Haven
-
@DrQuinn If an actual, real child is being actually assaulted via the mechanisms of the game, absolutely. (Note, I recognize that this is possible and happens and should absolutely be stopped, whether it’s passing CSAM or grooming underaged players, etc.)
But if we’re talking about consenting adults typing words then there are no children involved. If they play necrophilia, there are no corpses involved. Bestiality? No animals involved. Noncon of any type or flavor? No nonconsenting people involved.
In which case, what penalties do you wish the gaming community to inflict on the consenting adults typing the fictional words at each other? Or an entire game that allows such words to be typed at consenting adults?
-
@Pyrephox Yikes.
-
@Pyrephox said:
But if we’re talking about consenting adults typing words then there are no children involved. If they play necrophilia, there are no corpses involved. Bestiality? No animals involved. Noncon of any type or flavor? No nonconsenting people involved.I wouldn’t let anyone near my dog if I had reason to suspect they jerk off to the thought of fucking dogs.
People may pretend they believe that what people get off to says absolutely nothing of import about their personality structure, and that saying otherwise is tantamount to bigotry; but the range of sneering disgust to morbid fascination in this very thread proves that on some instinctive subconscious level, everyone knows this is false.
-
@Pyrephox said:
But if we’re talking about consenting adults typing words then there are no children involved. If they play necrophilia, there are no corpses involved. Bestiality? No animals involved. Noncon of any type or flavor? No nonconsenting people involved.I wouldn’t let anyone near my dog if I had reason to suspect they jerk off to the thought of fucking dogs.
People may pretend they believe that what people get off to says absolutely nothing of import about their personality structure, and that saying otherwise is tantamount to bigotry; but the range of sneering disgust to morbid fascination in this very thread proves that on some instinctive subconscious level, everyone knows this is false.
Yikes.
-
this is getting wildly over the paygrade of a MU hobby forum but i’ll just say that it’s real common for people to get titillated by taboo in fictional format that has literally zero presence in their real life attractions. because the human brain is fucking weird. oftentimes the taboo is doing all the heavy lifting.
-
I thought we were just dunking on the people that coded a system where you lose attractiveness points if you EAT TOO FAST and lose points for fucking someone unattractive but it’s ONLY IF THEY ARE A WOMENS. That’s fuckin’ nuts!! Here we are as a community dunking on it!! WHAT THE HECK
-
@Yam personally I think the uggo thing is the least problematic part of Haven when people are RPing 12 year olds getting tentacle trained but idk man
-
@bear_necessities That sucks too! It all sux! BOO HAVEN
-
I thought we were just dunking on the people that coded a system where you lose attractiveness points if you EAT TOO FAST and lose points for fucking someone unattractive but it’s ONLY IF THEY ARE A WOMENS. That’s fuckin’ nuts!! Here we are as a community dunking on it!! WHAT THE HECK
So like I’m confused, why does all this suck then?
What if I’m a guy and my kink is subby chicks who wanna be slut-shamed and told to wear make-up and heels or they’re not attractive. And if they’re not attractive I can’t be seen banging them because then I’d be seen as less attractive for having banged an uggo.
What if my five gfs are into that, who are you to tell us that sucks? Everyone consents! I mean maybe they’re desperate for the validation they derive from this game and the attention of its limited mens, and they know that if they say they don’t like it they’ll be told they aren’t cool and are annoying. And maybe I’m friends with staff, so they worry they’ll be excluded from story if they aren’t part of my inner circle. But so what! Still, they consent!
And if none of that makes you uncomfortable to think about then so be it, you’re ideologically consistent in also being a free speech absolutist who sees kinkshaming as tantamout to bigotry.
But if it does make you uncomfortable, then own up to the fact that you do not genuinely think that what two (or in this example six) adults type to each other on the internet to get off is, in fact, totally meaningless and harmless so long as the magic spell of “consent” was cast.
-
@Kestrel I was honestly just trying to make a thread and hear about what kind of game Haven was. It sounds bananas. I think that the shit that Jumpscare described is absolutely bonkers. I hope I made that clear! I thought it was so absurd that it didn’t need clarification, but I realize that things have gotten a bit muddied.
I don’t agree with some of the folk in this thread. Pure kink games kind of stick out like a sore thumb in this forum, and it feels like Haven was a pure kink game.
To be crystal clear, it’s fucked up. The SA button is fucked up, the coded sexism, anything with kids, christ, apparently that was also against the rules at Haven? I’m not sure, I didn’t look too hard at that thread. I think even Shang doesn’t allow the underage stuff? So it seems we as a community decide it was a no-go!
It’s fucked and it sucks! I can’t speak for anyone else. Genuinely sorry if I wasn’t clear.
-
Purely for clarification, paedophilia RP was not against Haven’s rules, as set out by Tyr and largely enforced by Discordance.
Daed, as story staff, largely did not have the authority to enforce rules, nor to act against players who irked his personal distaste. His job was just orchestrating the game’s overarching metaplot.
When he PK’d a character played by Tykune, whom he caught engaging in paedophilia RP, that was actually not within the technical scope of what he ought to have been doing as story staff. In the most technical sense, arguably that was an abuse of staff power. It’s just that literally no one was mad about it, except I guess for Tykune, who still crashes out about it on Reddit every so often. Also about being denied the right to play an anthropomorphic bunny rabbit by Legend of the Jedi’s staff, but that’s a whole other story.
I think I probably hold some sort of record for most forum-banned/channel-muted Haven player so it probably goes without saying that I don’t give a flying fuck about whether Daed was allowed to do that or not per Haven’s largely unwritten, vibes-based rules, and I’m not saying any of this to shame him, because I don’t think he was in the wrong.
But it’s probably a good example of how Wild West Haven’s community management style is, with no actual bannings or rules, just the unspoken expectations that players/staff will bully each other in a prolonged war of attrition if anyone does anything widely regarded as objectionable. Which doesn’t mean objectionable stuff didn’t happen. But if anyone is under the impression that Haven’s playerbase was largely fine with or involved in that stuff, that would be demonstrably incorrect. I guess it would be analogous to saying anyone still on Twitter is a Nazi paedophile because of Grok. I mean, I’m not on Twitter, I think Twitter sucks and we should boycott it, but a relative of mine is an incredibly unopinionated STEM professor who mostly just uses it to post links to recent studies and congratulate his students on their accomplishments.
-
-
I’m reluctant to make this post but I can’t not make this post.
It reads to me that, in the interest of avoiding kink-shaming, some suggestions have been made in this thread about how to approach determining whether something is okay to write about and that the line should be set where “the authors are consenting adults” and “no actual X are involved.”
I don’t agree. “No actual X are involved” allows any sort of activity to be written about and as long as it’s somebody’s kink this is meant to be okay. It frees me to open Auschwitz MU, so long as no actual Jews are involved. I strongly hold that there is a line where something being a kink does not excuse engaging with that topic unequivocally, where it should not be shielded from society condemning engaging with that topic, and that “no actual X involved” is a terrible test for drawing that line.
I agree that kink-shaming in most cases is bad. However, if your priors could lead you to write things like “no actual children are involved in AI-generated or artist-rendered CSM, so what is the harm?” you need to reexamine your priors.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login