D&D General Of Consent, Session 0 and Hard Decisions.

[FrogReaver]

A lot of people by their phrasing, clearly don't.

I'd love an example here, because that's certainly not the impression i've gotten.

I don't think it is, for the reason I say above. I think there are people who need to back away from suggesting that safety tools are going to be a regular vector for misbehavior, or there's not a lot of room to move here.

Oh! I've not been under the impression that the discussion has really been about safety tools for quite a while.

EDIT: Also the part of your post I was responding to didn't actually mention safety tools at all...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd love an example here, because that's certainly not the impression i've gotten.

Search up until you find Lanefan's last post.

Oh! I've not been under the impression that the discussion has really been about safety tools for quite a while.

Whether its active use of tools or more ad-hoc approaches doesn't inordinately matter, but the problem I discussed is a constant refrain in discussions of safety tools (not that some applications of them don't have some entry potential for people wanting to manipulate the game, but as I said that's less a problem with the tools than the people involved, and there's an obvious solution there), and if you don't think that's impacting the response of some people, I'd suggest reconsidering.

 

[FrogReaver]

The tipping point lies where that consideration forces you to overwrite or bury any feelings and-or problems you might have yourself.

There also seems to be a pattern to this where "I don't want..." is consistently expected/allowed to overrule "We do want...", which (speaking from experience) merely plays into the hands of the selfish.

@Thomas Shey, this one?

If so, I think it's in alignment with my last comment and also this part of your post

2. That said, there seems an assumption that just because you're friends with people and sympathize with them, you're ethically obligated to to wrap your decisions all around their trauma. You certainly don't want to shove it in their face (so its pretty reasonable to avoid selective elements in a campaign not focused around them if you're aware its going to cause people problems), but if everyone is really interested in playing a campaign that's wrapped around that subject, I don't think its unfair to suggest that the person with the associated trauma take a pass rather than simply avoid it it completely. You and the rest of your friends are not ethically obligated to spend all summer not going to the beach because you have a friend with PMLE.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whether its active use of tools or more ad-hoc approaches doesn't inordinately matter,

From my perspective of the conversation this distinction has really mattered to some, with almost everyone being in favor of at least an ad-hoc approach, but quite a few being against more methodical implementations, at least for their specific circumstances (with the addition that some of these even explicitly stated if they work for you then use them).

but the problem I discussed is a constant refrain in discussions of safety tools (not that some applications of them don't have some entry potential for people wanting to manipulate the game, but as I said that's less a problem with the tools than the people involved, and there's an obvious solution there), and if you don't think that's impacting the response of some people, I'd suggest reconsidering.

So, the reason this comes up is simple and it doesn't have to do with whatever tool or adhoc method is being deployed to glean this information. Instead it's one defense against the notion that there is only one ethical/moral way to handle the revelation of such info, that being complete accommodation by the group. The notion that this can result in manipulation is pushback against the notion that the only right way to handle it is to accommodate.

And it does accomplish this, albeit in a very weak way - because as you just pointed out - if we just change the question to what should we do when someone tells us about such issues in good faith, the question of what is the right thing to do still remains. But that's since been addressed fairly thoroughly as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not quite. We are saying the same principle applies to both situations.

It absolutely, positively does not.

If the brother had ptsd set off by fireworks he absolutely should have stayed away from a bbq with them. If the other brother wanted to accommodate his brother so he could come then he certainly should eliminate the fireworks.

That is an extremely crappy attitude and I will not hide my disdain for it.

No one is saying don’t do that. We are saying it shouldn’t be a mandatory expectation. That’s where you are getting pushback. It doesn’t mean someone is a bad person if they don’t accommodate all potential issues at all times.

You've just committed the error again: "accommodate all potential issues." No. No one is asking for that. People are asking for reasonable accommodation of serious issues when said accommodation costs little to nothing for those accommodating, especially when it's extremely difficult for the person in need of accommodation to actually ask, due to the MANY social pressures to suffer silently or withdraw completely.

YOU are the one turning this into something monstrous. Stop.

Considering we don’t know what actions he took or anyone else’s perspective we cannot really say. I think it’s likely he wasn’t, but you’ve not provided the details required to validate that assertion.

Then why not take him at his word? You took him at his word for all the stuff before this. Why is this not the same way?

I think that’s objectively less selfish (unless he thought they wanted to spend time with him more than fireworks - a distinct possibility but again not verified by your story).

See above.

The only question is about how they become safe. You say always accommodate. We say sometimes do that but sometimes the person with the issue may sometimes needs to pass on a specific activity.

Okay. Have you not noticed the numerous, extensive times where we've mentioned that safety tools are about fostering conversations that can be incredibly difficult for people to have? That they're about showing respect to others? That they're about helping people work together, and require people to be reasonable participants in good faith?

Because it really seems like you're going out of your way to either pretend nobody ever mentioned that, or acting like every single person in this thread who has done so is lying about it, or somehow thinking that crappy, abusive uses of this stuff is somehow a HORRIBLE PLAGUE UPON BOTH YOUR HOUSES when actually such abuses are extremely rare.

Because, the once a year gathering, is more important than a specific part of that gathering, especially in regards to.

1. Family.
2. Support for his brother's condition.

Which, is all well and good because its your friends BBQ, and he can set the rules.

Anyone who's married, and is going to tell me they wouldn't be accommodating for their wife (100%) or kids (lets be honest, less than 100%...) well, happy wife, happy life.

I'm genuinely really confused by these two statements. On the one hand, you have a clear "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever." On the other, apparently one's spouse and children deserve a guarantee of accommodation...? This is a truly bizarre contrast.

