being played even between people who wish to play them. That, and the fact that somehow people who may be the victims don't feel comfortable expressing in an out-of-character manner that they don't want to play those scenes. You should feel comfortable doing that and expecting the other player to give you the respect you deserve.
On top of Mansa's awesome edits, do we think an OOC notification command, a requirement that the other player adjust their IC motivations, and easy to find encouragement to use that command liberally would solve the problem?
It sounds like some players are having a lot of fun playing out coercive storylines, and we shouldn't ruin that for them. It sounds like other players are getting justifiably OOCly annoyed when characters just won't take the friggin' "no". It also appears characters that won't take the "no" would face staff action, but the incidents are going unreported. Maybe a separate command, visible only to the pursuing player and staff, would encourage use and reporting if the command isn't honored.
You might still have pretextual killings, with the offender using some IC fig leaf justification for the murder while being primarily motivated by the fact another character wouldn't sleep with them, but with such a command, you would at least have evidence helping to show the the real motivation behind the murder.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 22, 2021, 11:40:58 AM
As a whole, we need to all be comfortable with both expressing our limit and accepting other people's limits. The only thing I dislike about the current system, is that certain scenes are not capable of being played even between people who wish to play them. That, and the fact that somehow people who may be the victims don't feel comfortable expressing in an out-of-character manner that they don't want to play those scenes. You should feel comfortable doing that and expecting the other player to give you the respect you deserve.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that certain scenes between two consenting players tend to never really stay between these two players.
I may be wrong but I vaguely remember that the no-rape rule was established not because we had a serial rapist in our midst but because a female character was making false rape accusations left and right that completely destroyed someone's role and had repercussion all over the city as well as OOCly. I also think that it wasn't the first time that this female character/player had done that in the past.
While you're probably not talking about rape scenes in particular, there are a lot of other scenes that would probably end up creating whole messes for Staff to deal with when it starts affecting players in contact with the two consenting players.
Quote from: Robespierre on April 22, 2021, 11:56:11 AM
On top of Mansa's awesome edits, do we think an OOC notification command, a requirement that the other player adjust their IC motivations, and easy to find encouragement to use that command liberally would solve the problem?
I think this adding a command that privately opts out of sexual rp would both help shyer players that don't want to publicly broadcast their discomfort avoid being the center of such a scene, as well as cut down on unwanted harassment rp that isn't technically against the rules.
Just want to circle back and touch base on the original topic: either coercive sex is put into the category of 'not allowed to be played out or role-played about even if two players wish to,' with the rest of rape, or it isn't.
Moving on, a toggle that says "I don't consent to graphic RP" leaves the character open for said RP, still, under the current rules. It just would mean, without a rule change, that it's known they're going to FTB. If it made players feel more comfortable and solves the issue, I'm all for it, although I would caution that not having that flag up will mean to some players that a player is inviting said RP. I don't know if it's really a better system than just asking consent before starting graphic role-play. You'd still have to do that, because you might not see everyone in the room.
Honestly, after reading so many responses, I think that providing more documentation edits that clearly urge players who feel harassed as players to contact staff, and a very transparent (at least, to the player who submitted the complaint, and the individual that has been complained about) system of handling those complaints, would be the best step to take - reinforcing that there are no in game or out of game punishments allowed to stem from such complaints. Nearly every instance mentioned here and in Discord has been something that should have been reported - a player feeling like they had to ERP or face punishment instead of just FTBing, a player feeling pressured by their character's superior continually trying to sexually harass them or pressure them into sex every time they log in, etc.
This is a graphic, adult game, but we're still a community of people getting together to be nerds. It should be fun for everyone, even if it shouldn't cater to everyone.
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 22, 2021, 11:40:58 AM
As a whole, we need to all be comfortable with both expressing our limit and accepting other people's limits. The only thing I dislike about the current system, is that certain scenes are not capable of being played even between people who wish to play them. That, and the fact that somehow people who may be the victims don't feel comfortable expressing in an out-of-character manner that they don't want to play those scenes. You should feel comfortable doing that and expecting the other player to give you the respect you deserve.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that certain scenes between two consenting players tend to never really stay between these two players.
I may be wrong but I vaguely remember that the no-rape rule was established not because we had a serial rapist in our midst but because a female character was making false rape accusations left and right that completely destroyed someone's role and had repercussion all over the city as well as OOCly. I also think that it wasn't the first time that this female character/player had done that in the past.
While you're probably not talking about rape scenes in particular, there are a lot of other scenes that would probably end up creating whole messes for Staff to deal with when it starts affecting players in contact with the two consenting players.
This literally happened to me, yes. One moment you're patrolling with your Legionnaire, the other moment Nyr is politely asking why he has sixteen character reports mentioning your character as a brutal rapist. These complaints got my character discharged by his sergeant
even after our Templar found and killed the person responsible, so yeah, nah, I'm pretty god damn happy that this won't become a thing again.
Quote from: Patuk on April 22, 2021, 02:03:28 PM
This literally happened to me, yes. One moment you're patrolling with your Legionnaire, the other moment Nyr is politely asking why he has sixteen character reports mentioning your character as a brutal rapist. These complaints got my character discharged by his sergeant even after our Templar found and killed the person responsible, so yeah, nah, I'm pretty god damn happy that this won't become a thing again.
To play devil's advocate...that just sounds like a really successful smear campaign. Pretty unpleasant for you as a player, but it's a different justification than "let's please not trigger players who have experienced sexual assault."
For completeness, some arguments for why the current rule banning even accusations of rape should maybe exist even so:
- Not a lot of non-creepy players playing rapists. Therefore accusing a PC of rape = accusing a
player of being creepy.
- It galvanizes the playerbase into widespread poor play. Like, as the GDB has often claimed, accusing a PC of pickpocketing. (Unlike the real world, where everybody would be like, "yeah maybe but she's such a promising young Legionnaire!")
I agree with Lindsey on this, and I like all of the changes and efforts that Mansa has kindly made.
We should try to keep it fun for everyone. The hurdle with fun in a dark, gritty theme is there's a multitude of scenarios that can leave you feeling used and slimy.
Let's play this in metaphorical analysis. An example: you're a player who doesn't like or enjoy erotic roleplay, but you get in good with Goolash, a merchant of house Tiddlywinks. The merchant of Tiddlywinks promises you favor, fortune, fancy clothes if you sleep with him, stay with him and be his mate. You consent to the scenes without fading.
However, Goolash lied to you. He just wanted to hit it and quit it. After having his taste of you, he doesn't cater or fulfill any of his promises, and instead, talks about how lackluster and boring you are.
On top of that, after you start telling how despicable he is to others, he has you killed, because he has the means to.
