Discussion of Rape being banned from plotlines

[bcw81]

And we've already got people walking around cities naked because they can't be hit with the rape-bomb anymore...

[TheWanderer]

And we've already got people walking around cities naked because they can't be hit with the rape-bomb anymore...

A solution to this, m'boy? We kill them and defile their corpses in whatever twisted way we desire. They wanna tease us, they'll be gettin' what's comin' to 'em.

[Zoan]

Everything you post, I read in Archer's dry tone.

[evilcabbage]

At the end of it all the base takeaway is that you cannot play out rape plotlines in Armageddon. Sex that is coerced through power being exerted over another must be consensual. It cannot be classed as rape and someone cannot be accused of raping another.

That seems to me to be a contradictory set of statements, however. If you're exerting power over another person to get consent for sex, that is rape. A person who gets a dagger held to their throat and gets told to have sex or die is consenting through coercion in essentially the same way a person who agrees to sex because they don't want to piss off Lord Templar Fancypants/the scary person they mated up with, in my opinion, or at least the only differences look to be rather arbitrary to base rules off of.

Again, I'm glad that staff saw fit to keep coercion and power abuses in the game, as I feel they're good components for displaying how corrupt the world is. I just still don't see the essential differences that make one sort of rape okay by the rules and another not.

Holding a weapon over somebody... is like giving them the choice of do or die. That's rape. Holding a job or position or item of importance or less jail time isn't rape.

So by that definition, a shadowy figure approaches in the alleys and says, "Give me all your 'sids, or we're doing the naughty right here." That seems about as rape-y as it gets, but since the threat of death has been ruled out, it's just 'coercion?'

You cannot use rape as a threat.

[Harmless]

You can think it, then you can enact it on their corpses. It says so in the r0lz.

[ShaLeah]

And we've already got people walking around cities naked because they can't be hit with the rape-bomb anymore...

A solution to this, m'boy? We kill them and defile their corpses in whatever twisted way we desire. They wanna tease us, they'll be gettin' what's comin' to 'em.

There you go. If you think someone is oocly doing things because ICly they can't be raped you can IC kill them and have sex with a cushion like Morgenes said. Dead bodies not counting and all that.

It's disappointing to think already people are blaming things on this new rule. What does that say for the roleplayer in question?


Player complaint is what I'd suggest. You better be damned sure about that accusation though.

[Narf]

There you go. If you think someone is oocly doing things because ICly they can't be raped you can IC kill them and have sex with a cushion like Morgenes said. Dead bodies not counting and all that.

It's disappointing to think already people are blaming things on this new rule. What does that say for the roleplayer in question?


Player complaint is what I'd suggest. You better be damned sure about that accusation though.

I am like 90% sure he was joking.

[Synthesis]

I'm not sure allowing post-assault necrophilia is consistent with the spirit of the rule, if the intent is to avoid psychic trauma to IRL survivors of sexual assault.  While the target of the assault may no longer be present, there may be other witnesses, word may get out, plotlines may ensue, etc. etc., all of which have just as much potential (I suppose) to trigger the sort of response the rule is intended to prevent.

And having everyone in the room consent isn't a complete solution, since I'd say that most people in stealth mode aren't fond of revealing their presence by communicating OOC.

[Desertman]

You can hint at the possibility of the universally accepted fact rape is common place in Zalanthas, even in a PC to PC situation, you just can't say, "Look, hand over your coins, it is rape time Honey."

Examples:

This is ok:

"Look'ere Darlin, ya' got ya' a nice supple look about ya'. Ya' also got ya' some nice coins in that pouch on yer' hip. I propose we go tha' coins route. Whatta' ya' say?"

This is acceptable because you never threatened them with rape. For all they know you meant they look mighty supple in terms of, "You sure look easy to cut with my knife." It is up to the victim to play that however they want so long as you as the aggressor never mentions rape or tries to physically force them sexually.

