Xenonnonex
Hero
If time is pressing that you have to start and run your game then reacting and talking as you play together is the way to go. Otherwise you talk as a group ahead of time. Common sense.
Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook
- Thread starter jgsugden
- Start date
- Status
Zardnaar
Legend
Depends, what's the drinking age in Russia?
I found this Russian beer here. Baltika 9 it's 8%. 5.7 standard drinks a can. Two or three of them does the trick.
Kinda like mixing beer with vodka.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
[Yakov]In Soviet Russia, laughter dies of you.[/Yakov]
Tip your waitresses well, everyone. And try the veal. I'm here all week.
Arnwolf666
Adventurer
So we just give them a list of the scenarios, monsters, and dangers in advance and ask them if anything offends or frightens them. That way we don’t accidentally expose them to something.
monsmord
Adventurer
Umbran, I was minutes from posting...
Celebrim, there are no imagined opponents: there are haters right here, on other forums, on DTRPG, etc. There's already been a threadban of one such "YOU" here. They're posting, they're reading. I mean, it was deemed necessary by the site mods that there had to be a warning about such people and statements at the very top of this thread because such crap is so prevalent. No imagination required. Those YOUs are everywhere. Every time questions of inclusivity or mutual respect come up in gaming. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
You have a big bug about this doc for reasons you claim are subtext and assumptions, but thus far none of your arguments seem either accurate, fair, or on point, and contrary to the written text itself as has been pointed out several times. And as much as you have gone on and on and on and on about it, and feign a desire to debate about text only you seem capable of seeing but have already cemented your mind on, you really don't have any standing to criticize my (or any) ranting against people who, for reasons I thoroughly ranted about, want to fill forums with complaints about how such a doc is somehow suggesting something tyrannical, unfair, or whatever nonsense.
And the fact that you took such time to try to dissect my rant - and I am ashamed to admit this - even after I went out of my way to specifically NOT target your (apparent) criticisms of the doc methodology, shows only that your former posts are not really indicative of your core complaint. Your issue is not at all with the doc itself, not its methods. No, it's clear from your dedicated response - from your obviously too-close-to-home affront and your need to try to personally attack or discredit me, and, now that I see it, from your earlier posts (I missed the subtext, that's on me) - that your issue is with the message of inclusivity itself, and its proponents. You don't want it enforced at your table, you won't support a doc (or any tool) that offers a means to encourage it, and you won't stand for someone ranting against other folks who also don't want it at their tables, all while claiming the doc means the opposite of what it says, that up is down, that there are five lights. You're a YOU after all. To paraphrase, your post said a lot more about you than about anything else.
Your criticisms of my criticisms, indeed of the source doc, have no rational weight. You claim your position is all "mind," and proponents are all "heart," but you're clearly concerned with feelings, mostly your own. And yes, in fact, in reality - even your reality - directors are fired from companies when their behavior impedes the company, whether that's a a community production of Into the Woods or a multi-million dollar business. In reality, a GM was kicked out of a con for not respecting player boundaries. You equate a drunken tool being ejected from wedding with someone suffering PTSD being told to leave an elf game? That's rational? Etc. This is all just rhetorical nonsense, deflection, etc. Empty.
Your concern is for the people whose games would have to be changed to accommodate someone with a phobia, trauma, trigger, or perhaps cultural, racial, sexual, or gender sensitivity, something. Your elf game is obviously your priority, not the people who would play it beside you unless they see it as you do. Your concern is that other players at a table shouldn't have to "deal" with a fellow player's "problem," because, you know, they're only one player, after all. You equate the hurtful experience of someone triggered by game content to the contentment of someone who wants to continue the triggers unimpeded. You insist on framing a "tyranny of the minority," how one player's feelings "trumps" everyone else's and how that's not fair. This is neither championed or presumed in that doc, nor in the wider discussion of inclusivity and mutual respect. Heck, leaving a game is an option in the doc. But you will make it your Hill. Cool. You can have that Hill. I mean, the rest of us are over here in this other place where yeah, sometimes, because someone is obviously distressed but still wants to be part of our group, we do indeed change things up because we value their presence, emotional health, and willingness to socialize and enjoy our hobby together more than we value whether a particular element is in the game narrative. You see an inconvenience; this doc sees an opportunity to build trust and connection. Have your Hill.
No, inclusivity doesn't mean putting up with jackassery. It also doesn't mean accepting intellectual dishonesty and strawmen as discourse or debate. It doesn't mean playing nice with people who complain that anyone with an "issue" undermines their (or their similarly-minded comrades') right to exclusivity or to say or have whatever they want, that the people with "issues" are the problem. If you don't like Popper's Paradox, take it up with him.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be. Maybe you're an ally of inclusivity and tools to improve it. Maybe in an effort to be appear philosophical or "woke" you just present opinions and feelings too obtusely for mere mortals to see anything of actual empathy or substance. But when other posters call you out on your criticism and you won't or can't substantiate yourself, when you talk about people straying from the text (uh, my rant wasn't about the text, sooo....) but you can't quote text to support your own arguments, when, as you say, the only way to make yourself understood is to write your own doc, maybe the problem isn't everyone else. But I don't think I'm wrong, not after your exhaustive reply. It's irrelevant in either case.
What does one call a troll with a dictionary and mild talent for verbose rhetoric? Ah, yes: a troll. Wished I had wised up to that sooner. Feeling kinda fooled over here.
The rant stands. Add trolls and pretenders to the "YOU" category.