While it wasn't pressured or coerced in a way that's extremely offensive, it's still an un-fun experience that leaves you a bit jaded. This's an entirely hypothetical situation that I could see actually happening. In this situation a flag may or may not have helped. It's more about a scummy person doing scummy things, and there has to be some "Buyer Beware" for what kind of roleplay you're purchasing with your time.
As brought up earlier, though, as a counterpoint, there's also the players who try to get favor by seduction with feminine wiles as somewhat of a counterargument. Yeah, I can see this. But sexual harassment affects more women, this is a fact. If they're looking for coins, I think a more productive use of time would be spamming "forage", but for politics, I guess it could be useful. If you cross certain lines or hit certain pet peeves, I bet people will PK you regardless of playstyle or gender.
Quote from: Patuk on April 22, 2021, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 22, 2021, 11:40:58 AM
As a whole, we need to all be comfortable with both expressing our limit and accepting other people's limits. The only thing I dislike about the current system, is that certain scenes are not capable of being played even between people who wish to play them. That, and the fact that somehow people who may be the victims don't feel comfortable expressing in an out-of-character manner that they don't want to play those scenes. You should feel comfortable doing that and expecting the other player to give you the respect you deserve.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that certain scenes between two consenting players tend to never really stay between these two players.
I may be wrong but I vaguely remember that the no-rape rule was established not because we had a serial rapist in our midst but because a female character was making false rape accusations left and right that completely destroyed someone's role and had repercussion all over the city as well as OOCly. I also think that it wasn't the first time that this female character/player had done that in the past.
While you're probably not talking about rape scenes in particular, there are a lot of other scenes that would probably end up creating whole messes for Staff to deal with when it starts affecting players in contact with the two consenting players.
This literally happened to me, yes. One moment you're patrolling with your Legionnaire, the other moment Nyr is politely asking why he has sixteen character reports mentioning your character as a brutal rapist. These complaints got my character discharged by his sergeant even after our Templar found and killed the person responsible, so yeah, nah, I'm pretty god damn happy that this won't become a thing again.
That's a especially infuriating because of the out of character connotations that might follow that affect you and the game.
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on April 22, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
To play devil's advocate...that just sounds like a really successful smear campaign. Pretty unpleasant for you as a player, but it's a different justification than "let's please not trigger players who have experienced sexual assault."
For completeness, some arguments for why the current rule banning even accusations of rape should maybe exist even so:
- Not a lot of non-creepy players playing rapists. Therefore accusing a PC of rape = accusing a player of being creepy.
- It galvanizes the playerbase into widespread poor play. Like, as the GDB has often claimed, accusing a PC of pickpocketing. (Unlike the real world, where everybody would be like, "yeah maybe but she's such a promising young Legionnaire!")
How do you know that a player has never been falsely accused of rape irl and now you're throwing that accusation in their face in the game and they're now stuck reliving that moment through a lame plot that you know, as a female character making that accusation, 99.9% of the playerbase will believe it no matter what and also stick to you forever as a player because everyone still talks to everyone else about what is going on in the game and who is doing what on Discord (used to be AIM)?
How is that even different than 'let's please not trigger players who have experience sexual assault.'
You can't just say that one thing is bad and another is fine.. Who even judges that? Rape is bad, sexual assault is bad.. Accusing someone of rape is fine... Murder is ok.. Theft is ok... Terrorism is fine... Beheading someone is super cool, go for it... Bullying is ok...
Quote from: Brytta Léofa on April 22, 2021, 02:22:37 PM
Quote from: Patuk on April 22, 2021, 02:03:28 PM
This literally happened to me, yes. One moment you're patrolling with your Legionnaire, the other moment Nyr is politely asking why he has sixteen character reports mentioning your character as a brutal rapist. These complaints got my character discharged by his sergeant even after our Templar found and killed the person responsible, so yeah, nah, I'm pretty god damn happy that this won't become a thing again.
To play devil's advocate...that just sounds like a really successful smear campaign. Pretty unpleasant for you as a player, but it's a different justification than "let's please not trigger players who have experienced sexual assault."
I'd much rather people use any other smear, at all, than the rape accusations that happened over there. Which people do now! And have been, for a while. It is the better policy.
And - yeah, see also Malken's posts. People respond to accusations of rape to such an exaggerated degree that it's a toy I'd rather nobody gets to use. It really is that dumb.
The whole 'no one is forced to play the game' argument is odd if you put emphasis on 'game' and the concurring argument that people should have to deal with rapey trash in their hobby.
Change the docs, please.
Quote from: Ama on April 22, 2021, 02:54:22 PM
That's a especially infuriating because of the out of character connotations that might follow that affect you and the game.
Quote from: Patuk on April 22, 2021, 03:16:40 PM
And - yeah, see also Malken's posts. People respond to accusations of rape to such an exaggerated degree that it's a toy I'd rather nobody gets to use. It really is that dumb.
Well, see, those are exactly the two reasons I proposed. :D
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 02:56:53 PM
How do you know that a player has never been falsely accused
Brother I trust that there's a good faith argument here, but some bad things are different from other bad things. We're privileging rape because in our culture (and maybe universally) it's a crime we treat as on par with murder, and it's relatively widespread (whereas, though there's plenty of murder in Armageddon, few players have experienced a murder attempt). The bright line is not just "here is a bad thing that players may have experienced in real life."
I still stan House Kawai tho.
Anyway, not sure why I'm arguing here; I do not desire a policy change. Just interested me that the conversation changed kind of implicitly from "this is uniquely bad for players who have been victimized outside of the game" to "this generates poor plotlines/throws shade on players."
Hmm. Yeah, those are some exceptionally good points. For the record, I'm just fine with our existing guidelines, and I certainly feel like we (probably) don't need to add more stuff that can't be played out. But in the light of those excellent points made above, I don't think I'd like to see degradation of our existing rules, either, because I hate the existing suppositions about players that already exists.
I think a POOC [target] command would be great, so that you could target a player with OOC privately. Not only would it confine some of these sort of sensitive conversations you might need to have to just you two, but it would also have other neat applications like helping newbies and such things in a less disruptive way. I'd probably add it to the log system to make sure it doesn't abused or anything.
Quote from: Ama on April 22, 2021, 02:38:21 PM
Let's play this in metaphorical analysis. An example: you're a player who doesn't like or enjoy erotic roleplay, but you get in good with Goolash, a merchant of house Tiddlywinks. The merchant of Tiddlywinks promises you favor, fortune, fancy clothes if you sleep with him, stay with him and be his mate. You consent to the scenes without fading.
However, Goolash lied to you. He just wanted to hit it and quit it. After having his taste of you, he doesn't cater or fulfill any of his promises, and instead, talks about how lackluster and boring you are.
