Reviewing the concept of consent

[CirclelessBard]

There do seem to be some nagging issues with consent, how it tends to be established, and what consent is/isn't needed for. I'd like to encourage staff to review the concept of consent and consider the following. Feedback is appreciated, as always.

Consent should be enthusiastic. "Enthusiastic consent" means that there is a presence of a "yes" rather than the absence of a "no".

There should probably be a consent command. A command for granting and revoking consent could allow the following:
- A flag to be applied to the room title or to the prompt when consent is granted by everyone in the room. That makes it easy for everyone to tell that sending that emote is okay.
- A command would make it easier for staff to audit consent for player or staff complaints. When grepping the runlog they can look for the "consent" command rather than all instances of the "ooc" command.
- How it would work: "consent" by itself toggles consent status (defaults to no, and also automatically reverts to no on logout or when moving into a new room). "consent [message]" to define what you're consenting to or explain revocation (useful if you're interested in renegotiating consent rather than FTBing the entire scene).

Language in the consent helpfile should probably be adjusted.
The "consent not required" section feels oddly specific. The reasons for why these scenarios don't require consent seem flimsy at best.
- A tattoo being forced upon your character should require consent. You are permanently changing how another character looks. Not all tattoos can be reasonably covered with clothing. Since there is no laser tattoo removal in Zalanthas, the only typical way to do it is through injuring yourself. Additionally, the context of the forced tattooing makes a lot of difference (what is the tattoo of? where is it being placed?). The context can turn a situation that does not require consent into a situation that definitely does require consent.
- Whipping not requiring consent seems odd because it is clearly torturous. Just because the torturous echoes are coded into the whip's script does not mean that consent is not required. It means that the staff member that wrote the script did not do their due diligence when writing the script. The script should be changed.

Thoughts?

[Fragmented]

The only part I would like to comment on is the idea of having forced tattooing require consent.

I think the requirement of consent (and this is only my opinion) should exist to protect people from highly explicit material that simply don't want to (for any reason at all, doesn't matter) be exposed to it. Violent, gruesomely described torture. Sex. Maiming, again because of the explicit violence of it.

However, I disagree with the reasoning of requiring consent for something simply because it will irrevocably alter a character's appearance. I don't think everything should be within the realms of our control. If someone more powerful, either physically, or politically, finds themselves in a position of power where they could force a tattoo upon someone - I think it is our responsibility to roleplay that lack of control, even if it may not feel good to us as players. Just like permanent death, there are some things that should cause us to take pause if it is IC to do so, and consider our position relative to someone else in terms of making it rough for the character.

Just my 2 cents.

[DesertT]

- Whipping not requiring consent seems odd because it is clearly torturous. Just because the torturous echoes are coded into the whip's script does not mean that consent is not required. It means that the staff member that wrote the script did not do their due diligence when writing the script. The script should be changed.

I thought about arguing the difference between torture and punishment, but I doubt we'll agree.

I was then about to argue for the necessity of having whipping as a punishment, but that's not your argument and I appreciate that.

So in the end, asking for a change of the script for whip use is just fine.

As for the rest about consent, will we have a flag for consent to kill a character too?   

[Armaddict]

Consent should be enthusiastic. "Enthusiastic consent" means that there is a presence of a "yes" rather than the absence of a "no".

This is pretty standard.  I believe this is rather important to have in all cases where consent applies.  I will likely differ on that regard, though.

I view Armageddon the same way as I do an R-rated movie, despite the multiplayer experience.  It's not advertised as child or family friendly.  By electing to be entertained by R-rated blah blah, you offer implied consent for things that R-rated covers.  That does not cover the extremes that can push it beyond that rating, hence why I don't have any issues with the current coverage of it.  Violence, rough language, sexual themes (not explicit sexual scenes), drug use, etc...those are kind of expected under that umbrella, even when not omnipresent.  That isn't to say I think everyone should just be an asshole about things, particularly when you know they are touchy things for some people.  But I do not think a player is -obligated- to regain consent consistently to remain an R-rated theme.

