Quote from: Mistwell;1131549Jeff, eat a big huge bag of fuck off.

Yeah, this is you being pissed off that I called you out on your bullshit. Again.

Quote from: Mistwell;1131549I did not dismiss anything. I posted what was there, word for word, in quotes. I made no comment at all about it, and there wasn't much to see there beyond what I posted when I arrived to that thread.

Someone asked what it was so I posted it because your dickheaded self just posted a link to a private group with no explanation.

But what you posted was only the original post from the thread, which was about Monte Cook's Consent Crap. Old news. Why would I link to that? We have already hashed it out here when it first appeared. What I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of. Why? Because outside of here there was the same conversation about the usefulness of the item, but with a majority that was not members of this site agreeing that it was of limited usefulness. That whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.

But of course, that isn't dismissing the conversation in your eyes. How can something be dismissed when it can simply be omitted.

Quote from: Mistwell;1131549I'm tired of it Jeff. You have a fucking problem with me, let's work it out already. But this constant whiny bullshit from you over the smallest little thing like you're a fucking snowflake who cannot take the merest possibility that someone doesn't agree with him 100% of the time has gotten old. Particularly when I post something TO HELP YOU OUT and you give me this bullshit.

Trying to help me out?! Your disingenuous fuckery wasn't meant to help! You can take your faux victim status and shove it up your cap & gown selling ass right along with your delusions of White Knighthood.

Quote from: MistwellI did not dismiss anything. I posted what was there, word for word, in quotes. I made no comment at all about it, and there wasn't much to see there beyond what I posted when I arrived to that thread.

Someone asked what it was so I posted it because your dickheaded self just posted a link to a private group with no explanation.

Quote from: jeff37923;1131566But what you posted was only the original post from the thread, which was about Monte Cook's Consent Crap. Old news. Why would I link to that? We have already hashed it out here when it first appeared. What I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of. Why? Because outside of here there was the same conversation about the usefulness of the item, but with a majority that was not members of this site agreeing that it was of limited usefulness. That whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.

But of course, that isn't dismissing the conversation in your eyes. How can something be dismissed when it can simply be omitted.

Jeff, most of us couldn't read either the OP or the conversation, because it was in a private Facebook group. So it wasn't old news to us, because we had no idea what was in there. Mistwell, thanks for the info.

I have joined the Facebook group now, but the thread has now been deleted.

You mentioned that there was spirited argument, but not the content of those arguments. Were there new points raised in that argument that haven't been hashed out here in previous discussion?

Quote from: jeff37923;1131566Yeah, this is you being pissed off that I called you out on your bullshit. Again.



But what you posted was only the original post from the thread

Yes, exactly, you fucking idiot. I posted the post from the original post. Because that's what was there when I got there. And as you gave no clue what you found of interest there, that was the best anyone could do to help people out here to know at least vaguely what you were posting about.

QuoteOld news. Why would I link to that?

How the fuck would I, or anyone here, know why you linked to that post SINCE YOU GAVE NO COMMENT HERE AS TO WHY YOU LINKED TO IT. That's what was there when I got there. If you saw something fascinating, it had already been deleted. So I posted what was there. Not to dismiss anything - that's what you fucking linked to, yah jackass!

QuoteWhat I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of.

Whatever "conversation" you are referring to was not there when I copied what I copied.

By your own admission you were deleted, so why are you being such a whiney little shit that I posted what I saw when I went there, which was all there was to see?

None of which would have happened IF YOU HAD POSTED WHAT YOU FOUND INTERESTING HERE, instead of blindly linking to a PRIVATE GROUP like the Internet is some new thing to you.

QuoteThat whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.

How can I choose to ignore what I don't see and which doesn't exist?

I can only conclude for this that you are just too dumb to use the Internet. Which is a fucking low bar you failed to cross.

Quote from: Mistwell;1131608Yes, exactly, you fucking idiot. I posted the post from the original post. Because that's what was there when I got there. And as you gave no clue what you found of interest there, that was the best anyone could do to help people out here to know at least vaguely what you were posting about.