Why in krath would you, in this situation, NOT FADE? If you don't like or enjoy ERP, but your character would totally be cool with this situation and wants all the sweet loot. You FADE! If the other PC does not treat that exactly the same way (e.g. the characters had a blast) then that would be complaint worthy. A fade should be entirely equal to a played out scene in terms of using it as currency...for a character.
Quote from: Ama on April 22, 2021, 02:38:21 PM
However, Goolash lied to you. He just wanted to hit it and quit it. After having his taste of you, he doesn't cater or fulfill any of his promises, and instead, talks about how lackluster and boring you are.
On top of that, after you start telling how despicable he is to others, he has you killed, because he has the means to.
While it wasn't pressured or coerced in a way that's extremely offensive, it's still an un-fun experience that leaves you a bit jaded. This's an entirely hypothetical situation that I could see actually happening. In this situation a flag may or may not have helped. It's more about a scummy person doing scummy things, and there has to be some "Buyer Beware" for what kind of roleplay you're purchasing with your time.
I'm not sure what you're saying here... Are you saying that your hypothetical situation should be banned from ever happening? I can't tell if you're a new player or not, but you need to know what you're getting yourself by playing Armageddon..
'scummy person doing scummy things' is pretty much Armageddon's tagline.
Also, here's your
'Buyer Beware' warning for the kind of roleplay and experience you're purchasing with your time on Armageddon - At any time you might be killed for the dumbest of reasons. You might be having the time of your life and it took you 3 months to get there and someone will murder you without any emotes just because they don't like the color of your hair, or you might die because your internet dropped for a minute while you were outside hunting.
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 04:19:27 PM
...
Also, here's your 'Buyer Beware' warning for the kind of roleplay and experience you're purchasing with your time on Armageddon - At any time you might be killed for the dumbest of reasons. You might be having the time of your life and it took you 3 months to get there and someone will murder you without any emotes just because they don't like the color of your hair, or you might die because your internet dropped for a minute while you were outside hunting.
The act of combat, of killing another character in the game, are all mechanical devices which the game engine takes care of, and every player of the game has already opted into the resolution the game engine determines.
Imagine that every time you wanted to engage with another character you needed to roll the dice, and it would respond with what action you're allowed to roleplay with that character. i.e. You rolled a 20/20, which means you're allowed to harass them, or you rolled a 2/20 so you attempt to become their servant/lacky.
If our players didn't agree with the mechanical aspects of combat and death, the players would probably move on to another game format that allows for alternative outcomes in combat and death.
Quote from: Maso on April 22, 2021, 04:03:39 PM
Why in krath would you, in this situation, NOT FADE? If you don't like or enjoy ERP, but your character would totally be cool with this situation and wants all the sweet loot. You FADE! If the other PC does not treat that exactly the same way (e.g. the characters had a blast) then that would be complaint worthy. A fade should be entirely equal to a played out scene in terms of using it as currency...for a character.
I think the reasons people think fading isn't sufficient are two-fold:
1) Some people don't want to play the aftermath of being coerced into sex, and that's fundamentally different from not wanting to play the aftermath of being tortured or robbed. Indeed, my read of "help rape" is that players are allowed to avoid even having to fade in this circumstance. A command like "POOC [target]" would give players a chance to opt out without having to OOC chat, where there may potentially be other people.
2) If your boss or whoever is asking to sleep with you like 20 times, you can't fade past that. Without being able to stop it OOCly, you just have to RP being harassed.
This conversation is getting confusing...
Ama's hypothetical situation is that her boss is offering her eternal happiness if she agrees to sleep with him... Not only does she agree but she's going full mudsex-until-dehydration mode. The boss then tells her that she was super lame in bed and doesn't want her around. Now Ama's character is pissed so she tells people about it and the boss decides to kill her off for it.
Now Ama thinks that she just wasted her time with that plot... and.... wants that kind of attitude banned?
Ama states that
QuoteWe should try to keep it fun for everyone. The hurdle with fun in a dark, gritty theme is there's a multitude of scenarios that can leave you feeling used and slimy.
I totally agree with the first part but I'm not sure I understand the second part... You're going to end up feeling used and slimy on Armageddon.
I'd be totally fine with her scenario if the scenario went more like.. Her boss asks her for sex each time she logs in, she tells him to backoff OOCly because it's starting to creep her out, but the boss continues, she complains to the staff and staff has a serious talk with the boss.
I never said anything about wanting anyone banned in that situation.
The morale of that story is do not consent if it's iffy.
And the conclusion I've come to is not every situation is going to be fun. I've seen people killed for really trivial reasons. Sometimes it's as simple as they're X and I'm Y. With adult scenes though, there are at least some safety nets.
Quote from: Ama on April 22, 2021, 04:55:16 PM
The morale of that story is do not consent if it's iffy.
Ahh, that makes more sense!
Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
I don't have much to add, other than to say I'm glad this conversation is taking place. It's been both helpful and enlightening for me. I do agree the helpfiles should probably get some sprucing up, as from what I can tell the "Overton window" has shifted significantly over the years/decades (I still consider myself a new player, as I haven't been playing nearly long enough to "get" much of the deeper dynamics and culture that undergird this singular game).
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Ama on April 22, 2021, 04:55:16 PM
The morale of that story is do not consent if it's iffy.
Ahh, that makes more sense!
Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
We good!
Re-reading it, not the best hypothetical and my point doesn't come across entirely clearly. There's not going to be perfect protection for feelings and part of it is on us, the players, to control our own narratives. It's definitely on us to at least prompt to see if others are comfortable. Even in the bad examples, Goolash might be played by a perfectly cordial person who likes to read some smut every now and is doing the best to portray the character the way they've made them. Given the choice to fade, he or she likely wouldn't mind because most people, maybe 99% even, would do so without qualms.
I'm glad the conversation is taking place, too. I feel generally better about this community because of people like Malken, mansa, 7DeadlyVenoms et al, and the willingness to have this rather tough dialogue.
Quote from: th3kaiser on April 21, 2021, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: Magnate on April 21, 2021, 03:00:40 PM
The line of where you must request consent has moved slowly over the years and, bluntly, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous. Consent for anything is a silly idea. The entire world in which we play is a horrible place - if you can't handle that, you should likely be playing a different game instead of wanting more and more restrictions here.
Lots of us don't agree and would like some boundaries on our harshness. There are however games that explicitly allow rape in the RPI community if you want to go there instead.
I would wager he is talking about torture not rape
Quote from: th3kaiser on April 22, 2021, 10:31:58 PM
Lots of us don't agree and would like some boundaries on our harshness. There are however games that explicitly allow rape in the RPI community if you want to go there instead.
