D&D General Ravenloft, horror, & safety tools...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vaalingrade

Legend
Sigh. Forget it. You guys want a monster. That ins't what I am. But you also can't see how ridiculous this is and how obvious it is there is BS afoot. I don't know what else to say. Maybe I am old and out of touch. I think this stuff is causing people to behave in much more negative and unhealthy ways. Just based on the wisdom I've gained being alive four decades, it isn't an idea I can get behind.
Also closing on four decades. Difference is I'm not trying to push a dangerous conspiracy theory that justifies being insensitive because of some idea that people are faking their feelings or whatever with absolutely no evidence. I used my wisdom to not get roped into dangerous beliefs to protect my worldview that people should handle their mental issues on their own an that the people around them have no role or responsibility.

I mean, honestly: 'social script'?

And going back to the 'well people will dismiss mental issues because of people 'faking'' deal. You know who is the problem there? The jerks being dismissive of people. Every time. Because they're using the idea of people 'faking' to justify being bad people.

Edit: Also? 40 is nowhere near old enough to use 'out of touch' as an excuse.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
The routine is one where people declare subjective arguments objective truth and demand people agree with those arguments. It is just not how real conversation works.
That's not how truth works. You don't get to choose which parts of reality to believe and which to reject. I clearly outlined my reasoning in my rebuttal post to you, but dismissed it without even giving a good-faith response (that isn't to say that I expected one, but it would have been a welcome surprise). Good faith discussion requires sincere and truthful response and rebuttal, not "I dislike what you said so I'm not even going to respond to it".

I don't think I want to know what your definition of "real conversation" is.
 

That's not how truth works. You don't get to choose which parts of reality to believe and which to reject. I clearly outlined my reasoning in my rebuttal post to you, but dismissed it without even giving a good-faith response (that isn't to say that I expected one, but it would have been a welcome surprise). Good faith discussion requires sincere and truthful response and rebuttal, not "I dislike what you said so I'm not even going to respond to it".

I don't think I want to know what your definition of "real conversation" is.

It was about the third or fourth post that had that quality to it. I am sorry but I just can't engage that kind of tone in a conversation
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
I could argue your conclusion is selection bias as well (you are assuming all the people who are expressing these things all legitimately need safety tools, and that might not be the case). I think there is a lot of room for debate here. And I think it would be foolish for us to deny when we sense things are getting a little out of control on this front.
It’s not up to you what other people need. It’s not up to you to police the truth of what other people say. It’s surreal to have to explain that to a 43-year-old man. I’m older than you, by the way. I absolutely see the value of safety tools.

There is literally zero harm in believing people and taking them at their word that they prefer, like, or need the safety tools you already use laid out in a formal way.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
The form is meant to START the conversation, not replace it

It's there to make sure you know what to ask rather than missing something because you don't consider it a potential trigger
and it's a bad "start" because it fails at providing information. You& @AcererakTriple6 have literally ignored every reason I gave for it being bad & repeatedly just thrown the responsibility of doing anything more than checking a box on a form that gets presented as some kind of thing the GM is entirely responsible for
"I'm not going to have human decency unless I get paid for it!!!" is a very "strange" rebuttal, to say the least.

They are sharing the responsibility. They're doing that when they fill out the form. They're doing it when they agree to purposefully avoid other people's triggers. You're the ringleader. It's on you to ask for clarification if you don't understand. It's not on the form to fix everything. Again, the form is the tool, not the solution.
No I'd call it strange to expect GMs to behave like they are being paid in order to avoid even talking about any of the reasons why a details box is important. Also both of you keep in mind bob checked a yellow box not red


Also what the heck does it tell me when Alice does this?
1619576862976.png
 

I used my wisdom to not get roped into dangerous beliefs to protect my worldview that people should handle their mental issues on their own an that the people around them have no role or responsibility.

Perhaps you are being roped into a dangerous belief is my point
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
Oh bob will be thrilled if I say that across the table one day because your literally arguing that it's unreasonable for me to expect bob to take some share of the responsibility by filling out a details box on a form that only has a checkbox.
Why on earth would you say that across the table when pulling someone aside or sending them an email or DM are options?