How the fuck would I, or anyone here, know why you linked to that post SINCE YOU GAVE NO COMMENT HERE AS TO WHY YOU LINKED TO IT. That's what was there when I got there. If you saw something fascinating, it had already been deleted. So I posted what was there. Not to dismiss anything - that's what you fucking linked to, yah jackass!



Whatever "conversation" you are referring to was not there when I copied what I copied.

By your own admission you were deleted, so why are you being such a whiney little shit that I posted what I saw when I went there, which was all there was to see?

None of which would have happened IF YOU HAD POSTED WHAT YOU FOUND INTERESTING HERE, instead of blindly linking to a PRIVATE GROUP like the Internet is some new thing to you.



How can I choose to ignore what I don't see and which doesn't exist?

I can only conclude for this that you are just too dumb to use the Internet. Which is a fucking low bar you failed to cross.

I woke up to piss around noon (I work nights) and the conversation was still there when I glanced at it on my phone, so I can only conclude that you are lying and throwing up this smokescreen about how I am victimizing you to hide your duplicity.

I can only think that you are too dumb to fabricate a believable untruth. I suggest you stay out of politics.

And I concede this to you, you are a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be.

Quote from: jeff37923;1131611I woke up to piss around noon (I work nights) and the conversation was still there when I glanced at it on my phone, so I can only conclude that you are lying and throwing up this smokescreen about how I am victimizing you to hide your duplicity.

I can only think that you are too dumb to fabricate a believable untruth. I suggest you stay out of politics.

Now I am a liar because all I saw was the OP?

I did see some replies to a "Jeff" by the way, but not actual comments from a "Jeff", so they made no sense. Either 1) you had blocked me in the past (entirely possible because you're that kind of coward) or 2) your posts had already been deleted by the admin (which you admit had been done). It's one or the other buddy.

I'll know next time to screenshot anything you do on FB that could become an issue here I guess in the future. Because you're that level of an idiot.

And again, if you had bothered to post the actual stuff you found interesting HERE in the first place instead of linking people to a private group, none of this could have happened. Something you still have not acknowledged or taken any responsibility for. So I guess add "egotistical and narcassistic" to the list that includes "idiot" as fair descriptions of your actions in this thread.

Quote from: jeff37923;1131613And I concede this to you, you are a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be.

I have faith in you, jeff37923! You can win this! You're putting in excellent effort, and I think that goes a long way.

Quote from: S'mon;1131405A form like that would definitely deter me from playing a game. ...

Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.

I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.

I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.

Yeah, I've stepped in it a few times running games. It wasn't anything catastrophic on my part but it lost me a player or two still.

For instance, I once ran a game where one of the players turned out to have a phobia of bugs. Well, this was a dungeon with giant spiders, carrion crawlers, the works. He ended up not being able to sleep that night. I'm not sure how this could have come up in a normal conversation outside of broaching it in these "what are your problems" topics -- but I suspect even in those cases a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable just coming out and saying their intimate secrets even if you were proactively pursuing it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1131566your cap & gown selling ass

Wait a second, is 'Mistwell' the guy that tried to sell that ridiculous story about the cap & gown manufactorium? I don't remember a lot of stuff that's typed on this site, or who typed it, but that bit of internet performance art really stood out

Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out.

Telling you all my deep dark neuroses gives you a lot of power over me. It's also often quite upsetting listing them since it makes me think about the reasons why I have them.

Related point, I think content breaks down into stuff it's the player's responsibility to handle ("drowning") and stuff it's the GM's responsibility to notify ("extreme sexual violence"). I think it's extremely important not to conflate these.

Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.

I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.

I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.

I might want to have the conversation, some of it in the group at session 0, some of it 1:1 with the players (if they want to do that, and only if they want to do that).  I do not want to start that conversation with a form.  That is so typically Monte Cook "off" it isn't even funny.  It's ham-handed, with the feel of bureaucracy. it's like you have to fill out the hospital form before you can play the game.  Why stop there?  Let's go ahead and ask if you've ever been committed for psychiatric care?  List your meds!  Have you been taking them regularly?  Sleeping well?  And all of this is being handled by people that likely are not trained in medical care or even can spell HIPAA.  

