Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyThe good stuff survives (Lolita, Naked Lunch, Ulysses etc), relatively harmless stuff continues to appear (99.9% of porn, eg, and likely the enormous majority of crap that Nambla peddles) and occasional sick shit gets hit with the ban stick. I'm more or less happy with the situation as it stands.

What kind of stuff do you think gets hit with the "ban stick" and what kind of stuff do you think should be hit with the "ban stick"?

Quote from: HaffrungI've seen a study which says that a relatively small number of soldiers account for most of the kills in face-to-face combat, and that many of those soldiers are psychopaths. In other words, psychopaths make excellent front-line soldiers. However, they understandably have a tough time fitting in after they're discharged.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Much of modern military training is based on the realization from studies during past wars that soldiers will often not want to kill other people in battle so they train soldiers to shoot first as a response and then think later.  This is one of the things that leads to soldiers suffering psychological trauma after combat.  They do things that they have trouble living with once they stop and think about it.

Quote from: John MorrowDr. Martha Stout claims that about 4% of the population are psychopaths while hare claims that about 1% of the population are hard core psychopaths, leaving 3% who may cause problems for others but who won't generally become criminal.

In Risk Dice I added a trait which PCs could have, "Psyche". I added it to be able to give the effect of a lot of the GURPS-style Dis/Advantages like being charitable, callous, and so on.

   Psyche: Your emotional nature, self-insight, and empathy

• 2, sociopath – other people aren't real to you, you may understand them (decent Pyshcology, Perception or Diplomacy), but only in the same way you understand a machine – you don't care. Note that it doesn't mean the person is cruel – children  begin this way, but most grow to understand others.
  
• 3, chronic depressive, or quite callous and indifferent.
  
• 4, a loner by intent or effect, perhaps considered annoying or self-absorbed
  
• 5, you only bother trying to get along with people you like, and most of your virtues and flaws are unknown to or denied by you.
  
• 6-8, ordinary, you get along with people and know most of your own virtues and flaws
  
• 9, good, you should definitely work with people.
  
• A-C, impressive, you can empathise with anybody, and could be a remarkable religious leader or psychotherapist

Since stats are rolled for with 2d6, that gives 1 in 36 (2.8%) characters being sociopaths, and another 2 in 36 (5.6%) people who are real pricks or people with severe emotional problems affecting their lives in some way. In all, 3 in 36 or 1 in 12 who are pretty messed up in some way. From work, social and hobby life, I would say that having 1 in 12 people being some combination of quite nasty or troubled is about right! It also gives us 10 in 36 or 27.8% of people who at least occasionally annoying and self-absorbed, and unaware of their own flaws... Which I think is also true.

Quote from: John MorrowMuch of modern military training is based on the realization from studies during past wars that soldiers will often not want to kill other people in battle so they train soldiers to shoot first as a response and then think later.  This is one of the things that leads to soldiers suffering psychological trauma after combat.  They do things that they have trouble living with once they stop and think about it.

Spruik!

Quote from: Serious PaulI'd potentially enjoy watching it. The subject matter doesn't make me shy away. However until I saw this I couldn't say for sure whether I'd enjoy it, or not.

I think most normal people wouldn't enjoy it, which is why you don't see many movies or shows like that and those that do generally draw small audiences.  At some point, watching the bad guys abuse good people will elicit a, "Jesus, Grandpa!  What did you read me this thing for?" response (how the kid react in The Princess Bride when he think Humperdinck wins).

Quote from: Kyle AaronSpruik!

If you haven't seen (and you may already have) this paper (via Wayback), you might find it interesting.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSince stats are rolled for with 2d6, that gives 1 in 36 (2.8%) characters being sociopaths, and another 2 in 36 (5.6%) people who are real pricks or people with severe emotional problems affecting their lives in some way. In all, 3 in 36 or 1 in 12 who are pretty messed up in some way. From work, social and hobby life, I would say that having 1 in 12 people being some combination of quite nasty or troubled is about right! It also gives us 10 in 36 or 27.8% of people who at least occasionally annoying and self-absorbed, and unaware of their own flaws... Which I think is also true.