Now, are some people possibly going to submit complaints about that? Yes. But those are the sorts of people who really aren't thick skinned enough for Armageddon anyways, and the staff will deal with them.

Now, on an OOC level, we all know the overtone that was being presented there. But, no one was threatened with rape, however the victim can still see, "Wow, this guy is evil, he means business, he is as rotten as they come."

This is not ok:

"Look'ere Darlin, ya' got ya' a nice supple look about ya'. I'm gonna' rape ya' if ya' don' give me them coins. Whatta' ya' say?"

For obvious reasons, not acceptable.

[Desertman]

I'm not sure allowing post-assault necrophilia is consistent with the spirit of the rule, if the intent is to avoid psychic trauma to IRL survivors of sexual assault. 

This is not the intent.

This was never taken into consideration when making a determination about this rule.

The ONLY consideration was staff workload.

[TheWanderer]

I'm not sure allowing post-assault necrophilia is consistent with the spirit of the rule, if the intent is to avoid psychic trauma to IRL survivors of sexual assault.  

This is not the intent.

This was never taken into consideration when making a determination about this rule.

The ONLY consideration was staff workload.

^/+1/yes/totes/readthethreadagainifudon'tbelieve/sexwitdeadbodiesisokay/#whyamiusinga#

EDIT: Oh, and as for the stealth thing, it was to my knowledge that you automatically consent if you're hiding in the room. Is this no longer true? Even so, why not just go read a book or something until they're done?

[ShaLeah]

There you go. If you think someone is oocly doing things because ICly they can't be raped you can IC kill them and have sex with a cushion like Morgenes said. Dead bodies not counting and all that.

It's disappointing to think already people are blaming things on this new rule. What does that say for the roleplayer in question?


Player complaint is what I'd suggest. You better be damned sure about that accusation though.

I am like 90% sure he was joking.

I'm sure he was.

[Synthesis]

I'm not sure allowing post-assault necrophilia is consistent with the spirit of the rule, if the intent is to avoid psychic trauma to IRL survivors of sexual assault. 

This is not the intent.

This was never taken into consideration when making a determination about this rule.

The ONLY consideration was staff workload.

For the last several years we had a consent rule around this issue.  What we found is that this didn't help. It didn't stop situations arising in game that ended up dragging in a lot of people who were unhappy to be part of said storyline. It didn't help make a safe situation for players at all times, with regard to this topic. It DID result in staff having to handle, on a fairly regular basis, complaints and other issues based on these kinds of storylines.

Modern sensibilities and a sensitive topic make for a hard to contain storyline.  Rape in our real world is a heinous crime. It's vile and traumatic. It can be traumatic for many people to consider being faced with anything regarding this issue in our game.  Rape and sexual assault in the Zalanthan landscape, where assassins can be licensed and murder is a day to day occurence, is likely something quite different.  Yet it can be hard for our playerbase to put aside their own reaction to this topic and treat a storyline involving this situation similarly to a storyline where Amos got his apartment robbed.  We do not feel that this is something that we should be asking people to do.

The whole area is hard for staff to manage.  We do not wish to manage this.  This new policy has arisen from our experience in dealing with this in a consent based system over the last few years.

We do appreciate that there may be some grey areas, and some mis-steps that happen.  On the whole we don't predict that this will be something widespread, or that we will have to step in to deal with in any manner.  What we are asking is that you do not pursue rape plotlines in game.

- You cannot ask someone for consent to rape their pc.
- You cannot accuse an PC, NPC or VNPC of raping your character.
- You cannot sit in a tavern and tell the story of your PC being raped.
- You cannot play out a rape storyline even if the other person you are playing with is consenting.
- You cannot persecute another PC, NPC or VNPC for rape, because rape should not be part of an active storyline.
- If you include rape in your pc's background it should remain as that, background.  You can use it to shape your pc's world view, you cannot use it as a motivation to kill all tall, muscular men because they have reminded you of a terrible situation.

We understand that some of these things have been acceptable in the past. We ask that you work with us in removing these storylines from our game. 