I'll go further than what Smon said, though he may very well agree with this:  The responsibility for knowing your limitations goes beyond managing your issues.  It includes avoiding situations where they might arise--to the extent that you don't want to handle it at the time.  That may mean that some people just shouldn't join a convention game that is billed as "mature"--period--in the same way that a wise bipolar person even on their meds has some self-imposed limitations in what they do.  Stick to games where you can have the 1:1 conversation with people you trust.  If you enjoy the conventions, stick to "safer" for you games.  

Finally, the deeper the issue, the less likely that someone is going to want to talk about it--even in the more friendly manner that I've outlined above.  I'll freely admit that people being deliberately burned alive really bugs me to the point that I don't like seeing it in a game.  That's because I've completely recognized that trait for what it is in me, to the point that I don't mind listing it here to strangers.  The only reason I wouldn't put it on the form is because I think the form is stupid.  Fact is, people being burned alive is something that happened. If I'm in a game, I'm prepared to handle it if it arises, even though I won't like it.  I can quietly wall off myself from the game for a scene and then go on when the scene is over.  Heck, I might even roleplay the character having the same reaction.  Because my issue bothers me, but it is manageable.

However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation.  They might fill out the form, but they would not include the things that really bug them.  And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out.  Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start.  You've made some of your players angry with you before the game starts and driven off some others that have written you off as a person.  The form is the exact opposite of "friendly" to people with real issues.  The only people it is "friendly" to are people with issues like mine that they enjoy having a lot of drama about because it gives them a thrill.  I sure as hell don't want them in my game.

Wait, maybe I should use the form.  I'll have a line at the top that you can check that says the form is stupid and none of my business.  Anyone that checks that gets in.  Anyone that fills it out is excluded automatically.  Hmm.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation.  They might fill out the form, but they would not include the things that really bug them.  And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out.  Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start.  

Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.

Quote from: S'mon;1131640Telling you all my deep dark neuroses gives you a lot of power over me. It's also often quite upsetting listing them since it makes me think about the reasons why I have them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation.  They might fill out the form, but they would not include the things that really bug them.  And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out.  Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start.  You've made some of your players angry with you before the game starts and driven off some others that have written you off as a person.  The form is the exact opposite of "friendly" to people with real issues.  The only people it is "friendly" to are people with issues like mine that they enjoy having a lot of drama about because it gives them a thrill.  I sure as hell don't want them in my game.

Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.

And this touches on the fine point for me, which was brought up in the Facebook conversation. Advocates of Monte Cook's Consent Form tend to present it like a security blanket that will help to protect the user from the depredations of that perennial SJW 'gamer' menace, the Abusive GM. The problem is that without a Session Zero where the Player can gauge the personality of the GM, because people can usually twig to when they are conversing with a creepy gamer, the Consent Form gives a false sense of security and protection that nothing bad or triggering will happen during the game. The problem with that is if you are dealing with an Abusive GM, the Player has just given that sociopath a checklist of psychological buttons to push in order to get a reaction during the game. It is an Edgelord's wet dream.

Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.

I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.

I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.

Life is a constant dance around the possibility of stepping in a big pile of OH SHIT, because humans are complex and it is impossible to predict how the fractal complexities are going to play out. It's fundamentally the wrong approach to work to prevent discomfort from ever occurring, because it's unachievable and stifles conversation and interaction the whole way down. The better approach is to treat interaction as a negotiation, and to arm people with the skills and confidence to advocate for themselves, instill a default sense of principle of charity, and then deal with the problems if and when they arise. *

It's a culture of safety vs. a culture of risk taking. Actual potential harm from spoken interactions with a group of sympathetic peers is bounded in severity, but the loss of agency and potential from trying to prevent said harm from ever occurring is higher impact and higher likelihood. And it's infantilizing to deny people the opportunity to try and see and to speak for themselves if their lines are crossed.

Also, use of this kind of tool telegraphs a kind of absolutist ideological stance that is unwelcoming to and uninterested in this kind of argument.

(* I also think that discomfort tends to be net a good thing, because it means I've hit some boundary and something is being challenged. I need the option to nope out if it's too much at the time, which only I can decide; at the same time, my experience has been that learning/growth and discomfort went hand in hand. And there's stuff I might have shied away from facing if presented as "oh my god trigger this trigger that" that I'm glad that I faced.)

Edited to add:

Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.

This is exactly right.