wankgate | 162: he screamed until he starved and died.

rewriting canon to pretend he understands consent tho

clearly the player is focusing on consensual stuff and that's what they want to play in game. get your stick out your butt and let people have their fun.

yes, 'serial rapist' is a minor trait that can be optional to include in an app

how about no. not all of us want serial rapists in eudio. people were woobifying this character back when ahs first came out and it shouldn't allow them to get into a game where consent is paramount.

"focusing on consensual stuff" does not mean they can just ignore the fact he rapes outside of the one consensual relationship he has. what the fuck is wrong with you?

um. yes they totally can ignore that.

do you not realize how many characters in eudio are murderers in their canons? or how many are detectives who would want to investigate shit? or how many characters in game are super anti-social wouldn't really hang out with anyone unless players made them? the dirty truth is that warping and interpreting characters slightly so that they work in game is an integral part of rp and if you don't believe that, i don't know what kind of hyper social, hyper sexual rainbow you're playing

if you don't like tate then don't play with them. you don't have the right to ban their fun and treat them poorly just because you're squicked.

isn't "warping" a character also known as "being really ooc"

i don't know anything about tate or the canon but if he is a serial rapist, that seems like a part of a character that can't really be ignored. also, blaming his serial rapist trait on being around "poisonous" people is pretty gross, honestly. it makes it seem like it's not his fault he's a rapist, that other people made him do it.

they are flat out trying to blame tate's choices on other people when he knowingly made them of his own free will. that is more than merely "warping", dumbass. that is blatantly ignoring and then rewriting their canon.

also fuck you. "ban their fun"? we aren't talking about a character that just rubbed someone's back when they were asleep. he is a serial rapist. this is a game where consent is fucking essential. i am not "squicked". i am repulsed that someone is trying to app him into a game like this and that you are fucking defending it like it's /totally no big deal brosis calm yo tits.

doesn't make it any less skeevy, bro. playing a murderer is a lot different from playing a rapist.

this is my point of view as an outsider: tate is a terrible fit for a game like this. the number one rule besides respecting fellow players is consent. that's the entire basis of the game and you can't get that with tate because, as everyone has already said, he's a serial rapist. it's an important part of his character to the point where it's practically a huge plot point in the season he's from. this person is trying to make excuses for him and outright rewrite canon to make him a better fit for the game and that's downright shallow, dishonest and generally horrible all around.

people have a fucking right to be squicked by that. it's not an overreaction and you're kinda disgusting for implying as much.

i don't think anyone's arguing that they're a rapist, anon. but even rapists can understand what consent is, which is part of the argument. you think all rapists everywhere only ever rape people? they have consensual sex as well. just like tate did, from what i can see of this thread. he just mostly doesn't care.

so what it amounts to is people not liking what the char did in canon and either assuming that's what's going to happen in game or just not wanting them in game based on canon actions that have no bearing in the actual game. though, from what i see, they're woobifying and outright lying in their app, so i hope they get rejected for that. but as for 'canon rapist = not allowed in game', i have to call bullshit. there are lots of chars in game and in the past of it that have done bad, shitty things (including rape). the only point that matters is if they'll play consensually in game. as long as they do, the rest doesn't matter.

"i don't want a rapist char in game" shouldn't be an issue if they're not raping in game. i get you don't want to play with them and that's your right, but i don't believe you or other anons get to bar them from the game based on canon actions.

i think the anons problem is that they want to app him to eudio which is a consent based game. sure he might not rape in game, but having a character that so blatantly ignores consent in canon (as another anon said it's pretty much a major plot point) sort of goes against the point of eudio, doesn't it?

i think i'd personally be less grossed out if they didn't blame his behavior on the other people in his canon being shitty people, because while that's true, he is on his own, without any outside influences, a terrible person. focusing on consent with him is impossible, just because of who the character is and what game they want to apply him to.

i say this all as someone who likes tate. the fact of the matter is that eudio just is not a good fit for the character and 'warping' him so he is destroys a pretty fundamental part of his personality.

yes and no. there are other characters that make it a habit of ignoring consent and have ways of getting around it in their own canon. those abilities are taken away for the game, but they themselves are still the type who'd do whatever they want because they want to do it (including sex/murder). but they're playing along in the game and that's really all that matters. if the character, no matter the genre/canon/type, is offered reward a to play along in the game for x amount of time and they agree to it, it's a binding contract. if they try to get around that, they get kicked out of the city/game. as long as they can actually understand what consent is and how to play along, whether or not they respect it doesn't matter. they can fake it. that's what the game allows.

like i said, if they're writing their app wrong and twisting the personality to make weird not-canon headcanon seem like it's actual fact instead of their wooby wishful thinking, then no, i don't think they should be accepted because they clearly don't have an actual grasp on the character. if you play a rapist jerk, play a rapist jerk. i'd argue that even a jerky rapey char like tate (who i'm not canon familiar with, but i've been keeping up with the threads on here and rpa) understands what consent is and can adhere to it with at least one character. they just prefer not to. the fact that they can is the arguing point here. it's not like some of the chars that have been rejected that don't understand what consent is. tate apparently understands it. he just chooses to ignore it. while this version of tate seems to be a loss since the player seems to be an idiot, another version who takes responsibility for their char's actions would be fine in game. as long as they adhere to the rules of the game, which means no rape. anyone flipping out over it is flipping out over canon behavior, which doesn't apply in game.

you don't even have to warp a char like that, imo. they want a reward, so they'll play along until they get it. then they can go back home and continue being a rapey jerk. they just have to play nice for x amount of time in the city. that's not really warping. that's just playing along for incentive, same as everyone else in the game.

"they are ignoring what really happened and rewriting their canon to get him in" <- that is literally what is going on. you teal deering is unnecessary and also makes you full of shit for continuing to defend this player's actions.

no, i'm not defending the player's actions. i'm saying that you can't just decide that char isn't allowed in because of canon actions if the character can play off as being consensual. clearly you read enough to see that single sentence, so maybe read the rest that says that the player putting together an incorrect app is what should get them denied. if another tate player wanted to app in, i wouldn't say no or that they shouldn't be allowed in. this tate player is clearly fucking with the app and not taking responsibility for the char's actions.

learn the difference between what it is i'm defending. it's not the player or their actions. it's the viability of that character to be in the game. maybe if you weren't allergic to reading in a reading hobby, you'd have figured that out.

canon actions =/= in game actions. the fact that people can't understand that astounds me.

thanks for this well thought out advice

im going to play the joker, ignoring the murder parts

That's how it works with literally every Joker I've ever seen in DWRP.

every joker I've ever seen has been an obnoxious try hard who thinks he's all murder all the time even when it's not funny (by joker standards)

let us unite and form balance

look, i don't like this app either, because of ooc reasons. but people need to stop with this "i don't want x kind of character in eudio". the game has always been like this - it'll take anyone that accepts to behave in exchange of the reward. it can be thee most horrible character in the world, it doesn't matter.

it's like the third or fourth time we have this discussion. if players don't like this rule (that they accepted the day you joined) then go crit the mods.

some characters are not a good fit for a game like this. tate langdon is one of those characters.

that's it. that is what it all boils down to. if it were any other game, it wouldn't matter.

i didn't say it was. i did mention on my previous comment that i don't like this app either. i'm answering to the "not all of us want serial rapists in eudio" bit. well, eudio accepts rapists and all kinds of horrible people if they make their case about knowing how to behave. i don't think tate would, but this is about his ic motivations and "morals", not about saying no to a rapist by default. every time a skeevy character apps we have this discussion and people really need to fucking deal with it.

he understands consent. he has a consensual relationship with violet.

he just chooses to ignore it.

are you really woobifying rapists to the point that you say they can't "understand" consent?

I'm more offended by this horrible username

162: he screamed until he starved and died.

http://tates.dreamwidth.org/484.html

Re: http://tates.dreamwidth.org/484.html

Re: http://tates.dreamwidth.org/484.html

-1

Re: -1

no subject

Re: -1

no subject

driveby

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

+1

Re: -1

Re: -1

Re: -1

da

Re: da

ayrt

Re: http://tates.dreamwidth.org/484.html

Re: http://tates.dreamwidth.org/484.html