There really isn't so let's stop pretending that Armageddon is some kind of Paragon of Virtue when it comes to a healthy community and a spotless reputation because it really isn't. We have almost 30 years of abuse and nasty behaviors that many of us have agreed to continue to play through and turn a blind eye to even though we all knew what was happening, what was allowed and what some of our fellow players went through.
The best we can do is try and repair the terrible reputation we have both as a community and as an example to follow and that's a good start but I guarantee you that nothing we're deciding today hasn't been done in other communities YEARS ago.
Many of you have been playing for 20+ years even when there wasn't any rules against rape so it's cool that you want to change all of that now but again, let's not gang up on Magnate for playing the way Armageddon has been until only very recently.
Let's not be hypocrites.
So I'm going to chime in ever so briefly to point something out, because I saw it fly around a bit on a previous page and it doesn't look like it was ever addressed. If I've missed some correction of the thought process, I apologize, but I'm just offering information.
The act of even threatening to rape someone ICLY is absolutely
not allowed. Also not allowed is
accusing someone of rape ICly. See here, which I copied and pasted directly from the help rape helpfile:
QuoteThis also extends to accusations of rape, as well -- You
may not accuse another PC or NPC of raping your PC or another PC (or an NPC
for that matter). Direct threats of rape or sexual torture - that is,
explicit statements of immediate or future rape or sexual torture directed
at a single individual (by name or otherwise) are also not permitted. If
you do so, your character will be stored and a discussion will be opened
via the request tool as to further action.
And here:
QuoteYou may speak of rape, or being raped, but it can never lead to a PC
or NPC being accused of that rape or being raped by anyone. You can assume
that if someone is talking about being raped or raping someone, that it
was with a VNPC.
I'm pretty sure I saw someone state that the accusation ruined a PC, and perhaps that situation predated the rule, but then I think I also saw a post saying this shouldn't be allowed, and simply wanted to make it clear that it actually isn't allowed. If I am mistaken, carry on.
Leadership characters are in a position where they may unwittingly rape someone less powerful.
This happens all the time in real life with physicians and lawyers despite them getting mandatory training on it.
If highly educated professionals dont get it. Players in a video game certainly wont get it.
It is easy as hell to create a coded system to prevent this. Consent flags that can be on or off.
or...
It can be HARD AS HELL to try and educate, AND enforce, consent rules with every leadership PC.
This happened to me in-game and I would NEVER report the character because in order to defend themselves they'd say, "Well she consented." And that's super embarrassing! And well yes, while I did consent OOCLY, it was under a perceived threat ICly
So... Even though many of you make REALLY good points about the PROBLEMS with a consent flag, and I AGREE with you, it's really a good thing for the game in it's evolution. I'm the kind of person who is NOT woke. I don't believe men and women are equal, or being sensitive to everything and everyone is lame AF...But something like this... would be a great MATURE move of the administrators and staff to add into the game.
Quote from: stoicreader on April 23, 2021, 03:49:50 AM
It is easy as hell to create a coded system to prevent this. Consent flags that can be on or off.
and a command to check consent of a character
Consent levels (leveled 1-5): None, Sex, Torture, Rape, All
>A blue eyed man is here
>A red eyed man is here
>Check blue.man
>A blue eyed man is consent level 2 and 3
>Check red.man
>A red eyed man is consent level 1
There would be no more need for contention over the rules, because you won't be exposed to a thing if you don't enable it in the settings: And if it is forced on you even then, the offending player will absolutely get taken care of.
There seems to be some confusion amidst this thread.
Firstly, there are two levels of consent. There is IC consent and OOC consent.
It is possible to have IC consent but not OOC consent in most scenarios, this equals a fade.
It is not possible to have OOC consent but no IC consent (that would be defined as rape).
For the purposes of most scenarios...torture, consensual sex, non-threatening/violent coercion from a peer, then no consent OOC would ultimately be a fade. In this instance, it should be assumed that the said act did in fact happen. There is absolutely no reason you should feel like you have to act out something you find distasteful, just because your character would get involved. The IC consequences/results should be exactly the same whether you fade or not.
In the case of IC non-consent to torture or coercion (from a peer) etc, your character can also choose to stand up for themselves (if appropriate) and face the consequences. Sure, it could be death. But your character risks death every time you log on to Arm and there are worse ways to go (e.g. lost to a nameless scrab).
In the instance of coercion with a power imbalance (e.g. superior to underling), the rules are very clear. Consent should be requested as early as possible, once romantic intentions are known. And players of underling characters are able to OOC that they are not comfortable with the plot line at all (and SHOULD if that is the case), and the superior character has to adjust their intent or desire (basically retcon it), which should be mean no negative consequences to the underling character.
Know this. Own it.
Quote from: Malken on April 22, 2021, 11:14:54 PM
Quote from: th3kaiser on April 22, 2021, 10:31:58 PM
Lots of us don't agree and would like some boundaries on our harshness. There are however games that explicitly allow rape in the RPI community if you want to go there instead.
There really isn't so let's stop pretending that Armageddon is some kind of Paragon of Virtue when it comes to a healthy community and a spotless reputation because it really isn't. We have almost 30 years of abuse and nasty behaviors that many of us have agreed to continue to play through and turn a blind eye to even though we all knew what was happening, what was allowed and what some of our fellow players went through.
The best we can do is try and repair the terrible reputation we have both as a community and as an example to follow and that's a good start but I guarantee you that nothing we're deciding today hasn't been done in other communities YEARS ago.
Many of you have been playing for 20+ years even when there wasn't any rules against rape so it's cool that you want to change all of that now but again, let's not gang up on Magnate for playing the way Armageddon has been until only very recently.
Let's not be hypocrites.
While this is a good point, I think it's important to note that many of us, during our two decades
(good grief, we've been here a long-ass time) of play, have also matured both mentally and socially. Some of us were kids, and now we've got grey hair. We've got kids - in fact, in that span of time, some of us have had kids and seen them off to college or whatever. We've gotten more caring as a community. The real world has changed around us.
We've evolved.
Some of us don't see the need for the game's social rules to evolve
as much as they have, and some of us wish the game's rules had evolved
more than they have. And I
personally think that both of these view points are valid.
Old hands like Magnate and me worry sometimes that the game will be washed down, that the harshness will slowly be eroded through continual steps towards more "No. You can't do this, this, or this." We worry that society has created players who can't disconnect themselves from their characters. We don't want to force people to RP
in detail these travesties, but we don't like that these travesties
can't happen in today's game.
