11-11-2020, 12:05 AM
Most people seem to agree that level 3 should also require explicit consent, so I'll edit the post to change that.
I understand the concern of people being snide and obnoxious through the protection of consent. That is a thing that happens. I'm not sure what could be done about that beyond adding an extra line saying that 'persisting in aggressive behavior, including taunting or insulting someone, you are consenting to conflict'.
The rule of consent is basically an already understood thing in the game. I understand how it might seem like it makes people too 'safe' but look at it from the perspective of where it doesn't exist. Do I have to engage in roleplay I'm not comfortable with to satisfy the desires of someone else, simply because they decided I had to? In situations like this, where there's an initiator, you want to be conservative and allow the 'victim' some basic defense against poorly RP'd or otherwise undesirable people.
It doesn't really correlate with the perceived stagnation that people see, in my opinion, because that's an issue with the world and not any individual. Someone can correct me if they feel I'm wrong on this, but I feel that people do not really shy away from conflict as it is, in most cases, even though the rule of consent already exists, just not in as clearly defined terms as the draft has.
I think Walrus has some good concerns too but those will probably have to wait until I do a once-over of the RP rules to include things like people being 'OOC', especially for the purposes of avoiding consequences. This isn't meant to solve everything, only to give us a good and clear conflict ruleset.
I understand the concern of people being snide and obnoxious through the protection of consent. That is a thing that happens. I'm not sure what could be done about that beyond adding an extra line saying that 'persisting in aggressive behavior, including taunting or insulting someone, you are consenting to conflict'.
The rule of consent is basically an already understood thing in the game. I understand how it might seem like it makes people too 'safe' but look at it from the perspective of where it doesn't exist. Do I have to engage in roleplay I'm not comfortable with to satisfy the desires of someone else, simply because they decided I had to? In situations like this, where there's an initiator, you want to be conservative and allow the 'victim' some basic defense against poorly RP'd or otherwise undesirable people.
It doesn't really correlate with the perceived stagnation that people see, in my opinion, because that's an issue with the world and not any individual. Someone can correct me if they feel I'm wrong on this, but I feel that people do not really shy away from conflict as it is, in most cases, even though the rule of consent already exists, just not in as clearly defined terms as the draft has.
I think Walrus has some good concerns too but those will probably have to wait until I do a once-over of the RP rules to include things like people being 'OOC', especially for the purposes of avoiding consequences. This isn't meant to solve everything, only to give us a good and clear conflict ruleset.
![[-]](https://neus-projects.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