Celebrim, there are no imagined opponents: there are haters right here, on other forums, on DTRPG, etc. There's already been a threadban of one such "YOU" here. They're posting, they're reading. I mean, it was deemed necessary by the site mods that there had to be a warning about such people and statements at the very top of this thread because such crap is so prevalent. No imagination required. Those YOUs are everywhere. Every time questions of inclusivity or mutual respect come up in gaming. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
You have a big bug about this doc for reasons you claim are subtext and assumptions, but thus far none of your arguments seem either accurate, fair, or on point, and contrary to the written text itself as has been pointed out several times. And as much as you have gone on and on and on and on about it, and feign a desire to debate about text only you seem capable of seeing but have already cemented your mind on, you really don't have any standing to criticize my (or any) ranting against people who, for reasons I thoroughly ranted about, want to fill forums with complaints about how such a doc is somehow suggesting something tyrannical, unfair, or whatever nonsense.
And the fact that you took such time to try to dissect my rant - and I am ashamed to admit this - even after I went out of my way to specifically NOT target your (apparent) criticisms of the doc methodology, shows only that your former posts are not really indicative of your core complaint. Your issue is not at all with the doc itself, not its methods. No, it's clear from your dedicated response - from your obviously too-close-to-home affront and your need to try to personally attack or discredit me, and, now that I see it, from your earlier posts (I missed the subtext, that's on me) - that your issue is with the message of inclusivity itself, and its proponents. You don't want it enforced at your table, you won't support a doc (or any tool) that offers a means to encourage it, and you won't stand for someone ranting against other folks who also don't want it at their tables, all while claiming the doc means the opposite of what it says, that up is down, that there are five lights. You're a YOU after all. To paraphrase, your post said a lot more about you than about anything else.
Your criticisms of my criticisms, indeed of the source doc, have no rational weight. You claim your position is all "mind," and proponents are all "heart," but you're clearly concerned with feelings, mostly your own. And yes, in fact, in reality - even your reality - directors are fired from companies when their behavior impedes the company, whether that's a a community production of Into the Woods or a multi-million dollar business. In reality, a GM was kicked out of a con for not respecting player boundaries. You equate a drunken tool being ejected from wedding with someone suffering PTSD being told to leave an elf game? That's rational? Etc. This is all just rhetorical nonsense, deflection, etc. Empty.
Your concern is for the people whose games would have to be changed to accommodate someone with a phobia, trauma, trigger, or perhaps cultural, racial, sexual, or gender sensitivity, something. Your elf game is obviously your priority, not the people who would play it beside you unless they see it as you do. Your concern is that other players at a table shouldn't have to "deal" with a fellow player's "problem," because, you know, they're only one player, after all. You equate the hurtful experience of someone triggered by game content to the contentment of someone who wants to continue the triggers unimpeded. You insist on framing a "tyranny of the minority," how one player's feelings "trumps" everyone else's and how that's not fair. This is neither championed or presumed in that doc, nor in the wider discussion of inclusivity and mutual respect. Heck, leaving a game is an option in the doc. But you will make it your Hill. Cool. You can have that Hill. I mean, the rest of us are over here in this other place where yeah, sometimes, because someone is obviously distressed but still wants to be part of our group, we do indeed change things up because we value their presence, emotional health, and willingness to socialize and enjoy our hobby together more than we value whether a particular element is in the game narrative. You see an inconvenience; this doc sees an opportunity to build trust and connection. Have your Hill.
No, inclusivity doesn't mean putting up with jackassery. It also doesn't mean accepting intellectual dishonesty and strawmen as discourse or debate. It doesn't mean playing nice with people who complain that anyone with an "issue" undermines their (or their similarly-minded comrades') right to exclusivity or to say or have whatever they want, that the people with "issues" are the problem. If you don't like Popper's Paradox, take it up with him.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be. Maybe you're an ally of inclusivity and tools to improve it. Maybe in an effort to be appear philosophical or "woke" you just present opinions and feelings too obtusely for mere mortals to see anything of actual empathy or substance. But when other posters call you out on your criticism and you won't or can't substantiate yourself, when you talk about people straying from the text (uh, my rant wasn't about the text, sooo....) but you can't quote text to support your own arguments, when, as you say, the only way to make yourself understood is to write your own doc, maybe the problem isn't everyone else. But I don't think I'm wrong, not after your exhaustive reply. It's irrelevant in either case.
What does one call a troll with a dictionary and mild talent for verbose rhetoric? Ah, yes: a troll. Wished I had wised up to that sooner. Feeling kinda fooled over here.
The rant stands. Add trolls and pretenders to the "YOU" category.
Xenonnonex
Hero
You talk to and with others. Like actual adults.
Celebrim
Legend
That coopting of a serious issue isn't my fault. The confusion is relevant to this discussion.
One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed. You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents. It's none of your affair and I have no intention of pre-disclosing that sort of information to you or anyone else. Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.
That particular I haven't.
The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is. Political debates are rarely about the goals, but on the means of getting there. People don't disagree that society should be secure and prosperous. They disagree greatly of the particulars of attaining those goals, even to the point of violence. Capitalism versus communism isn't a debate about the ends, but about the means. Even in debates like global warming, the debate over the facts is really just proxy debate over the particulars of how to address the problem. It's the 'how' of that question that is the actual driving force of all the acrimony.
That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd. This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how. This is not even remotely that one side wants to be inclusive of people with PTSD and the other side just doesn't. You should probably stop pretending that is the terms of the discussion if you want it to be constructive.
G
Guest 85555
Guest
That was the joke that killed my dad you bastard
G
Guest 85555
Guest
I read the document the other day and while I think it may be suitable for some people, I really can't see using the checklist or abiding by the ideas expressed in the text in my games.
Xenonnonex
Hero
And that is perfectly okay. No one is mandating you have to use it.
- Status
Similar Threads
