Character Design & Hiding behind Offensive Roleplay Rules

[Engelbert]

4 minutes ago, Lurleen said:

Problem would be solved if those kind of RP werent allowed in the first place. Why would someone have fun RPing murdering children as you said? Rping wanting someone to live in missery? theres no need to recreate such things in game. People suffer for those things irl, thats why we dont have covid, wars or rape here.

 

I think what he meant is, that this option, to actually refuse something in roleplay poses a threat, because today it is torture roleplay, tomorrow it will be ban of shooting at teens of any kind and next day it can be something else.

[SCANDALOUZ]

8 minutes ago, Lurleen said:

Problem would be solved if those kind of RP werent allowed in the first place. Why would someone have fun RPing murdering children as you said? Rping wanting someone to live in missery? theres no need to recreate such things in game. People suffer for those things irl, thats why we dont have covid, wars or rape here.

 

But murdering happens all the time. Not children children, but young adults.

 

Revenge is realistic, why isn't a cruel one, too?

[Illusory]

Just now, SCANDALOUZ said:

But murdering happens all the time. Not children children, but young adults.

 

Revenge is realistic, why isn't a cruel one, too?

 

If your line in the sand between realistic and unrealistic consists of rape and torture I have questions for your local police department.

[high socks n big glocks]

u will survive without torture roleplay and the people that are cool with it will allow u to scratch that itch, no need to enforce a "standard" or anything like that

 

if people are being shitters and not accepting due consequence to their characters in proportion to the shit they've done, it's whatever. not everybody's gonna play fair and you can't force people to, it's an unfortunate reality but that's just the way it is

[SCANDALOUZ]

3 minutes ago, Sush said:

 

If your line in the sand between realistic and unrealistic consists of rape and torture I have questions for your local police department.

It's more to that. It's the damage to quality when people do actions, but refuse to take on the consequences of such actions.

 

If you don't kill children, you won't lose an arm, you can deny the RP/thing even if people try to make you lose one.

 

If you kill children tho, you shouldn't be allowed to hide behind rules not to lose an arm.

 

Y'see?

[Daquan Kingston]

Just now, SCANDALOUZ said:

It's more to that. It's the damage to quality when people do actions, but refuse to take on the consequences of such actions.

 

If you don't kill children, you won't lose an arm, you can deny the RP/thing even if people try to make you lose one.

 

If you kill children tho, you shouldn't be allowed to hide behind rules not to lose an arm.

 

Y'see?

This is subjective. Someone would say if you steal you should have the stealing hand cut. I think you should push for fear roleplay to avoid this resort on both ends in my humble opinion.

[SCANDALOUZ]

4 minutes ago, Daquan Kingston said:

This is subjective. Someone would say if you steal you should have the stealing hand cut. I think you should push for fear roleplay to avoid this resort on both ends in my humble opinion.

 

I just think there should be a simple exemption in the rules.

 

You steal a vegetable from a store, even of the mob owns it, you shouldn't be forced to acknowledge your character losing a hand.

 

Legitimately steal from the mob? Like, a stash of theirs? I think you should absolutely be obligated to at the very least FTB losing that hand and not go "this offends me", then walk away with a probably meaningless PK.

[SaintBatemanofWallStreet]

So after reading through this thread, the one thing I've gotten out of it is that 95% of the people who replied have actually missed the point of the thread because they're either virtue signal to OP that he shouldn't be doing this RP because it offends their delicate sensibilities or laughing at him and calling him a weirdo after virtue signaling.

 

He's not saying that we should be able to kill children by the bushel. He's not saying that people should be given carte blanche for rape. And I don't even know how the pedo shit got brought up, but I don't think I even need to say how much he's not asking for that to be repealed either. I don't think he's even saying we should be hacking off limbs like it's Europe in the 1300's.

 

What is being pointed out is there is a flaw in the rules that says if someone is uncomfortable RPing something, then it can't be allowed to be RP'd. Now in other communities that rule has meant it doesn't have to be roleplayed through. But for some reason in this one, it means can't happen.

 

That's the problem. Everywhere else it is faded to black and explained what would've happened and the characters would then just have to figure out their progression from there, or do what most people do when something bad happens to them on this server - act like it didn't happen after a day or so.

 

There have been characters - not just on this server, who have been some real brutal characters who have used people's willingness to let scenes play out how they may to their advantage, and when their character was meeting their end or getting a comeuppance for their transgressions, opted to say "I'm not comfortable with this RP. Can't happen." and are suddenly absolved of all their wrongdoings and skate on the consequences of it. That's the point. Shouldn't be allowed. When you put yourself on the hook for it, you should have to ride it out. Whether or not you choose to fade it to black every single time or when one of the parties is not comfortable with the RP in depth, the actions still exist. And once you're in that jackpot, what is being said is, that whatever you're opting to take part in, you shouldn't be able to opt out of when it's not working in your favor. Nobody is saying you can't fade to black. The discussion is that you shouldn't be able to say it can't happen.

This has not really been defended all that well and far too many people have piped up and just said "Yeah shouldn't be allowed to RP that anyways." Yeah. Heard you. Not the question.

 

Nobody asked whether your mall rat should be allowed to have a hand hacked off on a whim, or whether your hooker with a heart of gold, a meth addiction, perfect teeth and a sports car should be subjected to sexual assault at every turn.

 

It's about the people who are choosing to take part in the "offensive" roleplay hiding behind the rule when they've taken part in it, and the tables have turned against them and they opt out to not take the L.

[Koko]

I think this depends entirely on your level of involvement with an organization and the RP of the people, to be honest. It's a case by case basis. What if I scam and steal from a mobster and I don't know they're in a Crime Family IC? Would I then be subject to the whole fiery retribution?

 

Most if not all illegal groups have rules about interacting with their organizations. But ultimately this is all a matter of internal OOC consistency, and I fundamentally agree with the point that if you dish it you should be able to take it, but it's hard to word into a rule that's as objective and measurable as possible. Is it an eye-for-an-eye rule? Is it up for interpretation? If I do graphic, violent beatings on the street, does that imply that I should be cool with amputation?

 

See where I'm coming from? Something that's added to the rules like that has to not instantly become a matter of an admin having to sit with the Big Book of Logs to find out if Johnny Macaroni ever tortured someone in their past to see if they now have to accept torture perms. At that point I believe that an admin report is an easier way to solve individual issues as they come up.

[SCANDALOUZ]

45 minutes ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

So after reading through this thread, the one thing I've gotten out of it is that 95% of the people who replied have actually missed the point of the thread because they're either virtue signal to OP that he shouldn't be doing this RP because it offends their delicate sensibilities or laughing at him and calling him a weirdo after virtue signaling.

 

He's not saying that we should be able to kill children by the bushel. He's not saying that people should be given carte blanche for rape. And I don't even know how the pedo shit got brought up, but I don't think I even need to say how much he's not asking for that to be repealed either. I don't think he's even saying we should be hacking off limbs like it's Europe in the 1300's.

 

What is being pointed out is there is a flaw in the rules that says if someone is uncomfortable RPing something, then it can't be allowed to be RP'd. Now in other communities that rule has meant it doesn't have to be roleplayed through. But for some reason in this one, it means can't happen.

 

That's the problem. Everywhere else it is faded to black and explained what would've happened and the characters would then just have to figure out their progression from there, or do what most people do when something bad happens to them on this server - act like it didn't happen after a day or so.

 

There have been characters - not just on this server, who have been some real brutal characters who have used people's willingness to let scenes play out how they may to their advantage, and when their character was meeting their end or getting a comeuppance for their transgressions, opted to say "I'm not comfortable with this RP. Can't happen." and are suddenly absolved of all their wrongdoings and skate on the consequences of it. That's the point. Shouldn't be allowed. When you put yourself on the hook for it, you should have to ride it out. Whether or not you choose to fade it to black every single time or when one of the parties is not comfortable with the RP in depth, the actions still exist. And once you're in that jackpot, what is being said is, that whatever you're opting to take part in, you shouldn't be able to opt out of when it's not working in your favor. Nobody is saying you can't fade to black. The discussion is that you shouldn't be able to say it can't happen.

This has not really been defended all that well and far too many people have piped up and just said "Yeah shouldn't be allowed to RP that anyways." Yeah. Heard you. Not the question.

 

Nobody asked whether your mall rat should be allowed to have a hand hacked off on a whim, or whether your hooker with a heart of gold, a meth addiction, perfect teeth and a sports car should be subjected to sexual assault at every turn.

 

It's about the people who are choosing to take part in the "offensive" roleplay hiding behind the rule when they've taken part in it, and the tables have turned against them and they opt out to not take the L.

Thank you.