In-Fiction Sexual Exploitation: blarrrrgh
James_Nostack:
So there's a certain degree of "James, your point is wrong because you are thin-skinned" going on in this thread.
Whether my skin is too thin isn't the issue. The (lack of) severity of exploitation in this specific case isn't the issue. They were the baseline facts of this Actual Play report. I'm happy to discuss other people's Actual Play in this thread, but mine is mine. We don't have to game together.
What's at issue, from my perspective, is whether the following logical inference is, or is not, valid, starting from given axioms:
The Axioms
A. Let's assume that there exists some condition of play which you find objectionable.
B. Prior to play you assumed (possibly with justification, possibly without) that these conditions would not obtain.
C. The condition obtains due to the actions of another player
D. You communicate your desire to avoid these conditions--maybe not strongly enough, but so a reasonable person would understand
E. The other player persists in enforcing those conditions, directed specifically toward you.
I'm not going to discuss whether these axioms were valid, fair, or whatever.
The Logical Inferences
1. If the other player knew this behavior was unwelcome (and there's indications he did but it's arguable, so if), then he's a dick
2. People don't like playing with dicks (or may feel bad about acting like dicks), so it's important to handle consent issues prior to play
3. If you don't explicitly/implicitly discuss consent ahead of time, don't be 100% surprised if someone does something objectionable
4. If you decide to press ahead without knowing if you have consent, don't be surprised if someone objects
5. If you're genuinely unsure whether someone's given consent, it's probably safest to assume it wasn't given.
Does anyone dispute those inferences? If so, which ones?
Apparently #5 is controversial, but it seems to be how most non-gamers live their lives most of the time with respect to sensitive issues, recognizing that it's always possible to make mistakes in good faith about when consent was or wasn't given. E.g., in Greyorm's example, you'd figure that after two years of hanging around "yo mama" jokes the guy's given consent, so Greyorm wasn't in the wrong, he just make an understandable mistake. And I'll grant that maybe the Earwig player genuinely didn't know I was withholding consent--I find it hard to believe, but maybe that's possible, and if so it's just a "hey, my bad, man" situation on both our parts.
James_Nostack:
Quote
I'm not going to discuss whether these axioms were valid, fair, or whatever.
Ooops! Editing error - please read that to include,
"Because those were the facts here. Maybe there are situations with different facts, but if so they yield a different set of inferences."
Callan S.:
If your saying their logical inferences as in all other people would also come to the same conclusions - well, do most people logically infer the same things as yourself, without prompting?
My own experience is that the vast bulk don't. Nor with each other (whether they would admit it or not). From my experiences, you can't rely on anyone coming to the same logical conclusion, ever.
Jeff B:
James,
I disagree with #2 of your inferences: "It is important to obtain consent before play." No, it is not important because the type of consent you are talking about is implicit in any social interaction. What you experienced was an out-of-game issue with harassment. It is pointless to try and capture such situations within the game mechanics. The only thing you can do is avoid socializing (including gaming) with people who have no social skills or boundaries.
There is no need to defend your reaction of being offended and uncomfortable. Your experience could have happened during any activity, anywhere with that group. The only solution is to find socially functional people to play the game with and avoid the others. The viewpoint that "anything is fair unless expectations are expressly set" are clinging to a socially pathetic position, equivalent to a small child screaming that nobody told him he *couldn't* snip off the cat's tail. It is like a 12-year-old saying that spraypainting the school is his interpretation of art, or of play, and therefore he shouldn't be suspended. Such arguments are thoroughly without merit.
Socialized people are socialized people. Mr. Earwig and his friend simply are not. Furthermore, all the rest of the players were unprepared for this, as apparently nobody else at the table objected.
The situation and the actions taken by earwig, et. al. were clearly wrong. The possible lesson is how to apply that experience to the future, to avoid being left feeling bad about what happened. As to whether this sort of thing should be addressed by rules, that's ludicrous. That's like saying Monopoly rules should tell people not to swallow the dice or start a bonfire with the paper money.
Jeff
James_Nostack:
Jeff, obviously I'm inclined to agree, but I would add the following caveats:
(1) I don't think anybody here is arguing in bad faith (and I'm not sure you're implying they were)
(2) It's entirely possible that the Earwig player is a decent dude and, for whatever reason, didn't realize that his behavior was annoying me. And even if he's a jackass, well, all he did was make my Saturday a little less pleasant for no good reason. Other people in the world have far bigger problems.
(3) I'm totally fine with a no-Lines, no-Veils style of play, when there's some notice given. I don't think this kind of behavior is necessarily abusive so long as there's (often implicit) consent - I just don't think that a stranger's consent should be automatically assumed in gaming, any more than it should be automatically assumed elsewhere in one's life.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page