Other people draw correlation between the "harshness" of the game, and emotional scarring of the players themselves, and really want to make the community a more friendly place. These people are much more worried about the players themselves than the characters. And during this discussion, I've found myself dealing with some points that kind of make me take a step back from my previous position of, "Well, there must be consent, but don't ban anything."
In this very discussion, I've evolved some. So I think we're pretty safe from hypocrisy, in reacting to viewpoints like Magnate's. I think we're just ... evolving, figuring out how we, as individual players, have grown, and figuring out how much we, as individual players, care about the other souls in our corner of the sands.
I do not see flags working as put forth here.
Imagine the Gaj, with some thief caught and about to lose a hand and 6 PCs are present to see such.
Templar/Sarge: OOC Consent?
1,2,3,4,6: OOC Given.
5: OOC no thanks.
Two choices, now:
1) 5 - Leave.
2) Everyone BUT 5 leave and continue on.
Simple and sorted inside of seconds. Scene rolls on in one fashion or another.
Now we get into flags.
Templar/Sarge: Check PC 1, pc 2, pc 3, pc 4, pc 5, pc 6
Templar/Sarge: Oh, okay... PC 2 doesn't want to see this.
Templar/Sarge: say (motioning to everyone but 2) "Follow me."
PC 2: Why am I being cut out? I have no idea what is happening here. OOC: Why am I being left out? OR Player complaint. OR they were in a scene earlier they set the flag for and forgot to turn off and are now shafted from a scene.
Templar/Sarge and crew exit and go to the cells - Recruit 7, Private 8 enter the scene.
Templar/Sarge: Check 7, check 8, ...Okay, 8 doesn't want to see torture.
Thief: OOC: Could this not take 30 minutes, I need to go in 15?
Templar/Sarge: OOC Could you leave 8?
Private: OOC: Why?
Templar/Sarge: OOC Torture scene?
Private: OOC: Oh, right. Sure.
Templar: Starts to carry on with the scene.
Templar 2 walks in mid-way:
Templar 2: Check 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Templar 1: check Templar 2 who has torture off.
Templar 1: OOC We're doing a torture scene here, could you step out?
Templar 2: OOC: Why? I'm fine with it.
Templar 1: OOC Your flag is off?
Templar 2: OOC Oh, sorry, forgot about that default off thing - On now!
Thief player, now 20 mins into a scene that was done in 2 mins back in the Gaj: OOC I gotta go.
Further, this desired addition will result in countless, impossible to enforce thought and speech complaints.
Player 1 wants to be an aide. They have flags off.
Noble 1 takes them on, has all the flags on.
Player 1 is always with Noble 1.
Noble 1 to random PC that has the flags on. "Quite a lovely shape on you, you're rather on par with my well dressed aide."
Intent/Context:
1) Noble wanted to flirt and or compliment random.
2) Noble wanted to INSULT their own aide for looking like some random commoner.
Player 1 now feels Noble has suggested they have a great body, like random, despite their flag being off and files a complaint against Noble 1.
We take action, Noble is not OOCly insulted as that has zero to do with their intent/context.
We don't take action and player 1 assumes staff is taking the side of the 'abuser', don't honor our own flag system, etc.
I think flags might be able to work if there was a command that pinged visible PCs in a room but if that's not in the cards fine. It's pretty tedious currently to see public torture and need ooc consent from 6+ people.
What I would like to say is that whatever we decide on for rules regarding coercion and harassment (and I do believe they could be strengthened to ensure consent) we shouldn't ban behaviors like flirting or lewdness or even IC sexual harassment outright. Sometimes that's the character you play, a low class (or even highborn) perv who is constantly making sexual jokes. That's the world we choose to inhabit.
What does need some attention imo is players who can't take no for an answer and push it constantly. I can't imagine how tiring it would be to have a PC that every time they interact with another PC is getting 'wooed'/begged for sex/slut shamed or whatever. There should be a way for someone to OOC/put in a request and have it respected that another PC will drop their attempts to pursue that character. Rejection should still be able to have IC consequences as it's natural for hunans to sonetimes take rejection badly though if you kill a PC just for rejecting your sexual advances you're the lamest sort of player.
There are virtually thousands of attractive vnpcs in Allanak. Just because a PC is attractive to your character doesn't mean your (general you here) PC needs to pursue them. And if you're pushing it to such a degree that you're making the other player's experience a negative one then they need a widely accepted outlet to tell you such and make it stop.
Quote from: SpyGuy on April 23, 2021, 08:55:07 AM
What does need some attention imo is players who can't take no for an answer and push it constantly. I can't imagine how tiring it would be to have a PC that every time they interact with another PC is getting 'wooed'/begged for sex/slut shamed or whatever. There should be a way for someone to OOC/put in a request and have it respected that another PC will drop their attempts to pursue that character.
Agreed. I think this is why a private command is preferable to a flag. One could even make a lewd or offensive comment, get the command thrown, and make no more such comments, so the effect on theme would be minimal. On the other hand, if character A is making those comments to character B every day, the private command would and should stop it.
Also, my understanding is that this only applies to sex. If it's violence, psychological torture, extortion, (inter-species) racism, classism, xenophobia, robbery, lying, infanticide, or any other terrible thing, I advocate the only option for the victim should be FTB. If you elect to play an elf, law enforcement can and should be able to assume you stole something because of the shape of your ears.
Quote from: Maso on April 23, 2021, 05:31:51 AM
In the instance of coercion with a power imbalance (e.g. superior to underling), the rules are very clear. Consent should be requested as early as possible, once romantic intentions are known. And players of underling characters are able to OOC that they are not comfortable with the plot line at all (and SHOULD if that is the case), and the superior character has to adjust their intent or desire (basically retcon it), which should be mean no negative consequences to the underling character.
I think in practice, some people feel coerced or are at least getting constantly harassed by their superiors. If simple awareness of this rules solves the problem, great. If OOC chat poses limitations because of comfort levels and immersion breaking for third parties, a private command could work.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 23, 2021, 05:38:52 AM
In this very discussion, I've evolved some. So I think we're pretty safe from hypocrisy, in reacting to viewpoints like Magnate's. I think we're just ... evolving, figuring out how we, as individual players, have grown, and figuring out how much we, as individual players, care about the other souls in our corner of the sands.
The7DeadlyVenomz, you had to edit a bunch of players in this thread first telling me, then Magnate, to fuck off and go play our rape fantasies elsewhere. If you had left all of the posts unedited, that would have been a better representation of the "community" I'm talking about in general ;)
But I agree that we should evolve, grow up and be better ambassadors of a healthy gaming community in general - I just don't think that the holier than thou attitude is fooling anyone, especially since most of what goes on in Discord these days are old players constantly remembering the time they were complete assholes to each others. "Do you guys remember the time I fucked a ginka fruit in all it's glorious details and in public" Hur hur hur, yes we do, it was awesome man!" Do you guys remember the time I kidnapped a baby and ate it whole? Hur hur hur! Yes, we do, it was so awesome!"
