No, Bagpuss, who decried the current climate (in which people who run rape scenarios at cons get called on their
).
Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
- Status
).
Bagpuss
Legend
Did you not read my clarification on what I meant by the climate? It was mainly to do with the public shaming before the full details are out, not helped by the presses need to publish incorrect stories without talking to the parties involved.Nothing to do with not calling someone out for inappropriate content.No, Bagpuss, who decried the current climate (in which people who run rape scenarios at cons get called on their
Bagpuss
Legend
British version of the same sort of thing. "The subculture involves young men assuming an anti-intellectual position, shunning sensitivity in favour of drinking, violence, and sexism." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lad_culture But The Inbetweeners while the characters (well Jay mainly) try to behave like "Lads" it normally ends up badly for them.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inbetweeners). So a scenario where the lads go on an Club 18-30 holiday where they think they are going to get laid, but instead wake up thinking they have been assaulted, after a night they can't remember would be in keeping, especially if they later discovered they had actually just had a bad curry.
Last edited:
Basically that. It’s guys being ‘lads,’ meaning: dumb, crude, violent and misogynistic. It’s mostly middle-class teens who want to appear ‘tough.’ To a lad, the best things in life are drinking, watching football and shagging (often in that order). It’s the embodiment of toxic masculinity.
In other words a return to the climate in which the details never get out, the press never get wind of it (or ignore it if they do) and nobody gets called out for inappropriate content.Because that was how things used to go, under the old climate. Under the new one, a GM who ran an inappropriate game session has been identified and won’t be running such content at UKGE again. Hopefully other GMs will get the message, leading to fewer such incidents in future. So I’ll happily take the current climate over the crappy one we used to have.
I
Immortal Sun
Guest
I don't understand the objection to shaming people for bad actions. Society has been founded on this principle for thousands of years. Word gets out that you're doing something nasty and then other people remove you from their social circles. If at some point down the road you clean up your act, you might be able to rejoin. THIS IS NOT NEW. It's not a "new climate" or a "new culture", this is how humans function. "Social media" just makes it easier for humans to be the social creatures they naturally are.
Society relies on a number of different forms of punishment for members who act out. Shame is one of those functions, "social pressure", "peer pressure" these are society's way of ensuring other members of society act within the bounds that society finds acceptable. Are they always properly applied? No of course not.
But suggesting that a person who clearly acts out should just get a talking-to and none of the social punishment when this is clearly the time and place for social punishment to be properly applied is either suggesting that social punishment as a whole thing and a fundamental element of society shouldn't exist, or that this guy is undeserving of social punishment, ie: his actions weren't so bad.
So which is it? Do you think his actions weren't so bad, or are you philosophizing that an entire element of human society that has existed since its inception (*loud horn noise*) is fundamentally flawed? Because Option 1 is defending him, and this thread really isn't the place for Option 2.
So which is it?
Society relies on a number of different forms of punishment for members who act out. Shame is one of those functions, "social pressure", "peer pressure" these are society's way of ensuring other members of society act within the bounds that society finds acceptable. Are they always properly applied? No of course not.
But suggesting that a person who clearly acts out should just get a talking-to and none of the social punishment when this is clearly the time and place for social punishment to be properly applied is either suggesting that social punishment as a whole thing and a fundamental element of society shouldn't exist, or that this guy is undeserving of social punishment, ie: his actions weren't so bad.
So which is it? Do you think his actions weren't so bad, or are you philosophizing that an entire element of human society that has existed since its inception (*loud horn noise*) is fundamentally flawed? Because Option 1 is defending him, and this thread really isn't the place for Option 2.
So which is it?
Bagpuss
Legend
No they still get called out by the people actually involved in the incident. The person still has to answer to the UKGE, and the players at their table.
Option 2.
First thing, many traditions existed since the beginning of social interaction, including slavery. We've not entirely removed that, but most people agree it was overall a bad idea. Human sacrifices to the gods also were great back in the good old days, but I do hope they have vanished long ago.
Secondly, has it occurred to you that popular opinion may sometimes happen to be wrong? Lynchings were carried out based on popular opinion, and maybe sometimes the man who died had actually committed the crime. But we can't really know that, can we?
Now, I'm well aware that "we'll stop talking with you" is not the same punishment as "we'll hang you after having tortured you". But IMHO no punishment at all should be meted out unless every step has been undertaken to make sure the accused is really guilty.
That's why humanity introduced another tradition, even if it's not as ancient as punishment based on opinion. It's the rule of law, fair trial, rights of the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt etc. etc.
Note I'm not saying I have doubts about the culpability of the guy in this case. That's beyond the point. The point is that in "word gets out that you're doing something nasty", the "word" is far from being guaranteed to be true.
Social media makes it easier to be social? Maybe. Some sociologists think that we are still wired to live in a village, or in a large tribe before that. That there's an upper limit to the people we are able to consider and treat as knowable. And that online interaction still does not hold a candle to the personal interaction we're built for. If they are right, then you might consider that shaming and avoiding a villager you knew since you were a kid, based on the "word" of other people you knew since you were a kid, was probably a choice that would be based on a better knowledge of the guy and of the talkers, and not taken as lightly as on social media today, based on the words of a media source and about a guy you had never heard about before.
So maybe social media only makes our social interactions louder, more far-reaching, and less balanced.
First thing, many traditions existed since the beginning of social interaction, including slavery. We've not entirely removed that, but most people agree it was overall a bad idea. Human sacrifices to the gods also were great back in the good old days, but I do hope they have vanished long ago.
Secondly, has it occurred to you that popular opinion may sometimes happen to be wrong? Lynchings were carried out based on popular opinion, and maybe sometimes the man who died had actually committed the crime. But we can't really know that, can we?
Now, I'm well aware that "we'll stop talking with you" is not the same punishment as "we'll hang you after having tortured you". But IMHO no punishment at all should be meted out unless every step has been undertaken to make sure the accused is really guilty.
That's why humanity introduced another tradition, even if it's not as ancient as punishment based on opinion. It's the rule of law, fair trial, rights of the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt etc. etc.
Note I'm not saying I have doubts about the culpability of the guy in this case. That's beyond the point. The point is that in "word gets out that you're doing something nasty", the "word" is far from being guaranteed to be true.
Social media makes it easier to be social? Maybe. Some sociologists think that we are still wired to live in a village, or in a large tribe before that. That there's an upper limit to the people we are able to consider and treat as knowable. And that online interaction still does not hold a candle to the personal interaction we're built for. If they are right, then you might consider that shaming and avoiding a villager you knew since you were a kid, based on the "word" of other people you knew since you were a kid, was probably a choice that would be based on a better knowledge of the guy and of the talkers, and not taken as lightly as on social media today, based on the words of a media source and about a guy you had never heard about before.
So maybe social media only makes our social interactions louder, more far-reaching, and less balanced.
Bagpuss
Legend
No it is very old, and there is a reason public shaming was removed as a punishment when we became a more civilised society.I suggest you read So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson.
A little of option A, as the public shame seems to be about a whole scenario based around kidnapping and raping underage kids. Where are the reality of the situation is it was adult characters, in an over 18 game, which was clearly labelled horror, with a "lad's culture" theme and the incident happened behind a veil which is a common technique used in RPGs to allow for more distressing content to be covered safely.
And a little of option B, because yeah public shaming is wrong. It was removed from UK justice in the late 1800's and is a form of mob justice in the form it is today. Even convicted criminals can only have their conviction kept online for a month to show justice has been done, and Europe introduced the right to be forgotten for a reason.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
