Backstory Guidelines & Policy

[Ephemeralis]

The interesting byproduct of this policy is that you are now no longer allowed to play pacifist chars.

I'm not entirely sure how this policy restricts someone from playing a character that's opposed to war/violence/etc.?

Certain kinds of pathological pacifism (aversion/revulsion to violence) fail the test outlined above. Additionally, as per my previous post, to what degree are character traits conflated with structural representations found in common mental conditions?

- Will this involuntary physical/mental condition require the character to forego any game mechanics that are normally available to all?
- Will this involuntary physical/mental condition require the player to invent explanations or RP workarounds for why the character is able to do certain things in the game that make it difficult to believe, hand-waving away some implemented game mechanics and/or messaging?
- Would this involuntary physical/mental condition ideally have some mechanical considerations or skill/roll adjustments attached to it to make it feel suitably believable, and not be something that can simply be ignored by the player when inconvenient or nobody else is around to see?

- Yes, it requires you to abstain from offensive combat actions completely.
- Yes, as above.
- Yes, as it requires self-imposed restriction to not utilize offensive combat actions.

I hope I don't come across as especially facetious here, but this is objectively not a good, inclusive or representative policy. Concerns about denying the existence of disabled or neurodivergent individuals notwithstanding, the effort comes across as a massive overreaction to only a few character concepts and very narrow feedback given by a few individuals. I have played a fair few visually-impaired characters as a sighted person across two decades of roleplay and have only seen pushback towards the notion from one post in this forum - nearly half a dozen VI friends who I regularly spend time with have expressed appreciation as viewing their struggles as a consummate part of the human experience to be woven into stories as any other. Obviously this is just my own experience with the notion, but it genuinely beggars belief to read some of the justifications expressed.

The Lost Lands is made flatter and less interesting by this overbearing contention leveled at people who may have been otherwise considering vivid character concepts, and now instead need to contend with whether an enormous array of character traits and concepts can be construed as pulling from existing physical and mental conditions.

[Gorth]

While I still disagree that pathilogical pacifism falls (at least fully) under this scope, I agree with the above post's points pretty much fully. If it's the final decision, so be it, but I feel like it's going to noticeably drive a good handful of people's enjoyment down as their escapism becomes another part of socialization where they yet have to contend with analyzing everything sweeping they do to make sure it does not violate someone's sensativities, experiences or policies. One of the big selling points for me on this game is it's openness, the fact that it isn't a painfully tight RPI MUD, and the more I consider and let my consciousness ramble on the topic, the sourer this policy addition feels simply for it's social ramafications throughout the community.

[artus]

Gorth:
If someone complains to you, talk to them. Talk to us, even. We're all chill. The world will go on, and you'll end up with a solution.

To anyone who can answer, I have only one question and I'll try not to say anything more about it. What if someone doesn't complain to you but explodes on someone else without you having any idea what's going on because you don't know? It's hard to come up with a fast enough solution or toning in the kind of time frame or circumstance that pushes for change when you have no clue whatever you're doing is a problem and only find out when something's hot on your tail. How can a person solve this when there's no communication effort from anyone going on before things erupt?
Things like this whole policy enforcement would have not had happened at all if communication happened between players first before it was brought up to someone else. But it has been, in several cases, players bringing up concerns about a character to other players instead of the offending players, or the staff team, or whoever unrelated. Does it make anything better for anyone?

P.S. I'm not talking specifically about Baki. I'm talking in general. Stuff like that happens.

[Lexx416]

The interesting byproduct of this policy is that you are now no longer allowed to play pacifist chars.

I'm not entirely sure how this policy restricts someone from playing a character that's opposed to war/violence/etc.?

Certain kinds of pathological pacifism (aversion/revulsion to violence) fail the test outlined above. Additionally, as per my previous post, to what degree are character traits conflated with structural representations found in common mental conditions?

- Will this involuntary physical/mental condition require the character to forego any game mechanics that are normally available to all?
- Will this involuntary physical/mental condition require the player to invent explanations or RP workarounds for why the character is able to do certain things in the game that make it difficult to believe, hand-waving away some implemented game mechanics and/or messaging?
- Would this involuntary physical/mental condition ideally have some mechanical considerations or skill/roll adjustments attached to it to make it feel suitably believable, and not be something that can simply be ignored by the player when inconvenient or nobody else is around to see?

- Yes, it requires you to abstain from offensive combat actions completely.
- Yes, as above.
- Yes, as it requires self-imposed restriction to not utilize offensive combat actions.

