I’m out. Jumpscare’s in.

Jumpscare will be the main server admin. Your admin team is jumpscare, junipersky, and pyrephox.

https://brandmu.day/topic/697/tag-team-tez-out-jumpscare-in

I’m out. Jumpscare’s in.

Jumpscare will be the main server admin. Your admin team is jumpscare, junipersky, and pyrephox.

https://brandmu.day/topic/698/tag-team-tez-out-jumpscare-in

I asked the clanker to do it:

Each user turns it on from their own account settings.

1. Log in and click your avatar. In the default Harmony theme it’s at the bottom of the left sidebar on desktop, or in the bottom bar on mobile.
2. Choose Settings.
3. Scroll to the Signatures section near the bottom of the page and flip “Hide other users’ signatures” on.
4. Click Save changes. Signatures disappear on the next page you open.

To turn them back on, flip the switch off and save again.

https://brandmu.day/me/settings

Oh man I don’t know. So many good contenders this year. Backpack might be a fav. I need to think. I miss u grazer.

Or 131, 132, or 909. I need more!!

Those are last year’s bears. This year’s bears get revealed today:

https://www.youtube.com/live/dhDQHjOgfIc

@Meg Character vs Character as opposed to Player vs Player.

For a change of pace:

https://explore.org/fat-bear-week

BEGINNING NEXT WEEK

I did some thread surgery to remove Jumpscare as looking like the originator of a related thread. Apologies to anyone who was disrupted by that.

I did some thread surgery to remove Jumpscare as looking like the originator of this thread. Apologies to anyone who was disrupted by that.

ETA: Previous thread here: https://brandmu.day/topic/690/paroxysm-split-off

I don’t expect shy to come back and engage with the thread. I feel like they’ve stated their position and dipped.

But what I’m not clear on is if people will actually know what they are potentially signing up for when they join the game.

Not knowing is wild to me. I don’t think you can responsibly engage with SA, *isms, etc. as content in RP without people fully knowing what they are signing up for and consenting to engage in it. That is so foundational to how I engage with games. Even in PVP games. Even in Limited Consent games. Even in Non Consent games. You know what you are signing up for.

I don’t think you can responsibly RP about these things without that.

@Shygaming said:

That is actually one of the reasons I don’t want a preference flag for it in Paroxysm. If I wanted to facilitate CNC RP then an opt in system would make perfect sense. I don’t.

That also doesn’t mean someone has to sit there and explicitly RP an assault they don’t want to write. Fade to black exists. You can draw boundaries around what has to be depicted without making whether the event itself can happen dependent on whether somebody finds the scenario appealing OOC.

I completely understand the argument for banning SA outright. I think that is a coherent policy. I also understand allowing it as part of a setting where players know what they are signing up for.

I just think “SA is allowed but only when everyone involved wants SA RP” produces something very different from either of those things.

Players joining your game will know what they are signing up for, then, right? No, uh, jumpscares in cgen? Like there will be a big button on the login screen that says ‘by playing here you will be exposed to SA and may not opt out’, right?

Like people know this? Yes? Along with whatever other terrible things are possible?

@hellfrog No!!! I could watch the Cher show outfit reveals for hours.

@Third-Eye said:

@Tez said:
There’s something to be said about the fact that we are more comfy with killing someone. This might not be the best venue for that, but there is something to be said.

I think there’s a mischaracterization here of how at least some games, including ones I’ve been a part of, draft rules around this and Social Contract type language. It’s not like rape RP is always put in its own box as the only thing anyone cares about. Sometimes it is but it’s often not. These have also included broad language on what kind of violence is and isn’t going to be involved in plots, how physical and psychological torture is handled, etc. I’ve seen red/yellow/green lights players list on their character pages becoming more common and like…some of it’s sex, some of it’s torture, some of it’s spiders.

I think the social contracts are a great way to frame out what is okay and what isn’t: PC vs NPC, on-cam vs off-cam, backgrounds or worlds or stories. I love them. I think they are a great tool. And you’re right! Games definitely break down violence in the same way.