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation because I'm really not sure what I'm arguing for or against now at this point. It looks like we have 20+ staff and the playerbase isn't -that- big, so I'm not sure why it can't be handled on a case by case basis. If someone is a complete creep and in a leadership position, surely the staff in charge of that player would notice and have words with him. If staff constantly promote creepy players to play in positions of leadership then that's on them.
People are telling me that Armageddon is pretty cool these days and like I said, I trust 99% of the staff so I know they're doing the best they can with the players they have.
Thanks for letting me say my peace and for making the GDB a little more interesting than just the constant vote reminder spam that it had turned into recently! ;D
Seems a character and player separation is the issue.
If a PC says or does something you don't like to your PC - Your PC doesn't like it. You the player are not the PC. The PC who said it, is not representing themselves, but a concept.
If someone is playing a leering, swearing, sociopath in game, and your PC hates leering, swearing sociopaths, you have IC actions to take:
1) You can avoid them/not work for them.
2) You can tell them to knock it off.
3) You can beat them senseless to knock sense into them regarding your PC
4) You can gather other PCs that like you and cut them off socially.
5) You can have them killed for being a pain in your ass.
All of these generate interaction and role play, due to conflict. Good. This game is about conflict.
Now, when it comes to the PLAYER on either side of the screen, this has been and will continue to have safeties in place.
1) If you feel the PLAYER is harassing you the PLAYER, player complaint.
2) If they are pursuing a relationship with you as a boss/superior/leadership to your employee self, they are expected to OOC consent for it, before it crosses into R territory. That is in the very paragraph that has been quoted here.
QuoteIn situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and
said imbalance is used as leverage for an adult situation, consent must be
sought at the earliest possible juncture. Refusal by the 'weaker' party
requires the instigator to adjust their intent or desire to avoid a sexual
situation.
This means if you the PLAYER do not wish for this to happen... it doesn't. End of story. It isn't FTB'd. It does not happen.
And #3, in help consent, rather than help rape:
QuoteIf 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.
So, where is the issue yet remaining here?
- You are protected, with options as a player to avoid power imbalance.
- You are protected, with options as a player to avoid uncomfortable situations with a peer.
- Zero FTB or 'living with it' comes to pass due to the two quoted help files. They do NOT take place. At all.
- Anyone breaking those rules will be immediately banned from the game.
We do not and will not condone PLAYER harassment of any kind, and thus if that takes place, we most certainly wish to be informed of it.
Quote from: Shabago on April 23, 2021, 12:24:35 PM
Seems a character and player separation is the issue.
This has absolutely been the problem for some time now. People can not separate IC and OOC anymore. Just because
you know something, doesn't mean that your
PC knows it. Just because
you don't like something or wouldn't do it, doesn't mean that your
PC wouldn't.
In Armageddon things like gruesome torture, rampant poverty, games where people maim (and kill) one another for entertainment, killing people for a drink of water, extreme racism, slavery, and many other things that
we likely consider immoral, inappropriate, or just evil are ACCEPTED and even EXPECTED.
We are playing a role, not avatars of ourselves. This isn't real. It doesn't hurt.
So, I've decided to rewrite the rape policy to something I like a bit better.
Please give any feedback for my changes.
Rape (Rules)
Rape within the Fantasy World in terms of Culture and Story:
Like many crimes, rape is a part of life on Zalanthas. Most half-elves are the
result of rape, warfare and raiding regularly result in the act, and the
breeding of muls does not end well for the mother. It is an unfortunate part of
Zalanthan life, but it happens. It is important to remember that if you do run
across a plotline involving rape, that this is not the same as this crime
happening in real life, and you should adjust your attitude and role play
accordingly.
Rape within the Character's Storylines and Player's Gameplay:
Rape/Sexual Torture plot lines are never to be played out in the game. You may
choose to place such plot lines or elements in your character's background at
character creation, however new incidents of rape and sexual torture can not be
played out in the game world. You may not ask for consent to rape a PC or NPC.
This also extends to accusations of rape, as well -- You may not accuse another
PC or NPC of raping your PC or another PC (or an NPC for that matter).
Direct threats of rape or sexual torture - that is, explicit statements of
immediate or future rape or sexual torture directed at a single individual (by
name or otherwise) are also not permitted. If you do so, your character will be
stored and a discussion will be opened via the request tool as to further
action.
Your character can be a rapist, or a product of rape. However, as per the rules
outlined above, you can never rape a PC or NPC character. You may do so to
VNPCs, as well as have thoughts of raping others, but you may never express the
act in game.
You may speak of rape, or being raped, but it can never lead to a PC or NPC
being accused of that rape or being raped by anyone. You can assume that if
someone is talking about being raped or raping someone, that it was with a
Virtual NPC.
Relationships between Characters:
In situations where a power imbalance between two characters exists and said
imbalance is used as leverage (or coercion) for an adult situation, consent must
be sought at the earliest possible juncture.
Example:
OOC Do you consent to pursue an amorous relationship between our characters?
If any player does not consent, that storyline cannot continue, and the
characters must change their play to avoid a sexual situation going forward,
including any inappropriate touching (grabbing asses, touching thighs, grabbing
breasts, kissing, etc..) or other forms of sexual harassment.
See Also:
Consent, NPC, VNPC, Rules
I clarified certain distinctions of Rape - within the fantasy world, within the playerbase and community, and within relationships between characters.
I clarified the rules between two players with a power imbalance / coercion, and gave an example of how to ask for it.
I added a rule that says that if any character doesn't want to have a relationship, the storyline must stop and cannot continue in any format, including sexual harassment.
I removed the textbook defintions of rape and sexual intercourse - this can be added back in.
I'm still in favor of a coded tool.
I've played another game with a coded tool. And it wasn't so bad.
I think if it was ONLY USED TO DECIDE HOW TO APPROACH SOMEONE, that would be fine. I would absolutely not use it for any other purpose. I would still default to OOC Consent to make sure things were kosher.
I think consent flags would cause some players to interact with others differently in ways not directly related to the flags which would further harm immersion.
Let's try to refrain from insulting each other.
At least, OOCly...
Final warning for all involved. If you cannot treat your fellow player with respect please do not post in topics of discussion with fellow players.
Quote from: Aromit on April 24, 2021, 06:27:15 PM
Final warning for all involved. If you cannot treat your fellow player with respect please do not post in topics of discussion with fellow players.
Would you be willing to consider suspending problem users temporarily from posting rather than ending a discussing that appears to be otherwise productive?