I believe players should be considerate of their fellow players, but I don't think the threshold of 'deserving punishment' or extrication should be too low on an R-rated game.

I realize people will disagree, and I don't particularly feel inclined to argue over that with people who think that bar should be higher; if the bar needs to be higher, it will go higher, and my opinion will remain just my opinion (in other words, I don't believe dissenting opinions should shut down discussion or make you think you're hitting a brick wall).

I'm not certain how automating the consent process will improve things, but honestly, it might make for additional good features in the future, so I'm not really against that even if I'm not sure what value it has under shallow casual assessment.

I do disagree with your examples of raising the bar, though:

- A tattoo being forced upon your character should require consent. You are permanently changing how another character looks. Not all tattoos can be reasonably covered with clothing. Since there is no laser tattoo removal in Zalanthas, the only typical way to do it is through injuring yourself. Additionally, the context of the forced tattooing makes a lot of difference (what is the tattoo of? where is it being placed?). The context can turn a situation that does not require consent into a situation that definitely does require consent.

In no way, shape, or form are you given such high control over what happens to your character or how they look or function.  Denial of this based off of consent rules seems like a stretch, but perhaps I'm in the minority on that as well.  I don't think anyone should be able to force you to play a tattooing if you don't want to (though my forced tattooing was beautifully done, props to that northern Borsail player) or branding, but I'd find it odd to consider that in the same venue as other incredibly invasive topics where we allow the 'nope'.

- Whipping not requiring consent seems odd because it is clearly torturous. Just because the torturous echoes are coded into the whip's script does not mean that consent is not required. It means that the staff member that wrote the script did not do their due diligence when writing the script. The script should be changed.

I do not find the messages or this content particularly graphic in nature.  If you have problems roleplaying pain after a beetle bites your character's leg nearly off, then I could empathize while simultaneously being surprised you'd want to play in the setting.  But where we roleplay those sorts of scenarios often, getting battered, bruised, and hurt all over the place, I'm inclined to lean towards this being more about the former example than actual torture; it's generally a helpless situation where your character has to endure something you wouldn't choose for them, and that lack of choice is the uncomfortable part rather than the content itself.

Again, I understand that my views on this are generally regarded as callous.  But it was the setting of Arm that brought me here in the first place.  This roughness, this text based game that Spartacus-gladiator-braveheart-madmax levels of 'holy shit these people are crazy', is pretty integral to it...otherwise I'd just find a Tolkien mud.

[Jimpka_Moss]

  But it was the setting of Arm that brought me here in the first place.  This roughness, this text based game that Spartacus-gladiator-braveheart-madmax levels of 'holy shit these people are crazy', is pretty integral to it...otherwise I'd just find a Tolkien mud.

While I agree that 'Consent' is basically 'letting things happen to you' and is much different than agreement and enthusiastic accord or enthusiastic consent, I have always (perhaps wrongly) assumed that playing the game was consent to a degree, consent to have things happen to your character of a violent and potentially scarring nature, while not necessarily having to roleplay out those things that reach MA sexuality, or graphic violence. I think Armaddict makes a lot of salient, well thought out points that I agree with.

However, I'm not comfortable playing a game where people don't already know this, where they might inadvertently have a bad time because there wasn't enough information to consent to. I also want more players, and not necessarily people I play with. I want it for the game, not for personal enjoyment, so if there WAS a system of consent like Circelessbard describes, I could generally feel pretty good playing my chars how I think they would act, while also knowing where not to, so as to not OOCly offend or injure my fellow players. I might just be in the small minority of a group that tortures each other for information, or tries to start a small slaver group. The system wouldn't take any thing /away/ from me, it would take things away from those who do not wish 'some very specific things', which is perfectly fine for a text-based fantasy game, because there's so much more possibilities than what our terrible, terrible real Earth gives us.

All it really means is if I end up playing a leader PC, I'll have to get creative. Isn't that almost a requirement anyways?