But I was specifically addressing the point made in the post rather than social contracts and the way games break down violence and how they engage with it. I didn’t mean to characterize or speak to any game with a social contract addressing that. I was just narrowly addressing the post. Just to be clear.

@Nelly said:

I’m just sort of confused, what’s the end game here in a game that enables this? Your character becomes a pariah and known as the person who rapes people and is now on the short-list for an early retirement/character death?

A couple of quick points: your reply presumes that allowing the subject means that the only way you would encounter it is with PCs as perpetuators. From what I have seen, though, even PCs as victims – on-cam or off – is not allowed. Games no longer tell these stories at all.

Just looking to media, the category of redeemed rapist is really not a well explored space because no one is interested in them being redeemed. Redeemed murderer? Accidentally killed someone and now you’re the town pariah? Murdered your arch enemy in cold blood and now are trying to cover the tracks? This is a lot more interesting for all characters involved.

There’s something to be said about the fact that we are more comfy with killing someone. This might not be the best venue for that, but there is something to be said. I will grant that we probably can’t actually speak to any victims of murder. We aren’t RPing with those people every day, while every day we are RPing with victims of SA. That does make a difference. I won’t pretend it doesn’t.

But. There’s a tension there.

@Kestrel I would suggest not tagging people into this thread given the subject matter.

@Jennkryst said:

@Pavel said:

Code should never override a player’s agency in such a way; it is anathema to how I believe MU stories should be told.

Hyperbolic example that is hyperbolic on purpose because I think there are some things that should actually be enforced, roleplay vs rollplay (everyone take a drink!):

I dodge the attack, even though you rolled eleventy-billion successes and it cannot be dodged, getting hit affects my agency.

nah

@Pavel said:

3. Player(s) do not consent; game code forces/enables the assault anyway.

#3 is out, period. Code should never override a player’s agency in such a way; it is anathema to how I believe MU stories should be told.

This was the thing that I found most immediately jarring about Jumpscare’s story. That shit was wild.

There’s also a list of, like, three people I’d trust to run a place that has SA-RP not specifically banned and part of why I trust them to do so is precisely because they wouldn’t want to.

YEAH. Like – Third Eye made a point that SA content probably exists plenty on games I’m not playing. Hearing people talk about it over the course of the day has increasingly convinced me that it is … difficult to imagine a world where random Joes can be trusted to run with such difficult themes.

Like, IDK, maybe the internet isn’t great at nuance.

I was talking to a buddy today and I think one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with what can feel like the sanitization of themes is because there is so much external pressure in the real world that threatens to sanitize whatever the current culture finds uncomfy.

Trans kids. Queer artists. Sexual content in general, when you look at payment processors.

It’s tough.

@Kestrel said:

@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.

@Third-Eye said:

Is there a lack of these places?

This is an actual question since it’s not really a space I play in, so I’m working off some suppositions that may not be accurate here. But I think you might also be perceiving a lack of it because of the spaces you typically play in and the people you typically play with.

lmfao

That’s … pretty fair. You’re right, I’m sure. There are places. They just aren’t places I’ve generally felt interested in because of the rest of the milieu, so to speak.

…Sex games and fetish RP isn’t really what the question is about, though, I think. But this thread was prompted by a non-sex (or at least non we’re all about sex all the time idk that guys’ life) game that has literal coded ways to handle rape RP…

Yes, tho. I’m largely talking about outside of the sex game sphere. I suspect that’s the only place you see SA. I think Jumpscare was right: once you allow it, that is What Your Game Is.

I just wish it wasn’t, I guess. That it wasn’t always fetish or sex game material.

Yeah, I’d agree. In my past the players I’ve had try to push SA plots are … exactly the people I don’t trust with them. I’ve shut it down. I roll my eyes about how many male-presenting writers ‘add depth’ by raping a female-presenting character. I groan about Game of Thrones and stopped watching it.

There’s a reason the community is generally aligned against it.

But, damn, puriteens make me uncomfy. There has to be a space between the gross and the sanitized.