I hope I don't come across as especially facetious here, but this is objectively not a good, inclusive or representative policy. Concerns about denying the existence of disabled or neurodivergent individuals notwithstanding, the effort comes across as a massive overreaction to only a few character concepts and very narrow feedback given by a few individuals. I have played dozens of visually-impaired characters as a sighted person across two decades of roleplay and have only seen pushback towards the notion from one post in this forum - nearly half a dozen VI friends who I regularly spend time with have expressed appreciation as viewing their struggles as a consummate part of the human experience to be woven into stories and struggles as any other. Obviously this is just my own experience with the notion, but it genuinely beggars belief to read some of the justifications expressed.

The Lost Lands is made flatter and less interesting by this overbearing contention leveled at people who may have been otherwise considering vivid character concepts, and now instead need to contend with whether an enormous array of character traits and concepts can be construed as pulling from existing physical and mental conditions.

Pacifism is an ideological belief. You can absolutely play a pacifist in the game. I suppose you're correct to state that you cannot play a character with a pathological aversion or repulsion to violence, if that aversion/repulsion is so great that they would need coded, mechanical support to prevent them from entering combat. You can in fact still have a character who has those aversions, so long as they are not so severe as to remove the agency of the character from the equation.

Which I think is fine, because pacifism is an ideology or belief, and not a pathological condition (if you google Pathological Pacifism, you don't get any real medical documentation, mostly references and citations to something Winston Churchill wrote) that would necessitate very deliberate, careful, and thoughtful mechanics to be added to the game in order to represent it fairly and equitably. Frankly, the conflation of a pathological issue with a belief system feels pretty bad, and so does equating this policy to sanitization, white washing, or otherwise the erasure of vulnerable people with a policy put in place that limits the lampooning and caricaturization of those same vulnerable people by reducing very real struggles into what amounts to a gimmick.

Vulnerabilities, debilitating mental illnesses, chronic conditions, etc, are not character traits, and we shouldn't be treating them as such. And I do think there probably is room for nuanced exceptions - if someone that was visually impaired wanted to play that kind of character, I think that'd be alright if they reached out to Staff for approval, etc. etc., but that would also create a burden and strain on Staff and more specifically Rias.

I'm not going to continue arguing the point with you, because I don't really think you're entering into with very good faith or intentions, given your initial (and very flippant, passive aggressive, baiting post), along with what smacks of the same kind of attitude from people who justify their actions because they "have black friends and they said it was okay" - maybe that isn't the case, but you aren't being very charitable towards the policy (which was implemented by one of the most chill, empathetic people I've ever encountered on the internet, so I'm not going to be either).

This is what happens when things like this happen. Tessa, you're doing nothing wrong and if you are (which you're not) I'd hope someone who actually cares would tell you specifically, and then you could react acordingly. Of course, it's not good to make someone feel bad about things they can't control like disabilities, but I am in the camp that it is fine as long as you're not walking around with your tongue hanging out going 'Hey look at this [redacted] character I made!'

I don't think you're coming from a bad place with this post, but I'd really appreciate it if the community avoided using slurs, even in the context of making a point or making a hypothetical example.

Gorth:
If someone complains to you, talk to them. Talk to us, even. We're all chill. The world will go on, and you'll end up with a solution.

To anyone who can answer, I have only one question and I'll try not to say anything more about it. What if someone doesn't complain to you but explodes on someone else without you having any idea what's going on because you don't know? It's hard to come up with a fast enough solution or toning in the kind of time frame or circumstance that pushes for change when you have no clue whatever you're doing is a problem and only find out when something's hot on your tail. How can a person solve this when there's no communication effort from anyone going on before things erupt?

I don't think you're acting maliciously or malignantly in all of this, but something you should consider is that Baki made enough people uncomfortable that they didn't feel right or comfortable approaching you, and instead went to staff. Rather than demanding people give you a solution, or asking for people to come forward, I would advise that you, instead, take time to reflect on why that is, and use it as an opportunity to grow.


[edited to correct punctuation]

[Ephemeralis]

...along with what smacks of the same kind of attitude from people who justify their actions because they "have black friends and they said it was okay" - maybe that isn't the case, but you aren't being very charitable towards the policy (which was implemented by one of the most chill, empathetic people I've ever encountered on the internet, so I'm not going to be either.

