Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 7382469" data-attributes="member: 61529">"I just assume everyone will be emotionally healthy" is a pretty unusual thing, usually. Most people I know assume that at least some people are not emotionally healthy, and will need accommodations, and will be willing to make those accommodations. You've described a standard which specifically rules out ever changing things just because someone would be hurt by it, unless you think "emotionally healthy" people would be hurt by it. (And unless you've got a psych degree you haven't mentioned, or comparable experience, I'm not sure how qualified you are to make the evaluation.)This expectation is inconsistent with the observed fact that this thread alone is full of examples of people being distressed by things that people thought were totally reasonable in games. I mean, we have actual examples of gaming groups thinking it's totally reasonable to expect someone to roleplay out their character being raped. That seems to me to suggest that the question of whether or where there should be boundaries is probably one that merits discussion at some level.Roleplaying games, unlike most other hobbies, tend to involve some highly personal emotional reactions.See, I think this is where we diverge. I usually consider people I game with to be friends. I usually care whether my friends are hurt by my actions. I don't try to assign blame or determine whether it's "on me", because assigning blame is what you do when you want to hurt people and get away with it. But I would prefer to avoid hurting them in the first place.You just made it pretty clear that you're not extending allowances at all.I have seen a lot of people claim that handicapped parking laws are "abused" more than they're observed. I have never seen evidence for this, and I know that I have seen dozens of cases where someone asserted that something was an abuse, but in fact it was not. Not all disabilities are extremely obvious; it's quite possible for someone to be able to walk without a visible accommodation, but not to walk far without it, for instance.... I note that you went ahead and said exactly the thing, so I was right that I didn't need to wait for you to finish making the argument to respond to it. Yes, I'm familiar with those claims, they're based on people not understanding how disabilities work. It's really easy to not be the one experiencing the pain and say "nah that's just a convenience thing".Also consider that in some cases, it's perfectly reasonable to say "yeah, we do not wish to run a game like that". It's a lot better to tell someone up front that you're not willing to take a thing off the table than to have them get blind-sided by it. Thus, explicitly stating "we are not going to avoid any topics just because some people might find them upsetting" saves you time and actually makes things observably better. Thus my suggestion that you say the thing explicitly. That way, you avoid hurting people even if you don't wish to change to accommodate their needs.And that's fine! I don't like to have to filter my sense of humor, so I made a special channel called "deaddove" on my Discord and I post the stuff that people might find upsetting there, and some people opt in, and some people don't. No one is harmed by this, everyone's happier. If I'm running a game, and I think of a quip that's too dark for some players, I rot13 it and people can decrypt or not as they see fit. No hardship, everyone's happier.</blockquote>

Verification