I have plenty of people in my extended family with mental health considerations, and yes that sometimes means they will skip out on a particular event because they know that its not something they can cope with, and everyone else gets on with enjoying the activity. Good luck trying to find an activity that fits 30+ at one of my family reunions and isnt going to set someone off.

You know what the people in my family with these issues hate most? Having people tie themselves in knots in an effort to be 'accommodating' thereby drawing even more attention to the issues which those people are desperate to be free from.

Ah, so obviously the best thing to do is throw a big middle finger at them and never, ever care about their issues nor ever try to lift a finger to make their lives easier. They'd better suffer in silence for the family!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

From my perspective of the conversation this distinction has really mattered to some, with almost everyone being in favor of at least an ad-hoc approach, but quite a few being against more methodical implementations, at least for their specific circumstances (with the addition that some of these even explicitly stated if they work for you then use them).

So, the reason this comes up is simple and it doesn't have to do with whatever tool or adhoc method is being deployed to glean this information. Instead it's one defense against the notion that there is only one ethical/moral way to handle the revelation of such info, that being complete accommodation by the group. The notion that this can result in manipulation is pushback against the notion that the only right way to handle it is to accommodate.

And it does accomplish this, albeit in a very weak way - because as you just pointed out - if we just change the question to what should we do when someone tells us about such issues in good faith, the question of what is the right thing to do still remains. But that's since been addressed fairly thoroughly as well.

I don't see how there can be any argument that at least SOME accommodation is always the correct thing to do--so long as the people participating are participating in good faith.

And if anyone is actually acting in bad faith, do you really think that the absolute avoidance of safety tools makes any difference whatsoever? They're already acting in bad faith--the tools don't inspire that, and it will express itself some other way.

Which would be why I made the reference to the absolute-power DMing earlier. Somehow, safety tools are unacceptable because there is the slimmest possibility that someone might abuse them. But genuinely maximal DM latitude, where one person has all the power and zero responsibility short of outright player revolt? Nobody would EVER abuse that, apparently--or if they would, such cases are somehow not a valid response.

Pick one or the other. Either DMs abusing their immense power actually was a problem all along, or players abusing safety tools as a cudgel to beat people with really isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Scribe]

I'm genuinely really confused by these two statements. On the one hand, you have a clear "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever." On the other, apparently one's spouse and children deserve a guarantee of accommodation...? This is a truly bizarre contrast.

At what point have I in this thread said anything about anyone getting over wussy nonsense?

Ah, so obviously the best thing to do is throw a big middle finger at them and never, ever care about their issues nor ever try to lift a finger to make their lives easier. They'd better suffer in silence for the family!

Also never said.

Don't put your back out reaching for something you seem to want to be mad about.

 

[FrogReaver]

It absolutely, positively does not.


That is an extremely crappy attitude and I will not hide my disdain for it.


You've just committed the error again: "accommodate all potential issues." No. No one is asking for that. People are asking for reasonable accommodation of serious issues when said accommodation costs little to nothing for those accommodating, especially when it's extremely difficult for the person in need of accommodation to actually ask, due to the MANY social pressures to suffer silently or withdraw completely.

YOU are the one turning this into something monstrous. Stop.


Then why not take him at his word? You took him at his word for all the stuff before this. Why is this not the same way?


See above.


Okay. Have you not noticed the numerous, extensive times where we've mentioned that safety tools are about fostering conversations that can be incredibly difficult for people to have? That they're about showing respect to others? That they're about helping people work together, and require people to be reasonable participants in good faith?

Because it really seems like you're going out of your way to either pretend nobody ever mentioned that, or acting like every single person in this thread who has done so is lying about it, or somehow thinking that crappy, abusive uses of this stuff is somehow a HORRIBLE PLAGUE UPON BOTH YOUR HOUSES when actually such abuses are extremely rare.


I'm genuinely really confused by these two statements. On the one hand, you have a clear "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever." On the other, apparently one's spouse and children deserve a guarantee of accommodation...? This is a truly bizarre contrast.


Ah, so obviously the best thing to do is throw a big middle finger at them and never, ever care about their issues nor ever try to lift a finger to make their lives easier. They'd better suffer in silence for the family!

@Thomas Shey, see the moralizing being pushed back against here? We are in some form or another awful people with awful attitudes if we 1) don't agree and 2) don't accommodate. Something you yourself agreed wasn't necessary.

@EzekielRaiden how about you accommodate me by not making me into some awful person?

 

[Remathilis]

Because, the once a year gathering, is more important than a specific part of that gathering, especially in regards to.

1. Family.
2. Support for his brother's condition.

Which, is all well and good because its your friends BBQ, and he can set the rules.

Anyone who's married, and is going to tell me they wouldn't be accommodating for their wife (100%) or kids (lets be honest, less than 100%...) well, happy wife, happy life.

I have plenty of people in my extended family with mental health considerations, and yes that sometimes means they will skip out on a particular event because they know that its not something they can cope with, and everyone else gets on with enjoying the activity. Good luck trying to find an activity that fits 30+ at one of my family reunions and isnt going to set someone off.

You know what the people in my family with these issues hate most? Having people tie themselves in knots in an effort to be 'accommodating' thereby drawing even more attention to the issues which those people are desperate to be free from.

I think the question boils down to this: which is more important, the activity you are doing or the people you are doing them with? Your response indicates the activity is more important and in a conflict between doing something you want to do and spending time with someone you consider a friend, the former will win out over the latter.

And frankly speaking, that's sad.

 

[Scribe]

Like I have quite plainly said that there is content/subject matter I will walk away from, no questions asked. Does that make me a 'wuss'?