I'll accept that perhaps my initial post was somewhat diminishing given my shock at the adoption of this policy, but this argument you are presently leveling is a personal attack at worst and a reduction beyond the absurd at best. Extremely disappointing to see and not something I'd have expected from you.

If anything is said about this policy in regards to Rias' empathy, it is that it was likely (and probably unintentionally) exploited or misguided to achieve the current result. I had genuinely never seen anything confidence-shaking come out of the COGG administration until this most recent update.

[Lexx416]

...along with what smacks of the same kind of attitude from people who justify their actions because they "have black friends and they said it was okay" - maybe that isn't the case, but you aren't being very charitable towards the policy (which was implemented by one of the most chill, empathetic people I've ever encountered on the internet, so I'm not going to be either.

I'll accept that perhaps my initial post was somewhat diminishing given my shock at the adoption of this policy, but this argument you are presently leveling is a personal attack at worst and a reduction beyond the absurd at best. Extremely disappointing to see and not something I'd have expected from you.

If anything is said about this policy in regards to Rias' empathy, it is that it was likely (and probably unintentionally) exploited or misguided to achieve the current result. I had genuinely never seen anything confidence-shaking come out of the COGG administration until this most recent update.

I am not going to do emotional labor for you. You said something VERY specific (that you have VI friends that approve of your portrayal of VI characters) that I responded to. Self-reflect on why I said what I said.

[Ephemeralis]

...along with what smacks of the same kind of attitude from people who justify their actions because they "have black friends and they said it was okay" - maybe that isn't the case, but you aren't being very charitable towards the policy (which was implemented by one of the most chill, empathetic people I've ever encountered on the internet, so I'm not going to be either.

I'll accept that perhaps my initial post was somewhat diminishing given my shock at the adoption of this policy, but this argument you are presently leveling is a personal attack at worst and a reduction beyond the absurd at best. Extremely disappointing to see and not something I'd have expected from you.

If anything is said about this policy in regards to Rias' empathy, it is that it was likely (and probably unintentionally) exploited or misguided to achieve the current result. I had genuinely never seen anything confidence-shaking come out of the COGG administration until this most recent update.

I am not going to do emotional labor for you. You said something VERY specific (that you have VI friends that approve of your portrayal of VI characters) that I responded to. Self-reflect on why I said what I said.

This is a pointless chain of responses to continue and I think we'd be better served not continuing it.

[Volinn]

I think it would do to keep this discussion civil and respectful, my guys. That was definitely a personal attack towards Ephemeralis and it wasn't cool.

[artus]

Quoted Ephemeralis here:
I hope I don't come across as especially facetious here, but this is objectively not a good, inclusive or representative policy. Concerns about denying the existence of disabled or neurodivergent individuals notwithstanding, the effort comes across as a massive overreaction to only a few character concepts and very narrow feedback given by a few individuals. I have played a fair few visually-impaired characters as a sighted person across two decades of roleplay and have only seen pushback towards the notion from one post in this forum - nearly half a dozen VI friends who I regularly spend time with have expressed appreciation as viewing their struggles as a consummate part of the human experience to be woven into stories as any other. Obviously this is just my own experience with the notion, but it genuinely beggars belief to read some of the justifications expressed.

Coming from a VI myself, honestly I'd personally feel warm and thankful toward whoever play a blind or something and does a good job doing so. It reflects a lot of our struggles that we sometimes wish the world to know. I'm not going to say how much I agree or disagree with the rest of the post. Just feel an urge to say something as a real blind struggling with a real disability myself. It's wholesome if done right. I may be bias though, don't mind me.

Both of you have a point, although opinions may differ.

P.S. Edited my previous post in case anyone thought I specifically meant the situation with Baki when I said stuff about communication. I didn't mean that. I mean in general because there are people who do it that way and the problem goes nowhere. Again, it may just be me overthinking the whole thing or running into a tight end and get extremely scared. I just wish it was a thing. Sorry if anyone feel offended or disapproved of what I said earlier. I didn't intend to.

P.S. Fixed the spelling.

[Ephemeralis]

To clarify, it isn't as if I don't see the basis for the creation of this policy, just that it seems massively excessive to cast such a wide and non-specific net across so many character concepts when there's genuinely blurry lines between what a trait is (and can be) and what instead might be reflections of physical or mental conditions that are RAW, disallowed.

The better response to this would have been to include a singular clause informing the user of the administration's expressly reserved right to deny particular backstories or character concepts that they do not approve of for whatever reason, and to require players to alter or stop playing them if this is deemed necessary.