Wolfpack48
Hero
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.
Last edited: