Membership That's a deal breaker...

[Cat In Spats 0]

1 hour ago, Honorem said:

YEEESSSSSSSS thank you.

 

A bit more specific or 'taboo' warnings I have no problem with, such as sexual violence, it's fair enough to warn against that.

 

But just plain old violence (like killing some bandits in on D&D site), or plain old consensual sex, nope I'm not tagging that. If the site is mature 3-3-3, then you're expected to find all those things on there, so don't join if they offend you, simple.

 

Is it cool to say that one of my deal breakers is specifically rules that treat people's comfort level as 'suck it up or take a hike'?  Because personally I don't believe that being on a 3-3-3 site equates to expecting to see sex and violence without some form of tagging or warning system.  No, I don't think they should be extensive a simple 'M' or 'V' is perfectly ok.  Why shouldn't people be given the choice to know if they want to proceed to read a thread or decide their own comfort level?  What if they are comfortable with one thing or not the other?  Because to me no tags and finding them irritating is a sign that if I am uncomfortable with something or find it offensive that it won't be taken seriously.  If I can't feel safe why bother?

 

I would also like to mention that wanting tags is a lot more complex then being offended.  As has been noted some people need to know what is SFW.  Others simply don't WANT to read it or see it.  Offence and desire are two completely different things.  The people I have played with all have their reasons for not wanting to read something and it isn't that much of a burden to me to mark a thread so they feel safe.

[Honorem 219]

1 hour ago, Cat In Spats said:

 

Is it cool to say that one of my deal breakers is specifically rules that treat people's comfort level as 'suck it up or take a hike'?  Because personally I don't believe that being on a 3-3-3 site equates to expecting to see sex and violence without some form of tagging or warning system.  No, I don't think they should be extensive a simple 'M' or 'V' is perfectly ok.  Why shouldn't people be given the choice to know if they want to proceed to read a thread or decide their own comfort level?  What if they are comfortable with one thing or not the other?  Because to me no tags and finding them irritating is a sign that if I am uncomfortable with something or find it offensive that it won't be taken seriously.  If I can't feel safe why bother?

 

I would also like to mention that wanting tags is a lot more complex then being offended.  As has been noted some people need to know what is SFW.  Others simply don't WANT to read it or see it.  Offence and desire are two completely different things.  The people I have played with all have their reasons for not wanting to read something and it isn't that much of a burden to me to mark a thread so they feel safe.

Is it cool to say that one of my deal breakers is specifically rules that treat people's comfort level as 'suck it up or take a hike'?

Sure, but try not to twist my point beyond what was an opinion and not a reflection of how I'd like to see sites run. I would never be of the opinion 'suck it up or take a hike' nor support a rule that does that. If a member came to me and was bothered with something I would do my best to find a solution. But that doesn't mean I have to like warning tags.

 

No, I don't think they should be extensive a simple 'M' or 'V' is perfectly ok.

Yes, I agree it's perfectly reasonable to do this. But then some members forget to do it, their threads get buried and staff don't always have time to read everything. So it's not fool proof. But yeah, I do agree it does not take much effort to do that. Though for whatever reasons people might not want to have anything like that in place, I'm not going to hold that against them.

 

Why shouldn't people be given the choice to know if they want to proceed to read a thread or decide their own comfort level?

Not saying they shouldn't have that choice, but neither are people required to implement a tag system if they don't want to. Books don't have a specific content warning system in place either (not saying that's a good thing), but I don't find it so unusual to have no tag system.

 

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject in general.

[Guest Archaic Cyborg]

Dealbreakers:

Tiny font, high contrasting colours, rainbow colours, pastel colours, grey on black, silver on grey, etc. All lowercase or all uppercase.

 

Hard-to-navigate site layout. Too many flashy javascript for the sake of looking flash. Too many hover-overs. 

 

Mandatory 'play x for every y'. Required post templates. 400+ word counts. 100 wc, max. 

 

Banhammer-happy staff. Staff who clearly play favourites. Staff who act like 5 year olds.

 

A community where one too many players tawk wike theyre in pwee skool. I sowwy. (I can't believe people still talk like this.)

 

Phobic attitudes, particularly in staff. E.g 'no trans characters, no gay men, no bisexuals!121!'

 

Absurd posting requirements, ala 'reply to threads with 48 hours! Post an ooc intro within 24! Upload an avatar or you'll be deleted!' True story.

[Guest Archaic Cyborg]

On 6 February 2016 at 5:27 AM, VirusZero said:

 

 

- required trigger warnings.

Sends the message to me that the site is heavily influenced by tumblr/victim culture and I want no part of that. I don't want to deal with people who expect everyone to ensure their delicate sensibilities aren't disturbed. And yes, I am aware that's not what trigger warnings are supposed to be for... except that's generally how I've seen them used. As an aside, I've heard all the arguments for trigger warnings and I'm not convinced so don't waste your time trying. If you like them and think they're valuable... use them. 

 

While I agree that some sites out there wrap their players in cotton wool, trigger warnings shouldn't all be lumped together in the 'tumblr victims' crowd. I, for one, have a 'main character death' trigger, and while I often play in horror settings and general worlds where death happens, I can't get directly involved in said scenes. At communities I run and others, the TW system was simple. It doesn't cost other players to add a simple TW in their thread title, to keep players like myself safe. That, and I know my own boundaries; I'm not going to waltz into a Silent Hill game and run for the nearest giant monster. I generally expect other players to know their own boundaries, too. If they want the cotton wool treatment, well, I can't accommodate to the 'everything is a squick' mentality.

 

 I have met players who were triggered by every little thing that wasn't 'nice', and it's sad that more people are using trigger warnings to shield them from squicks. A trigger =/= squick, damn it, people.

 

 

[Rune 1,099]

On 3/4/2016 at 8:16 AM, Cat In Spats said:

 

Is it cool to say that one of my deal breakers is specifically rules that treat people's comfort level as 'suck it up or take a hike'?  Because personally I don't believe that being on a 3-3-3 site equates to expecting to see sex and violence without some form of tagging or warning system.  No, I don't think they should be extensive a simple 'M' or 'V' is perfectly ok.  Why shouldn't people be given the choice to know if they want to proceed to read a thread or decide their own comfort level?  What if they are comfortable with one thing or not the other?  Because to me no tags and finding them irritating is a sign that if I am uncomfortable with something or find it offensive that it won't be taken seriously.  If I can't feel safe why bother?

 

I would also like to mention that wanting tags is a lot more complex then being offended.  As has been noted some people need to know what is SFW.  Others simply don't WANT to read it or see it.  Offence and desire are two completely different things.  The people I have played with all have their reasons for not wanting to read something and it isn't that much of a burden to me to mark a thread so they feel safe.

There's a huge difference between "I don't want to read sex/violence" and "you said the word pomegranate, that's a trigger!" I've seen sites demand triggers for some ridiculously specific nonsense. Tossing up a simple mark is one thing, but there are ones that demand you mark it, list out anything potentially "triggering" at the top in bright red (Which I can understand for some topics, but others... c'mon,) etc. 

Marking threads to warn about what's inside, in my opinion, is totally different from marking "triggers." The two get lumped together frequently, though.

[Honorem 219]

When, in a site's activity rules, they word it that you need to discuss with them taking hiatus. Or get their permission for it. Or list some examples that are acceptable grounds for hiatus. Lol, nope. I'm going to take a break whether you give me permission or not.

[Death Kitten 200]

2 hours ago, Honorem said:

When, in a site's activity rules, they word it that you need to discuss with them taking hiatus. Or get their permission for it. Or list some examples that are acceptable grounds for hiatus. Lol, nope. I'm going to take a break whether you give me permission or not.

Staff have no say when you go on a break. Hard stop. Requesting a heads up, so they can work plot around you while you're gone, is reasonable. Annoyingly, some people don't get the difference between the two.

 

You're going on vacation? Cool, have fun, let us know when you expect to be back, so we can make room for you to rejoin the plot at that time. You went on vacation a week ago without telling anyone, and that's why you haven't bothered to tag a log that's holding up the plot for everyone else? Now we've got a problem.

[BJ Reign 0]

Following every rule, dotting every i and crossing every t, then being told that you can't be short/fat/tall/old/etc when there's nothing in the rules for it. I had a short Starfleet character and was told they had to be a minimum of 5'8" or they wouldn't be allowed in....after the application was approved. Needless to say I quickly resigned. 

[Death Kitten 200]

1 minute ago, BJ Reign said:

Following every rule, dotting every i and crossing every t, then being told that you can't be short/fat/tall/old/etc when there's nothing in the rules for it. I had a short Starfleet character and was told they had to be a minimum of 5'8" or they wouldn't be allowed in....after the application was approved. Needless to say I quickly resigned. 

That's speciesist! *says the 4'8" tall Ferengi*

[Elena 546]

4 hours ago, Honorem said:

When, in a site's activity rules, they word it that you need to discuss with them taking hiatus. Or get their permission for it. Or list some examples that are acceptable grounds for hiatus. Lol, nope. I'm going to take a break whether you give me permission or not.

 

Discussing it might not mean asking for permission, but exactly discussing about the hiatus length and your intentions for the character in your absence. Because if people leave for a longer time (longer than 2-3 weeks) I need not only to know when they are supposed to be back, but also how to continue the ongoing threads, so that their absence doesn't block whole threads. Usually this is solved by allowing the staff to NPC their characters doing their duty where needed.

[Castle 0]

Guidebooks that are the length of a short novel are a deal breaker for me.

Especially with really involved rules for magic/powers/fantasy appearances (on animal sites). I've tried for a long time to find a fantasy wolf RPG where I felt that I could join and play, but every time I find one that is appealing I open the guidebook and there are 20 sections that will each take 30+ minutes to read. x-x 

[Honorem 219]

16 hours ago, Elena said:

 

Discussing it might not mean asking for permission, but exactly discussing about the hiatus length and your intentions for the character in your absence. Because if people leave for a longer time (longer than 2-3 weeks) I need not only to know when they are supposed to be back, but also how to continue the ongoing threads, so that their absence doesn't block whole threads. Usually this is solved by allowing the staff to NPC their characters doing their duty where needed.

I agree with both what you and Death Kitten said, always polite to let people know.

 

But unfortunately no, I am talking about rules that literally state you need permission; that you contact a staff member to discuss whether you can have your leave of absence approved. Yes, rather than word the rule as 'If you are taking absence please let us know or contact a staff member', they word it as 'If you are taking absence please contact us immediately so we can work at validating your request'. As if it's like an application for getting vacation time approved at work.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's even a bit of a stretch to ask members to 'discuss' it. Just posting a topic saying they're going to be away until X date should suffice.

[Death Kitten 200]

1 minute ago, Honorem said:

I agree with both what you and Death Kitten said, always polite to let people know.

 

But unfortunately no, I am talking about rules that literally state you need permission; that you contact a staff member to discuss whether you can have your leave of absence approved. Yes, they talk as if it's like an application for vacation at work.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's even a bit of a stretch to ask members to 'discuss' it. Just posting a topic saying they're going to be away until X date should suffice.

It should probably be approached thus: You tell us you're going on vacation. If you don't trust the staff to decide how to work around your character being unavailable during this time, then you should probably talk to staff about how you'd like it handled. If you don't, then you aren't allowed to whine about it when you get back. Have fun!

[Honorem 219]

1 minute ago, Death Kitten said:

It should probably be approached thus: You tell us you're going on vacation. If you don't trust the staff to decide how to work around your character being unavailable during this time, then you should probably talk to staff about how you'd like it handled. If you don't, then you aren't allowed to whine about it when you get back. Have fun!

I somehow don't think we're on the same page here. The deal breaker has nothing to do with trusting staff or what happens to my characters if I take a break. The deal breaker is having to get permission to even have an absence in the first place. That's it.

[BJ Reign 0]

If you need a LOA, it's only polite to tell the Command staff that you're going on a LOA and when you can reasonably expected to return. Simply leaving is abandoning the sim and many CO's will remove you if they do not hear from you in the allotted time required to make the next most.