Not sure how this trailed off into a conversation about flags and character separation. The definition of rape in the docs has left room for nastiness highlighted a dozen times over in this thread, so change the docs. Coming in here to talk about 'harsh realism' and 'cancel culture' is going to seem 'real sus' in that context, if we're using buzzwords.
It's a fantasy videogame. I'll see your text wizard and raise you the bare minimum expectation PCs don't get locked in a room for sexual favors.
Quote from: SodaDogARM on April 24, 2021, 07:47:17 PM
Not sure how this trailed off into a conversation about flags and character separation. The definition of rape in the docs has left room for nastiness highlighted a dozen times over in this thread, so change the docs. Coming in here to talk about 'harsh realism' and 'cancel culture' is going to seem 'real sus' in that context, if we're using buzzwords.
It's a fantasy videogame. I'll see your text wizard and raise you the bare minimum expectation PCs don't get locked in a room for sexual favors.
And I'll raise you the "dozen" times it's been pointed out by staff that would be a bannable offense, which is well-documented already. If you're going to ask people to stay on subject and harp on civility, then the "gaslighting" tactic of forced hyperbole should be left at the door.
However, the docs could use some updating. Some players (or well, Mansa, really) has started up a great job on that already, and asked for feedback. The conversation seems to have had a positive outcome so far - doc updating, staff reinforcement of community expectations and policy - which is great. Here for it.
Perhaps a further and more stern warning is required.
The most recent player that felt is appropriate to go on an absolutely unwarranted attack is now banned from the boards, banned from the game and will not be welcome back to it, until such time as they write into the request tool to explain why they should be and are capable of coming close to a level of adult maturity.
Anyone else making personal or direct life attacks will find the same outcome. You're all capable of being adults. Act like it.
Quote from: LindseyBalboa on April 24, 2021, 08:39:10 PM
And I'll raise you the "dozen" times it's been pointed out by staff that would be a bannable offense, which is well-documented already. If you're going to ask people to stay on subject and harp on civility, then the "gaslighting" tactic of forced hyperbole should be left at the door.
Yes, there are close to if not over a dozen people in this thread that have recognized the behavior exists despite the docs, and they need clarity. You were one of them in your first post. Not sure where the hyperbole is.
Staff can point to it being bannable again and again, but clearly there is a disconnect because great players from this thread want recognizable change, and for good reason.
I've been avoiding this thread but my two cents before it is possibly locked, if anyone cares.
On the topic of consent in real life: I was raped less than a year ago, and just last week someone almost killed me. Obviously I consented to neither of these things. I've been vocal about it and speaking about it without deposition training because we live in an absolutely mad and cruel world depending on your circumstances. Because the guy who raped me was never caught, I don't expect the guy who tried to kill me last week to be caught. Something like 90% of rapists are never caught and the stats are similar I am sure for assault. In many places on this planet, it is a privilege to demand consent, particularly if you are female. It may not be right, but that is the reality.
On consent in fiction: Free expression is a human right just like the right to consent, but likewise it can be suppressed. As much as I hate rape and violence in real life, I am fine with it in fiction because I understand reality and fiction are distinctly different. I fear that by limiting fiction and speech, people might be more compelled to lash out in real life. As long as people can choose to engage with fiction or leave it alone, everything should be allowed in fiction.
In conclusion: the ideal human state is for all humans to be maximally free. Free from rape and violence, and free to express themselves. If you care about sexual and physical violence donate to organizations that fight such injustices in real life. Free expression is also something that guarantees human happiness and freedom. It is possible to defend both; it is not incongruous.
* donate and/or volunteer
Don't want to be classist, I volunteered a lot as a poor kid growing up.
* cracks another beer and hopes this game is alive and well when I have time for it again. *
Ok but do you want to change the docs or not.
I entrust this to you all, I just hope this game can keep its quality as an immersive roleplay engine when I come back. That is and always has been what this game has been about. Reality has no rules, at least none that simple human organisms can fully comprehend or control. Someone can violate or end you at any moment IRL and it is statistically likely they will not face justice. I am an engineer who enjoys simulations (the basis of a lot of machine learning) and am more in favor of authenticity than clumsy restriction.
TLDR, to quote someone I am fond of, in simple terms:
No rules.
I will politely vote this way and sip my beer, it was fun to check here again.
And just because I am likely going to not check this for another month, but may or may not get other replies like Malken's: there is literally only one rule I think Armageddon should have, and that is that it should be for players over 18 years old now that telnet gaming is a niche hobby.
I was banned from the discord and gladly never came back because I firmly believe this. I want the kiddos out, respectfully, so that we can all experience a world closer to an adult's world than a protected child's world. And then, once we have a game that has been established to be for mature adults, we can do that whatever we want in our reality simulator. Literally so many players who are authentically "the shit" IRL have left, more or less agreeing with me here. I do not like coddling a select few and losing freedom and authenticity as a result of that coddling.
That said, I trust you all. I still enjoy the combat mechanics and the core setting of this simulator, if not the OOC dictated rules layered over the simulator.
Help files are like user manuals - opened after a problem surfaces. I have empathy for those who find themselves caught up in the RP of the moment and are unable to figure out their best OOC options on the fly - that distance thing. So how can you get someone to make a good decision for themselves at that moment?
How about reminder notifications (realize you can do a better job than I do)?
When someone types "OOC Consent" have a reminder pop up. Just to break the moment and say "Hey, are you sure this is appropriate?" like:
"You are about to embark upon sexual or graphic torture RP. FTB is always an option. If you feel this Consent request breaks the rules report immediately."
There could be an agreement page Y/N in each char creation to make sure people have at least seen the rape/coercion rules before they are allowed to create a character.
I think we just need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to consent. Like I mentioned, you can always offer the alternative in your consent request.
OOC: Consent granted for graphic scene (sexual)? Or FTB (Fade to Black)? I personally offer consent, but am fine with fading to black as well.
OOC: Consent granted for graphic scene (torture, mild mutilation)? If we Fade to Black, the maiming/torture will still occur, but be off screen. Alternatively, if you do not wish to live with a maimed PC, we can do a straightforward kill/execution.
It seems like word soup, but really, it's just more clear communication than:
OOC: Consent?
Which is what I see from people 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time I just see:
OOC: Consent to adult erotica?
or
OOC: Consent to torture?
So, by not offering the alternative options as Players within that consent guideline, we are putting the pressure on the other parties to consent without (possibly) understanding there are alternatives.
Quote from: Veselka on April 25, 2021, 05:01:53 PM
I think we just need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to consent. Like I mentioned, you can always offer the alternative in your consent request.
