Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Wolfpack48]

But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:

a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
c) An objection by one party has equal rate to the feelings of the rest of the group, an assumption that would make sense if and only if there were only two parties in the activity.
d) When a veto is raised, the other parties are inherently in the wrong because a veto is raised on the basis of safety, therefore any other considerations are invalid. Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude.

I would restate those a bit:

a) The activity involved is one where people of different backgrounds come together for fun, but some could have background experiences that could make them feel distress.
b) That we respect those who may experience distress with a scene or situation, and give them the freedom to express their distress
c) That the way to deal with such distress is not by popular vote, or by outnumbering the person with the issue. The many does not outweigh the few in the same way that when a person is hit by a car, the gathered crowd doesn't tell them to "walk it off" or "toughen up" or "call their own ambulance."
d) That, like a car accident, the person's health and well-being is more important than the displeasure of anyone else witnessing the accident or the inconvenience that such an accident may entail.

 

[macd21]

On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.

No. 'It makes you think,' 'it's got such good intent' and 'you can house rule the document' are not defences of the document, they are additional advantages of it, above and beyond its base utility.

 

[Aldarc]

@Celebrim, you are huffing up an incredible storm for such an innocuous free supplemental document. You know what actual well-adjusted adults do about things like this? They say, "Huh. I don't need this, but I'm glad that it exists for those who would like it." and then they move on with their lives without making wall of text soapbox-preaching posts. FYI, this is not about BDSM. Unless you live under a rock, and I should not judge if you do, "consent" is a universal concept that exists and applied outside of BDSM circles so stop trying to make this about BDSM. There's no need for you to be a Rude Gus about all this.

The amount of pushback to giving folks tools to communicate is... kind of astounding, really.

It's almost as if the pushback is a pretext for some other issue.

Not really. You always get pushback when offering new tools/ways especially if those tools/way will only benefit a small subgroup. People feel you're telling everyone who doesn't/hasn't used the new thing that they're having BADWRONGFUN.

It's a free supplement offering suggestions on "consent in gaming" that most people would have barely noticed had it not been for knee-jerk reactionaries. The pushback is disproportionate to what the free supplement actually says.

 

[Umbran]

And now we are determining weather we are going to give people what they want or listen to a very vocal small group that will scream and protest when they don’t get what they want.

Yeah. Um, do you realize that right now... you're the one protesting?

 

[Arnwolf666]

We never needed consent before to just use words. I was raised that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. And to learn to deal with people that use words I don’t like instead of crying about it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don’t think society has changed as much as a very few minority is very vocal and good at throwing tantrums and screaming at people that do things they don’t like.

I think that's because you're too close to it. It's hard to see the forest for the trees.

Don't forget, something like the institution of gay marriage in the United States of America occurred nationwide in 2015. The institution of interracial marriage in the United States of America occurred nationwide in 1967. It took just over 50 years for the societal mores in the USA to go from finally accepting black and white people being allowed to marry through to gay men and women being allowed to marry. Do you have any idea of what had to happen for that progress to have occurred? It was more than just a few vocal minorities throwing tantrums.

Just saying that a few vocal minorities threw tantrums makes it sounds like the rest of society just had to roll their eyes and say "okay, fine!" just to keep them quiet. It's never that easy for change to occur. Sometimes it takes over 50 years.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We never needed consent before to just use words. I was raised that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. And to learn to deal with people that use words I don’t like instead of crying about it.

As I've gotten older and wiser, I've realized that phrase is completely backward. It's words that are often more damaging than physical wounds. Wounds heal, but some words can never be taken back once spoken. No matter how many times the person apologizes.

You do understand there are people who have killed themselves over words, right? And it doesn't make them crybabies or weak. Imagine being a transgender kid and all you hear from your family is what an abomination you are, or how you're gonna burn in hell, and every day you go to school, you're bombarded with hurtful bullying and jokes, and people telling you that you're not a real person, or that you just act that way for attention?

 

[Gradine]

The operative word in the phrase "concern troll" is "troll", as in, "do not feed the"

 

[DM-Rocco]

Warning to potential replies. If you’re planning on posting some alt-right rant against inclusivity here, don’t. You’ll be shown the door.

I'm not alt-right, but your statement suggests that if you are not in favor of this in any way then you are somehow some racist, sexist pig and should go to hell. So are you stating that you can comment only if you agree? If so that is messed up.

On the surface, this seems like it would be about inclusion, but I disagree, so does that make me some evil bastard?

If you are playing with a group of friends, they should know you well enough to know what is and what is not acceptable. I play with loud, crude, swearing bastards, and I play with more wholesome church-going friends, and I play with my preteen children and I know each player well enough to know what to include and what to exclude. I don't need a document for this.

Regarding this in a convention, good in theory, until you realize that you have to pay for events months in advance and if a DM passed this around the table before gameplay began and he decided to eliminate 90% of the adventure because someone filled in many of the triggers, then you have a majority of the players who paid for a service to be disappointed and wanting their money back because the adventure which touted a trip to the Underdark and the Spider Queen was changed into rainbow, happy kitten unicorn dancing, you'll have many pissed off attendees.

The majority shouldn't have to bow to the minority. The minority should have to find another playgroup.

The only place I see this being effective is on a message board where you fill it out to find other like-minded individuals to play with. In this case, it would cease to be a "consent" form and become a 'request for gaming friends' form.

I play Role-playing games to get away from the real world and in particular politics. This reeks of political overtones and the last thing I want is some Social Justice Warrior trying to place the rule of the minority and ruining my games. That said, none of my friends would ever use this and if they use it at a convention, I'll not attend that convention. I'm not paying my hard-earned money for someone to come in at the last minute and ruin my expected game...hopefully that wasn't "alt-right" for you, but if you felt it was, please do delete.

 

[Arnwolf666]

As I've gotten older and wiser, I've realized that phrase is completely backward. It's words that are often more damaging than physical wounds. Wounds heal, but some words can never be taken back once spoken. No matter how many times the person apologizes.

You do understand there are people who have killed themselves over words, right? And it doesn't make them crybabies or weak. Imagine being a transgender kid and all you hear from your family is what an abomination you are, or how you're gonna burn in hell, and every day you go to school, you're bombarded with hurtful bullying and jokes, and people telling you that you're not a real person, or that you just act that way for attention?

Yes and I think that’s why we have to really teach people to “deal with it” in my opinion. There are people not nice and the game isn’t even about dealing with those people, just fictional scenarios. I hope these people don’t watch a movie or tv show without doing a lot of research. Or even the news for that matter.