I have other players, I'm am not bob's therapist, & I've also never met a DM who gets paid for being a GM. Bob needs to share some responsibility & the form needs to include a place for him to do that or the form is a bad tool.
As per above: email or DMs. "Hey, if there's something not on the form, just send me a note about it."
 

I could argue your conclusion is selection bias as well (you are assuming all the people who are expressing these things all legitimately need safety tools, and that might not be the case). I think there is a lot of room for debate here. And I think it would be foolish for us to deny when we sense things are getting a little out of control on this front.
You're still assuming a significant percentage of gamers are misrepresenting their desire for safety tools

Everyone has a line they don't want crossed
Everyone
 

Remathilis

Legend
No, I am saying there are two groups of people A) people with real mental health issues and B) people who are following a social script for other reasons. My point is Jackholes will inevitably dismiss group A more if group B is given permission to flourish (this is by the way exactly what happened to people who have celiac disease at restaurants which is why I brought up that example: people who had mild issues or just thought gluten made them fuzzy, but clearly didn't have a real medical condition, made such a production of it all the time, real celiacs get dismissed. That is just the natural result of allowing that kind of performative behavior to go unchecked. I am not saying it is right. But it is a logical outcome that you can see a mile away if you've lived long enough

"There are two groups of people. A.) Those who, by circumstances beyond thier control cannot work and need assistance to survive (the deserving poor) and B.) Lazy Jackholes who don't want to work and would rather survive on charity (the undeserving poor). Since some people who could work but don't want to could get charity, the only way to make sure the undeserving poor don't get benefits is to make sure the deserving don't either. Some people might suffer unjustly, but it's a small price to pay to make sure no one abuses the system."

Yeah, I've heard that one before. When you're interest is in preventing systemic abuse rather than using the system to help, every system looks like a bad idea.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
It was about the third or fourth post that had that quality to it. I am sorry but I just can't engage that kind of tone in a conversation
Oh, you mean when I started asking for evidence and saying that evidence is necessary for a good faith debate? I can see how that would be an issue with your current stance.
Up to that point I responded to your reasons.
That doesn't mean that you were arguing in good faith. It just means that you were arguing. There's a big difference between music and noise. What came across was a lot of noise.
 


That doesn't mean that you were arguing in good faith. It just means that you were arguing. There's a big difference between music and noise. What came across was a lot of noise.

Arguing in good faith, doesn't mean I have to automatically accept your positions because you make points.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
and it's a bad "start" because it fails at providing information. You& @AcererakTriple6 have literally ignored every reason I gave for it being bad & repeatedly just thrown the responsibility of doing anything more than checking a box on a form that gets presented as some kind of thing the GM is entirely responsible for
Probably because your reasons for saying it's a bad form are themselves bad. If the form doesn't have everything you need on it or isn't formatted in the way you like, then make one of your own or include a second sheet of paper. Or tell the player to write up their thing the way they want to.
 

"There are two groups of people. A.) Those who, by circumstances beyond thier control cannot work and need assistance to survive (the deserving poor) and B.) Lazy Jackholes who don't want to work and would rather survive on charity (the undeserving poor). Since some people who could work but don't want to could get charity, the only way to make sure the undeserving poor don't get benefits is to make sure the deserving don't either. Some people might suffer unjustly, but it's a small price to pay to make sure no one abuses the system."

Yeah, I've heard that one before. When you're interest is in preventing systemic abuse rather than using the system to help, every system looks like a bad idea.

Jeez. Okay first off, I am fiscally liberal and believe in strong social safety nets and social programs for the needy. So this argument doesn't have anything to do with the one I am making. You are not arguing with a conservative here if that is what you think.
 



Remathilis

Legend
Jeez. Okay first off, I am fiscally liberal and believe in strong social safety nets and social programs for the needy. So this argument doesn't have anything to do with the one I am making. You are not arguing with a conservative here if that is what you think.
I won't argue with your political leanings, but merely point out you have co-opted some of their language and rhetoric to prove your point.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top