Relevant parts bolded.  I admit that "IRL survivors of sexual assault" was an irrelevant limit.

To paraphrase Adhira's thoughts:  post-assault necrophilia still has the potential to draw in a lot of people who are unhappy to be part of that storyline, it still has the potential to make players feel unsafe, it still has the potential to trigger the kind of response in players that is viscerally different than being robbed, etc.

Anyway, I suppose being pedantic is unnecessary, since it's amenable to empiric validation.  Allow post-assault necrophilia for now, and if it results in undesirable levels of staff workload (secondary to player psychic dissonance/trauma/whatever) a la rape, then it can be banned later.

[slvrmoontiger]

Re-opening this again for discussion of the revision. (See 'help rape' and 'help consent')

Note that at this point (apart from typos and answering questions) we have firmed up our position on this situation and this is the way it will be.

Morgenes,

First I want to thank you and and the rest of the staff that took the time during the holiday season to put together so more definitive stances and definitions on rape and consent in such a short period of time. I know it couldn't have been easy to do.

The question I still have is according to the new Zalanthian definition of rape, I wanted to make sure I was clear in my understanding. The definition states it is a form of sexual assault, usually sexual intercourse. Further on you give a definition of what sexual intercourse is. That definition goes into describing acts such as oral sex that usually lead up to sexual intercourse. So just to clarify are these act considered rape, or not? Are acts of any sexual nature unwanted by any party considered part of rape? If so where exactly does the line get drawn? Can you possibly post some examples in the definition to make it absolutely clear?

I ask this just so everyone continues to be on the same page. I also believe setting this stuff up now and defining completely right now will stop a lot of unnecessary complaints.

Again thank you and the rest of the staff for working on this and addressing this so quickly.

[Desertman]

I can't imagine how that could be made any more clear.

[Twilight]

Part of the helpfile for rape notes:

Most half-elves are the result of rape

I think this has been party line for awhile now, but in thinking about this, unless there is some other factor involved, math doesn't really support this.  I think I have read staff responses a few years ago that said something to the extent of folks with 1/8 mixed blood are considered half-elves, beyond that is when they might be better represented by human or elf.  That means at least the great-grandchildren of one half elf.  Even if the original 1/2 1/2 half elf was a product of rape, if their children when on to normally breed, you'd have 1 rape half elf for a minimum of 2 non-rape half elves.

Is there some undocumented notion that the half elf angst leads to fewer breeding opportunities?  Or some undocumented infertility issue?  Or an undocumented social more that folks having sex with a half elf (or a half elf having sex) are more likely to use mul mix?

Or is it just some idea that was generated a long time ago without fully thinking through the consequences?  I would suggest with the change to the rape guidelines, the notion that most half elves are the product of rape might be relooked at a little more logically.  It would make sense that most half elf lines started with a rape, but in a steady state it also makes sense that most half elves would eventually be the product of interbreeding of half elves with human, elf or half-elf, rather than rape.

[Desertman]

Well, if you want to get all technical about it....

"My grandfather elf raped my human grandmother, that is where my dad came from, and I came from my dad, so, I'm only here because of rape."

I know that isn't what the original help file meant, but the original help file for half-elves in regards to rape was written a LONG time ago.

I think we can all assume that the original game makers who wrote the original half-elf documentation considered half-elves to be someone with a full human parent, and a full elf parent.

The whole 1/8 thing came along A LOT later.

Docs should probably be updated though, I agree with you there.

[evilcabbage]

Most half-elves have the same prejudices against their -own- kind that others have against them.

[Morgenes]

Re-opening this again for discussion of the revision. (See 'help rape' and 'help consent')

Note that at this point (apart from typos and answering questions) we have firmed up our position on this situation and this is the way it will be.

Morgenes,

First I want to thank you and and the rest of the staff that took the time during the holiday season to put together so more definitive stances and definitions on rape and consent in such a short period of time. I know it couldn't have been easy to do.