OOC: Consent granted for graphic scene (sexual)? Or FTB (Fade to Black)? I personally offer consent, but am fine with fading to black as well.
OOC: Consent granted for graphic scene (torture, mild mutilation)? If we Fade to Black, the maiming/torture will still occur, but be off screen. Alternatively, if you do not wish to live with a maimed PC, we can do a straightforward kill/execution.
It seems like word soup, but really, it's just more clear communication than:
OOC: Consent?
Which is what I see from people 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time I just see:
OOC: Consent to adult erotica?
or
OOC: Consent to torture?
So, by not offering the alternative options as Players within that consent guideline, we are putting the pressure on the other parties to consent without (possibly) understanding there are alternatives.
Agreed! Also just..if you are in a leadership role just OOC:" Hey are you to possibly pursuing a relationship with my pc? " as soon as the thought jumps into your head and BEFORE it gets all super uncomfortable. This is not a hard thing to do.
Quote from: Veselka on April 25, 2021, 05:01:53 PM
OOC: Consent granted for graphic scene (torture, mild mutilation)? If we Fade to Black, the maiming/torture will still occur, but be off screen. Alternatively, if you do not wish to live with a maimed PC, we can do a straightforward kill/execution.
Filing a complaint about you Veselka. Veselka player OOCd me: Consent for graphic scenes, or maiming. But in their request they threatened they'd kill me if I refuse. I was unnecessary pressured to endure torture, just to keep my character alive.
I'm being funny, of course. But I trust you get the point?
Maiming is they can oocly decide to die from the maiming if they don't want to play the character with that permanent disability.
e.g. My character cuts your character's dick off and you ask to be killed by the procedure.
So I type
ooc please set nosave combat so that your character can die as easily as possible
Fading torture is because you don't want to see emotes about torture on your screen and then rp around them. If they weren't going to kill you if you don't fade then it's unreasonable to kill you if you don't. After the fade you'll still be playing a character who has just been tortured, the same as if you didn't fade.
I appreciate this thread for informing me that you can choose to fade torture instead of either consenting to it or dying.
Are you being serious?
Oh damn. Then yeah. This whole thread is worthy of just that alone.
To be honest. Yeah! Do not be afraid to FTB. Any scene really that you can maintain story continuity with FTBing, you should be able to FTB.
So I have a strange question...
What if my PC shadows a couple and they end up in a room, my PC stays hidden because at first they're just talking and suddenly they start doing the deed and they both consent... Do I also need to consent and by doing so outing myself? We all know that at that point 99% of players would suddenly start scanning like mad and probably FTB and now my PC is risking to be exposed and/or killed.
Could I just wish up either to consent (and wait till they're in the middle of it to either steal the key and get out and/or murder them) or wish up to ask Staff to teleport me out of the room?
Quote from: Malken on April 27, 2021, 12:25:40 PM
So I have a strange question...
What if my PC shadows a couple and they end up in a room, my PC stays hidden because at first they're just talking and suddenly they start doing the deed and they both consent... Do I also need to consent and by doing so outing myself? We all know that at that point 99% of players would suddenly start scanning like mad and probably FTB and now my PC is risking to be exposed and/or killed.
Could I just wish up either to consent (and wait till they're in the middle of it to either steal the key and get out and/or murder them) or wish up to ask Staff to teleport me out of the room?
What's the
intent of the consent rules? How was life different before and after the policy became official?
::edit::
The intent of the consent rule is to allow
players, who do not wish to roleplay out certain experiences and storylines, a way to skip or 'fastforward' those interactions. The policy allows for you to wish up and request some intervention by the staff, which will be clarified with you before it happens.
Quote from: Malken on April 27, 2021, 12:25:40 PM
So I have a strange question...
What if my PC shadows a couple and they end up in a room, my PC stays hidden because at first they're just talking and suddenly they start doing the deed and they both consent... Do I also need to consent and by doing so outing myself? We all know that at that point 99% of players would suddenly start scanning like mad and probably FTB and now my PC is risking to be exposed and/or killed.
Could I just wish up either to consent (and wait till they're in the middle of it to either steal the key and get out and/or murder them) or wish up to ask Staff to teleport me out of the room?
If that situation occurs, and the PCs immediately start scanning and changing what they were doing due to an OOC request to fade to black, thats reportable.
Though I WOULD suggest doing a wish all Shadowed some people into an apartment. They're engaging in an adult scene, can I get TP'd out so they can continue?
But really, if players start scanning, they're doing it wrong. They don't know if its a PC, or a staffer who was watching, or whatever.
Quote from: Riev on April 27, 2021, 02:36:09 PM
If that situation occurs, and the PCs immediately start scanning and changing what they were doing due to an OOC request to fade to black, thats reportable.
Though I WOULD suggest doing a wish all Shadowed some people into an apartment. They're engaging in an adult scene, can I get TP'd out so they can continue?
But really, if players start scanning, they're doing it wrong. They don't know if its a PC, or a staffer who was watching, or whatever.
Yeah, that's probably what I would do.. Also, it would be kind of strange that a staff ooc's that they are not consenting to the scene - so in that case, the players would probably guess that there's another player in the room and .. I don't know, I guess I'll just go with it if that ever happens to me.
Does quit ooc breaks hide? Maybe if there's no one to answer the wish and the scene is ongoing, that could also be a solution... You quit ooc and shoot staff a request asking them to move you out of the room.
The consent helpfile says all visible so they don't need your consent to start going at it if you're not visible, really the biggest decision to make is when to type backstab :D
Gotta be honest - Shadowing somebody into an apartment shouldn't be possible. And MAYBE, if it absolutely must remain, then in the helpfile for shadowing people, you are just told that you are automatically consenting by shadowing someone. I dunno. I understand and agree that if somebody hidden ooc consents yes or no, you SHOULDN'T respond differently, but ... boy, that's a hard sell sometimes.
I didn't know that you didn't have to consent if you're not visible... Well, that answers it!
Looks like the helpfile doesn't have the word visible in it anymore, so I might not have been right.
Shadowing someone into an apartment can be fine under certain situations, but those are few and far between.
code > common sense > doorway
I think when this came up in the past, the answer was that it's fine to either OOC that you consent (or don't) consent, or to just consent by silence. It's probably in the old thread about the change to the rape helpful.
If it was me and I really didn't want to be there or let folks know I was there, I'd just wish up and ask to be let out.
If you end up in a situation where you're in an apartment where two or more PCs are about to 'get busy' and you are truly worried that they're going to go meta on you as soon as you respond, OR, if you don't want to disrupt their pending situation by responding, I would consider it entirely reasonable to wish up and explain the situation to staff. Whether or not someone is available who can assist is another issue, but playtimes seem to be pretty reliably covered across the board currently.