Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game - Page 20
Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 420
  1. #191
    Mod Squad
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)

    Umbran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    34,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Michele View Post
    The point is that being old does not equate with being good.
    Ah, but in this case, it isn't just old. It is older than our species, and it is unlikely that we can have a functioning society without it.

    Shame is perhaps the single largest way that social primates control group behavior. We have shame *for a reason* - we need a feedback mechanism to be able to get people to adjust their behavior.

    I mean, think of it - think of what the behavior of a person who literally had no shame would be like. Do you think this person would be a constructive member of society?
    XP robus gave XP for this post

  2. #192
    Member
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)



    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    32
    A sociopath by definition is not a constructive member of society. But I do notice that sociopaths also get dealt with by our societies by the alternative means I mentioned.

    Of course, if we were all sociopaths, then things would be harder.

    Note my main complaint about social shaming isn't that it's wrong. But that it can very easily be based on wrong information.
    We are all mightily concerned by fake news today, and nobody is worried that the input of a social shaming campaign on social media may be created by just that?
    I wouldn't be surprised if slander is also a tradition as long as speech.

  3. #193
    Member
    A "Drizzit" Type-Thing (Lvl 28)



    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    The Stately Pleasure Dome of Xanadu.
    Posts
    7,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Michele View Post
    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.
    This is the worst take.

    Start with the basics; as soon as you start comparing "Not being allowed to DM at a convention" with slavery and human sacrifice (?!) something has gone terribly wrong.

    Next, the terrible argument that I have seen so many times- how dare people have opinions about something until a complete trial and a finding of guilty? I call that the DUE PROCESS CANARD.

    Okay, so let's understand this (from an American P.O.V. - this is in the UK, which has a similar, albeit not identical, system).

    If you are accused, by the Government, of a crime, you have certain rights. This is because the Government (leviathan, etc.) is awesome and powerful, and can deprive you of your liberty, and in some places, of your life. So before Big Gummint gets to throw you down into a dark hole for a very long time (deprive you of liberty), you have certain procedural protections- you know, jury of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, blah blah blah.

    Here's the thing, though. I'm not Big Gummint. So the following happens all the time:

    Jake tells me that Mechanic A ripped him off a year ago. So, I don't go to Mechanic A. Does Mechanic A get due process? Heck, no.

    I get a queasy feeling about one of my kid's friend's parents. Just ... something off. So when my kid is invited to a sleepover, the invitation is turned down. Due process? Nope.

    Mary tells me that the reason she is divorcing Stan is because Stan gave her an STD that he got on a business trip to Thailand. So I shun Stan, because, dude. Does Stan get due process? Nope.

    I think Laurel is stealing money from the (private) company. I don't call in the police, instead, I terminate Laurel. Did Laurel get due process? Nope.

    I could keep going on, but you should get the idea. People are not the government.
    XP robus gave XP for this post

  4. #194
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by jasper View Post
    Banning him from the con from life. No problem. Having cons in the UK ban him from Gming. um hell no. And I forget who propose it but having cons put him on a watch list just because he shows up. That is too far.
    Not able to make comments about UK law, but, here in the states, if an organization hires someone with a known history of ABC in situation DEF and then puts him back in a similar position of representation and it occurs again, their legal liabilities go through the roof.

    With the publicity this one has gotten it would be hard to even get a "we didnt know" to pass against negligence.

    That is ignoring the potential for reputation damage to their con.

    I cannot imagine any convention who would see the upside of letting this fellow get to run a game officially at their event as worth that risk.

  5. #195
    Member
    Defender (Lvl 8)



    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    419
    Did people pay to be at the table with that guy? I know I'd feel cheated if I were stuck at a table with that GM.

  6. #196
    Pathfinder subscriber COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    billd91's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    10,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Umbran View Post
    Why not?

    Really. Why not?

    He can still go to the other cons. He can play games. He just can't run them. What is he losing - the chance to run a handful of games a year? Why is that such a big deal? Given that the vast majority of people who go to conventions don't run games anyway, I fail to see how this is so excessive as to merit, "Hell, no."
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value, but now in the extreme shaming culture that has erupted with social media - that's all chucked out the window in favor of the mob's pound of flesh. And as a liberal, the excessiveness, lack of nuance, and rigid unforgiving attitudes that I see piss me off.

    Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. Excessive shaming and sanctions are destructive.
    XP Sadras, JonnyP71 gave XP for this post

  7. #197
    Member
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)



    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Arcata, CA
    Posts
    2,322
    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value, but now in the extreme shaming culture that has erupted with social media - that's all chucked out the window in favor of the mob's pound of flesh. And as a liberal, the excessiveness, lack of nuance, and rigid unforgiving attitudes that I see piss me off.

    Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. Excessive shaming and sanctions are destructive.
    The conversation around shaming and rehabilitation often has me split in two directions.

    I'll start by saying that shame doesn't work. At least, in the sense that research shows it does a terrible job in changing an individual's behavior. Whether shame acts as a deterrent for others, I cannot say. I would argue that shame isn't the point though; the more important message about the more open and public climate regarding this is "you will not get away with this anymore".

    The more conflicting issue I have is with the nature of rehabilitation, chiefly: who's responsibility is it?

    On the one hand, I feel that both an institution (such as UKGE) and a broader community (i.e; gamers) have the strongest obligation to make their spaces safe and inclusive. Now, there is disagreement on the virtues of inclusivity, but those disagreements are wrong. It's objectively better for the hobby that our community has grown significantly in size, scope, and diversity. That means making it clear that bad behavior that threatens the safety of members of the community (of which starting a game off with the implication of rape certainly qualifies, whether you'd like to pretend it doesn't or not) needs to met with removal from the institution (UKGE) and potentially removal (through ostracization, if nothing else) from the community.

    This certainly does not leave out the possibility for rehabilitation, but it places the onus of rehabilitation on the offender themselves, which requires good faith efforts to (a) recognize the harm of their actions, (b) make good faith efforts to apologize to those harmed, and (c) making the effort to change bad behaviors. This is difficult but hardly impossible; see Dan Harmon for a great example of this playing out. See also James Gunn. As opposed to, you know, running to the guy who penned "In Defense of Rape" to tell your side of the story.

    I think there's a more nuanced discussion to be had about whether certain members within the community should also be responsible for aiding and supporting an offenders rehabilitation. Certainly not those individuals who are or would be most impacted by their actions, but certainly people in positions of privilege (cis white straight men, specifically) who could do more to step up, reach out to perpetrators, and help them understand why their behavior is wrong. I would definitely not agree that it's the responsibility of women, for example, to reform misogynists, serial harassers or sexual offenders, for example. Note that I'm aware there are people who are doing just that (I know Danny, for instance, has a lot of respect for the black man who goes around talking to and deprogramming KKK members), but that doing that kind of work as the target of people's bad behaviors takes a superhuman emotional effort, and nobody should be held up to that kind of standard. People are allowed to prioritize their safety, physical, mental, or otherwise.

    I also don't think social ostracization precludes the possibility of rehabilitation. The research showing that shame often has a net negative effect on individual behavior certainly makes it less likely, which is why it sometimes gives me pause, but again, I think that both individuals and communities have a stronger obligation to prioritize their safety than they do in rehabilitating bad actors. And again, while it makes the rehabilitation harder... so? Do we have an obligation to make rehabilitation easy? Shouldn't it take effort and work?

    And is there a difference between what is right and what is practical?

    I agree that this is a complicated and complex issue where the right answer lies between "gtfo forever goodbye" and "everyone deserves a good faith second chance guys!" And I think we're still stumbling our way to that right answer. But we don't get there by just ignoring it or sweeping it under the rug or putting our fingers in our collective ears and screaming "this doesn't concern me!"

  8. #198
    Mod Squad
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)

    Umbran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    34,482
    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value
    If you are going to try to make this political, please leave the thread now before you get booted. There will be precious little pataience for this.

    This is not about politics or government. This is about how people in our hobby relate to and treat each other.

    I hope that is 100% clear to everyone here.
    Last edited by Umbran; Friday, 7th June, 2019 at 06:26 PM.

  9. #199
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Ovinomancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    4,542
    Um... he was using liberal in the classical sense, not in the modern American polemic sense. I know because I'm usually nowhere near @billd91 politically, but understand his point about liberal values. It's Enlightenment liberal, not politics liberal.

  10. #200
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfcrusher View Post
    There's a "right" kind of group?

    That's almost...more disturbing.
    There are games where rape is part of the setting, but not a dominant factor in play.

    Hell, the namesake family in Pendragon... Arthur is the product of rape by deception (via Merlin's illusion); Mordred is even creepier - his sire was raped by deception, too, and his mother was his father's half-sister. Lancelot is boning his best friend's wife for half the timeline.
    And, in a couple spots (in published adventures), players who go a pillaging have to fail lustful or add raping to the glossed over off-screen. (Uther period.)

    Some other genres likewise make it reasonable for rape to occur off-screen. Grey Ranks (set in the Ghettos of WW II poland) comes to mind.

    As for playing through the rape "on-screen" - in certain groups, with certain situations and prior consent, it can be a powerful (even traumatic) experience. Preludes in Vampire come to mind, and the whole vampire embrace is a metaphor for rape, anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •