route_006 | HMD | June 2012

Entry tags:

how's my driving

HMD | June 2012

EVALUATE MY BATTLING!

TRAINER TIPS:
→ This is encouraged, not mandatory. We will not penalize you for not using it.
→ Feel free to link your personal HMDs if you would like, just in case someone doesn't want to use the mass HMD post.
→ this is more for actual critique and discussion. Please don't just blindly praise a person or just call them horrible. If someone's doing a wonderful job, you can tell them, just tell them why, or even where they're showing off bonus perks. If someone's doing a not-so-wonderful job, tell them why, give them things to improve on if you can. Examples, links, things that can give them something to work on. Meaning, no bashing, flaming, or nasty behavior. Please keep it civil.
→ Anonymous is turned on! But note: anonymous is a privilege, not a right. If it's being abused to bash players, please be sure to let one of us know and we'll step in or freeze threads if necessary. If anonymous is abused too much, it will be turned off for the next HMD.
→ Don't take this all too personally! Remember that roleplay is a game, and crit is supposed to help, not make you feel horrible. No one is perfect, we've all got room to improve. Please keep that in mind.

→ MOD/GAME HMD

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Honestly it kind of weirds me out that Caster is in a game like this in the first place, but sure.

Anon, we've had Hannibal Lector in Route. We've had scientific experiments, the scientists who created those experiments, murderers, drug addicts, and numerous people who torture others in this game. We've never said anything against characters or people who wish to app them, so long as their character can interact with the game as a whole. That's been in play since Route was first opened.

If we took out Caster, we'd have to ban a good slew of characters overall. Plus, this character has actually been in game for over two months now. If there had been an issue with the character being in game at all, someone should have said something to us when they were first brought in.

I agree that we shouldn't ban characters on principle, based solely on their canon or what they do there. If they can be functional in the game, then really, by all means, let them in. But I can see where the anon above is coming from, as I think the problem they're having with Caster is that his entire deal is that he murders/tortures/arguably rapes children. There basically are no other traits, outside of his fixation on Saber, that we're given in canon.

Hannibal Lecter isn't exactly comparable here, because he has other traits - he's enough of a psychological clusterfuck that things can be done with him in-game outside of the cannibalism aspect. This is more comparable to apping, say, the villain from Enzai, who does have traits that make him a valid character and able to be apped, but at the end of the day he's a rapist from a yaoi game. That is why he exists, first and foremost - to rape and torture the character. A lot of people would find his existence in the game itself to be triggering, or at least enough to make them very, very wary and made of side-eye.

I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, because banning characters based on canon would result in a lot of lines being drawn that you understandably do not want to draw. I'm just saying that I think this is where they're coming from - it's not "ban all negative characters!", it's "this character exists only to carry out actions that serve as triggerbait, it bothers me that they're here."

I can understand that. But that's also where players need to come forth and say, if not to the player directly then at least to one of the mods, that the presence of a character like Caster or Guildias is enough to bother them by being in game in general, so we can make sure this sort of thing doesn't risk getting pushed upon them. Caster was in the game for two months and Mei was only told by one person that Caster was triggering enough to not be played with. She made sure to avoid bringing it up and didn't play with that person at all to keep them from being upset by her character. We can't just magically know who is upset enough to not want a character in play. Some players--many of them with this playerbase, oddly enough--seem perfectly fine with a character like this in game. And those who do not need to let us know.

I understand your point, and I'm not trying to argue you in any way. I'm just trying to stress that people need to communicate with us as well, if not directly when an incident occurs then at least somewhere when they're informed or know of a character like that in game. If general locks and warnings everywhere aren't enough for those to be upset to know to avoid it, then they need to let us know so we can make more precautions around it.

Howeer, I'm relieved that people came to us now, especially since it's early on in the start of the plot and this can be fixed.

...I'm the anon you replied to directly above, for reference; this got wordy, my typing style is recognizable, and I personally see no reason to remain anon at this point, so. Here I am.

Nah, don't worry, I'm not taking it as an argument - I personally don't have a problem with Caster being in the game, and I wouldn't have a problem with Guildias, either. I've played plenty of questionable characters myself - Guildias being one of them - and I definitely understand that my scroll wheel is my best friend when it comes to those sorts of things. And if the players can make characters like that compelling for others to play with, that's really great, actually - horrendous characters like that can be really interesting to work out and bounce off the setting.

But while I realize that Route has never been G-rated/kid-friendly/safe for...brain, it's one of those things where it does have a reputation based on premise. It's going to be seen as a Pokémon game before anything else. It's also a really slice-of-life Pokémon game most of the time. Characters like Caster or Guildias would not be seen as out-of-place in, say, Dirty Vegas, where the entire premise is based around sex and sin, but they would get some side-eye here based on the setting alone, hence the "Why is Caster even in this game" - some characters are just more compatible with the setting, and Caster might be pinging some as really inappropriate. People's expectations are also different in games like DV - I've never actually played there myself, but based on premise alone I would understand that sort of post being made there; I wouldn't join a game based Pokémon and expect to be greeted with an hour-long video of a child being tortured. I can't speak for the anon above me, but I don't think that most people are triggered by Caster's presence; they're just kind of wondering how this is appropriate.

Like the OP below, I don't have a problem with sensitive material being played out; the problem I had with it is that, as it was presented, it felt like I had the options of either responding to something that upset me, or bending my characterization to avoid it. I avoided commenting here last night because that was upsetting me, and I knew that I would have a kneejerk response I would regret after I was no longer upset. (I also need to apologize to Ara, as I know I flipped the hell out on her last night; I'll do that whenever I see her tonight.) I can see where you're coming from now a bit better, but at the time it felt really odd and unfair that this plot would be justified because it's within the IC scope for the character, but people who were uncomfortable with the plot had to bend their characterization to avoid it.

Honestly, the reason it was so upsetting to me is the knowledge that it was going on in an open post; the best way I can think of to describe it is along the lines of listening to two people you care about having a very loud, scary argument in the next room over, while you're in your room with the door closed. You don't have to get involved in the argument, as it doesn't concern you; you can put headphones on, turn up the volume and ignore it. At the same time, the knowledge that it's happening literally a wall away and you are in a position to step in, you're just too scared to intervene, is upsetting. I think this is a large aspect of what's bothering people, and why they feel pressured by things like this being openly broadcast to the network - it's not that it's a disturbing thing, it's that it's a disturbing thing that you should be doing something about. That's why posts like that to public networks like the 'Gear don't tend to go over well at all and tend to lead to a lot of upset in-game; it's not intentional pressure, but it's there.

I personally think the alternative of making it more obviously opt-in is a fair compromise that doesn't sacrifice anyone's ability to be IC, but obviously it's up to you guys, ultimately, to decide where this goes. I definitely appreciate that you're willing to be civil with us about it, and that you're taking the time to listen to our concerns and try to find a solution. It's one of those things where I don't think everyone will be 100% happy no matter what's done, but I think better communication overall would be good - I don't expect you to read minds and if others are bothered/upset they do need to tell you (and I have talked to Mei about Caster, and she's been very good about avoiding pressuring me since then), but to be fair to them I was also under the impression in the plotting post that this would be much more private/opt-in than it ended up being. I don't think you guys are horrible people or being incompetent or anything, I just think that everyone needs to communicate a bit more when it comes to really sensitive material.

...that was pretty much a really tl;dr "I agree with this", but hopefully it got my thoughts on this across a bit more clearly than I have been.

I'm just an uninvolved player as you are, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but as much as I agree that grimdark or triggering characters need to be played carefully, I just can't get behind the idea that the mere presence of them being in a game, being played, is going to need to require a bunch of IC safeguards.

Just as it would be ooc for characters to ignore the post, it might also be ooc for a troubling event to be broadcast to a select few people (who might not have anything to do with the characters involved but still want to get involved themselves).

Ultimately, this post was FRIENDSLOCKED, PLACED BEHIND A CUT, AND HAD A TRIGGER-WARNING.

Even if ICly the post is being placed on a public venue, the sheer number of ooc measures taken to prevent anyone from having to look at it if they don't want to be involved should really speak for themselves. Things happen in RP every day that make people uncomfortable (myself included, some of them even in this game) and sometimes it's not always possible to 'stay IC' while still staying comfortable. Posts like this don't happen often in Route, so it's not a matter of having to constantly ignore upsetting material (if that were the case, I'd say yeah, it WOULD be a question of 'why is this character even here'), it's a rare occurrence that was planned in advance (even if it was apparently planned poorly), locked and warned for. Bad things happen in real life and in RP. The nice thing about RP is that we can have them happen but give people the ooc option to NOT LOOK, to avoid the players in question, to say that their characters were otherwise occupied or did not see it. They're not glued to their 'Gears 24/7, and because it's NOT a constant occurrence there's nothing 'stretching' about just saying the network glitched out and your character never saw the post.

Yes, word of mouth happens, but word of mouth would happen regardless of whether the post was publicized to the whole network or not and you can still just ask people to not have their characters mention it to yours. I have done this before when I found material upsetting and didn't want my character involved and the vast majority of players have always been happy to help me stay out of it, the players of said material included.

Forcing the players (who took care to make sure no one would have to look oocly if they didn't want to) to alter the events for IC reasons, imo, comes way too close to "I don't like having this in the game so you need to play it differently and make your characters ooc so that mine can stay IC" even though you as a player were not required to be involved.

I understand that you in NO way intended it to come off this way and that it's obviously a sensitive subject for you, but comparing locked, cut content that had a trigger warning on it to a REAL-LIFE situation that can't be escaped from actually very much offends me, as it comes off as dramatic and emotionally manipulative. Putting on headphones to escape an upsetting situation in real life just outside your door is nothing, NOTHING like scrolling past a hidden post on the internt that the creators have explicitly warned you about and have no desire to make you participate in or even read it.

I have triggers too and there is a very, very big difference between fearfully trying to drown them out in real life in a situation I can't actually get out of beyond going behind a door or flimsily building up a mental wall, and having someone playing something out in a game I'm in, where I am not in any way being forced to deal with it at all, even if ICly I have a character who would want to help. They don't have to see it, and neither do I.

I guess this got kind of tl;dr too, but I felt it was really important to say. I think your heart is in the right place and I know you didn't mean to upset with this, but I'm actually very uncomfortable being in a game where something I might want to play out with all the appropriate ooc warnings and safeguards would be compared to an abusive situation that cannot be escaped IRL. This doesn't sound like an environment I'd feel okay about playing in, especially with what feels like an emotionally-manipulative argument like that being made for what is essentially policing content that didn't break any rules and was warned for.

well. i would personally argue about whether or not it was ic for the character to carry it out like this, myself.

there's actually a situation in fate/zero similar to the one that was played out here where caster murders several children in order to get saber to admit she's jeanne. he does it by bringing the children directly to her and threatening/murdering them in front of her instead of making a public spectacle out of it. he doesn't exactly try very hard to cover his tracks which causes another character to catch on to what he's doing, but it is very clearly meant to be set up for saber only.

so yeah. caster contacting robin privately would have actually matched his canonical modus operandi better and would have been more comfortable for the rest of the game. it would have made for a situation that would have allowed for 'rescuer' characters to opt into the plot but the rest of the game could ignore.

also keep in mind that due to confusing communication, it was repeatedly implied that there would be more broadcasts like this one. after a while, if your character had close contact with robin or any of the victims you would really have to push it to ignore this plot, which is seriously uncomfortable.

honestly, nobody is saying that these plots aren't allowed. i would personally compare it to juggling. in a standard plot, you're juggling with soft, foam balls, so you can do whatever you want, really. you could juggle right in the middle of a crowd. if you miss a ball or accidentally throw it at someone the worst you'll have to deal with is them getting annoyed.

in a plot that involves sensitive material, you're juggling knives or chainsaws or something, which looks really cool if you pull it off right but you have to be way more careful about it. you need to have a lot of space around you so you don't actually hurt anyone, and other people involved in your act should be people who you know can handle a thing like this.

Thanks for clarifying, OP, I understand and think you have a very good point!

I admit it was mostly the unanon player's comparison to RL triggering situations and implication that playing out such material in 'IC Public' at ALL was somehow like dealing with a triggering situation right outside the bedroom door and being unable to get away with it that spurred me to comment. It was... very, very upsetting to me.

I wasn't planning on getting involved in this discussion at all originally, but reading that felt sort of like a slap in the face and, I felt, crossed some serious lines when it comes to this debate about the original post being problematic.

You, the OP, have some very reasonable arguments that I don't see any problem with at all.

*get away FROM it

Whoops.

I admit that the comparison was problematic, but I have some very, very specific triggers in regards to the situation as-presented. You have no knowledge of me or my situation, and you have no way to know that those situations aren't comparable for me, specifically. To say nothing of the fact that as the OP stated, it was incredibly OOC for the character in question - I play from Fate/Zero, I'm aware of Caster's modus operandi. The result was that this felt like it was done entirely for shock value, from right out of nowhere, and when I asked one of the mods privately whether this was going to be an ongoing thing I got an incredibly vague answer that did not tell me whether this was going to happen again or not, coupled with a literal "Well, I'm sorry you were offended." Part of my issues regard having the aftermath of my situation completely disregarded. So yes, that is what it feels like to me, individually, because of my specific situation.

I was feeling incredibly unsafe in the game due to the fact that I mentioned I was uncomfortable and it was not made plain at any time that this was going to be a rare/one-off thing. If anything it was implied more heavily that it would be ongoing, given that it was supposedly IC for Caster to do such things. I wanted to know if this would happen again out of nowhere, and I got a shrug, a vague response, and whether it was intentional or not, a non-apology that put everything on me. That isn't an atmosphere I could feel safe in at all.

Obviously I don't know what kind of conversation went on between you and the mods, and I'm very sorry that your triggers are serious enough that this situation feels unsafe to you.

But as I stated, your response, too, was very problematic and actually quite offensive. I apologize for this because I fully believe you are sincere and earnest in what you are saying and didn't mean to hurt anyone, but I still cannot take a comparison to RL triggering situations to one that you (general you) can reasonably avoid seriously, whether or not it is bending character or seeing ooc behavior in the 'problematic' post in question. Being stuck in a room while people scream and shout outside the door is horrible and upsetting, as can being in a game with players who are doing something that you find uncomfortable, but they are honestly not the same.

Online posts are something that can be ignored, x'd out of, and avoided- even if it's frustrating and upsetting (and I fully believe that it is, so please don't think that I'm saying you should be completely fine and dandy with it.) to have to do so. Even if it's something that may be going on a lot, which judging from the responses here I do not think it is (regardless of whatever vague answers you were given, mods have responded here saying that they are working on a solution.). Players can be avoided, ooc contact can be cut off. It's a sucky situation all around, but there are solutions that don't involve anyone being forced to take part in a plot that upsets them.

Even if you have specific triggers that were set off by the post, it was still warned for, it was still hidden behind a cut, and it still had to be clicked on in order to be read at all. Even if it's extremely upsetting to you that it's happening at all, it is just flat-out not the same as being trapped in a bad situation IRL. No one in this game would ever find fault with you or anyone else for avoiding a plotline that makes you feel uncomfortable, because ultimately ooc comfort trumps being IC, always.

I understand that you had your reasons for making the comparison, but just as aspects of this situation have obviously been hurtful to you, that kind of comparison is hurtful to me, and possibly even other people with triggers/who have been in abusive situations IRL as well. I can't speak for them, obviously, but just as you have stated your feelings, I am stating mine.

It's true, I don't know anything about your personal life situation and I never claimed to, but no matter what circumstances are behind it, I personally don't feel safe or comfortable in a game where extremely problematic arguments like that are being made against posts that, while possibly still problematic themselves, still had ooc warnings and measures taken to keep them from being forced on people who did not want to be involved. Even if you intended it to demonstrate the weight of your feelings, on the flip-side it comes off as making light of those real-life situations by comparing it to an avoidable one online.

All of this. I don't get why people couldn't listen to the trigger warnings in place and just avoid what was there. It isn't like you're being forced in the situation, you don't have to read it.

Like Sunny and the anon above me said, nobody will blame anyone for avoiding stuff that's not their triggers. The post upset me too but I actually listened to the warning and decided against reading it. If it affects my character, I'm just going to ask my CR or people talking about it to not bring it up around me or my characters.

Honestly bringing up your personal trauma after neglecting the warnings provided makes it appear you have no real reason to back up yourself up and instead have to draw pity from your own experiences. This post was handled properly to prevent this sort of thing from happening and you ignored it.

If you can't handle this kind of content, maybe you should consider a game where there are strong rules in place opposed to it or learn how to better protect yourself by not reading it in the first place. At least learn how to approach it without making it all about yourself. It's disappointing you went to the measures of bullying someone because of your own neglect to your comfort levels.

Alright, so we're basically on the same page with this. I know Route's meant as a more lighthearted setting, but we have and almost always will allow those kinds of characters in the game. When it comes to characters who are just more negative than others, people can always find a reason for them to be or to not be in the game. The challenge with Route, and with just about every game, is seeing how the player chooses to take the character and have them adapt or react to the setting. Whether they are "fitting" or not, that's the player's decision upon apping. So fitting or not, triggering or not (to whomever is upset by the presence), the decision to play them in the game is up to the player who wants to bring them in. Some characters may be redeemable, some may not; some may not seem redeemable but may be in the end. So none of them are really seen as inappropriate. It would only be an issue if someone had problems with it and spoke from the get-go. But seeing as that's not the issue, I won't try to make it one.

For the post in question, we were hoping the many warnings and locks would be enough to keep it from the attention of those who don't want to play. That was our mistake, and we'll find a way to fix it. But honestly, it's okay to bend characterization and have your character just not see a post than to put yourself in a situation where you'll be upset. You don't need to read or respond to situations that will upset or trigger you. When they're marked or labeled, don't touch it. We would much rather have a player bend characterization to avoid an issue or a plot that upsets them than try to force them to be 100% in character and set off their internal triggers. And if you're protecting yourself by avoiding an issue, you're fine. Being in character is not worth putting yourself in danger. (This isn't directed just at you but at everyone who remarked and those reading as well. I just want to stress this fact.)

Don't worry too much about this issue, though. It's being worked around, and there's a high chance we'll be changing the plot and probably future rules so everyone's comfortable. The last thing we want is more people being upset over problems like that. That's why we're willing to work with everyone on this: it is fixable and it will be fixed.

Edited (sorry, a few errors.) 2012-06-19 00:44 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

HMD | June 2012

+many, many numbers

no subject

da

no subject

no subject

no subject

OP

Re: OP

SA

no subject

ayrt

+1

+1

no subject