The question I still have is according to the new Zalanthian definition of rape, I wanted to make sure I was clear in my understanding. The definition states it is a form of sexual assault, usually sexual intercourse. Further on you give a definition of what sexual intercourse is. That definition goes into describing acts such as oral sex that usually lead up to sexual intercourse. So just to clarify are these act considered rape, or not? Are acts of any sexual nature unwanted by any party considered part of rape? If so where exactly does the line get drawn? Can you possibly post some examples in the definition to make it absolutely clear?

I ask this just so everyone continues to be on the same page. I also believe setting this stuff up now and defining completely right now will stop a lot of unnecessary complaints.

Again thank you and the rest of the staff for working on this and addressing this so quickly.

Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and sexual penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. Non-penetrative sex acts (such as non-penetrative forms of cunnilingus or mutual masturbation) have been termed outercourse, but are additionally among the sexual acts contributing to human bonding and considered sexual intercourse.

That gives very explicit examples, and states pretty clearly that all those things are considered sexual intercourse.  Anything in that definition of sexual intercourse that is done by physical force on someone that is not consenting (or unable to consent) IC would be considered rape and is not allowed.  Any 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.

[Heade]

Re-opening this again for discussion of the revision. (See 'help rape' and 'help consent')

Note that at this point (apart from typos and answering questions) we have firmed up our position on this situation and this is the way it will be.

Morgenes,

First I want to thank you and and the rest of the staff that took the time during the holiday season to put together so more definitive stances and definitions on rape and consent in such a short period of time. I know it couldn't have been easy to do.

The question I still have is according to the new Zalanthian definition of rape, I wanted to make sure I was clear in my understanding. The definition states it is a form of sexual assault, usually sexual intercourse. Further on you give a definition of what sexual intercourse is. That definition goes into describing acts such as oral sex that usually lead up to sexual intercourse. So just to clarify are these act considered rape, or not? Are acts of any sexual nature unwanted by any party considered part of rape? If so where exactly does the line get drawn? Can you possibly post some examples in the definition to make it absolutely clear?

I ask this just so everyone continues to be on the same page. I also believe setting this stuff up now and defining completely right now will stop a lot of unnecessary complaints.

Again thank you and the rest of the staff for working on this and addressing this so quickly.

Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and sexual penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. Non-penetrative sex acts (such as non-penetrative forms of cunnilingus or mutual masturbation) have been termed outercourse, but are additionally among the sexual acts contributing to human bonding and considered sexual intercourse.

That gives very explicit examples, and states pretty clearly that all those things are considered sexual intercourse.  Anything in that definition of sexual intercourse that is done by physical force on someone that is not consenting (or unable to consent) IC would be considered rape and is not allowed.  Any 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.

So basically, as long as you get OOC consent for a sexual scene, and they stop resisting(but are still conscious) by the time you get to the intercourse, you're golden. 

Just kidding. But seriously Morgenes, could you add that last line of your quote to the helpfile on rape for clarity? I think it might stop staff from receiving unnecessary complaints about IC ass grabbery. The quote I'm referring to is this one:

Any 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.

[Cutthroat]

Though inappropriate touching and such would also be covered by the power-emoting rule still, I would think. So even if those emotes are okay, you're still obligated to phrase them as attempts.

[Morgenes]

Added:

Any 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.

To 'help rape'.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[MeTekillot]

The definition of sexual consent here (IN-CHARACTER) is pretty muddy.

[Harmless]

The definition of sexual consent here (IN-CHARACTER) is pretty muddy.

For which I am thankful. Why is it that important to you? The requirement of both IC and OOC consent means that both sides are sure this is consensual. If there is any doubt that there is a lack of IC consent, then there's a problem and it's violating the rules, but telling people how to roleplay in detail is going too far. The OOC consent trumps the IC consent, and both are required. It's fine by me as is.

[MeTekillot]

I'm a stickler for definitive consent IRL so that's why I care