Many psychopaths/sociopaths are quite charismatic and charming.  The mild form of being a psychopath seems to be narcissism.  Many narcissists are also quite charismatic.  I'm pointing this out because being empathic or genuinely interested in others is not necessarily tied to how charismatic a person is.  In fact, "glibness/superficial charm" and "cunning/manipulative" are key marker traits for psychopaths.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn, say, a website that is owned by someone (like this website, owned by me) the property owner has a right to limit speech as much or as little as he wants.

In addition to this, the domain name registrar, website hosting company, the ISP you use to connect to the Internet, the ISPs your readers use to connect to the internet, and the laws of all relevant countries limit speech to some degree or another.

This link is relevant to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity_law

QuoteThe Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:

    * Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    * Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
    * Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).

and in Canada:

QuoteSection 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity". Officially termed as "Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals",[13] the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" -- that according to Section 163( -- has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.

And in many places (like Canada):

QuoteEvery one commits an offense who

    (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever

Which means the owner of a website is legally responsible for the material posted there, even if it's on a forum and posted by someone else.

So you can argue that it is / isn't acceptable for people to play dark fantasy games behind closed doors, or if it's okay to judge them or not for telling you about them.

Publishing those fantasies on the internet is quite possibly illegal, or beyond the terms of service for you ISP, domain or website hosting provider.

I would imagine they'd be key markers for dangerous psychopaths. Surely with the whole range of human behaviours there must be socially inept and not at all charming psychopaths? But we just say, "what an arsehole!" and don't analyse them further, it's only the ones who seem nice then turn out nasty who we investigate and study...

But I don't really know about this stuff, I'm just speculating.

In my game's terms, Psyche just affects your empathy. If the player of a Psyche 2 guy wanted that superficial charm and glibness, traits like Confidence, Speech, Acting and so on would work well.

Luckily no-one's rolled one up yet :cool:

Quote from: TonyLBThere's a whole field of law about this, which mostly boils down to "Can these words do real harm to someone's ability to work there."  Words, themselves, can definitely do harm and when that's the case then that's pretty well where freedom of speech is curtailed.

What constitutes "real harm"?  While there is certainly a whole field of law about this, the results vary wildly.

Quote from: TonyLBBut, of course, you can't just pick a topic and say "Discussing this, no matter the context, will always cause harm."  If I were to discuss (oh, heck, to pick an example) violent fantasies that I've had, in a fairly anonymous setting like this, without mentioning any information that could cause anyone to be afraid in the real world, there's zero chance of my words doing harm to anyone.  Yes?

I don't think we can ever know that for certain.  Please note that I'm not saying that necessarily makes what you are talking about actionable.  I'm simply saying that people can be set off by all sorts of things, which is what causes problems defining "real harm" when it comes to workplace speech.  We live in a world where a person can be fired for innocently using the terms that simply sound like racial slurs.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, I think you're using the term "legitimate" here in a way that tends to conflate two concepts:

• Legitimate response:  I do X, you respond in way Y ... Y is a legitimate response if it's not, like, crazy or unethical.  I can say "Let's go for ice cream" and you can respond "Oh, so you think I'm fat, is that it?" and that's a legitimate response (though barely).  Responding by punching me in the face is not.
  
• Legitimate opinion:  I do X, you form opinion Y about me ... Y is a legitimate opinion if it is a reasonable thing to think.  Note that whether something is a legitimate opinion is, of course, subjective.  You may think your opinion is legitimate, while I think it's hogwash.

I think you are making a distinction that's not a very useful one because I think your example of a legitimate response to an illegitimate opinion seems an unlikely combination for a sane person.  People's responses are a product of their visceral feelings and their rational thoughts, thus I don't see the clean detachment between the two that you are claiming.  What I'm arguing is that a visceral feeling can be as legitimate as a rational thought to inform a response and make it legitimate.  

Quote from: TonyLBWell, you need some better words then.  Your arguments about "Reacting negatively to these things is a survival mechanism" are good for showing how it's a legitimate response, but very poor for showing that it's a legitimate opinion.

The current research suggests that the visceral responses exist because they are faster and can often be more accurate than a pure rational response.  This is why this article, that I posted a link to and longer quote from earlier, mentions that, "To back up his hypothesis, Damasio showed how people who suffered damage to the feeling centers of the brain—areas such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortices, which are near the brain stem—found it difficult, if not impossible, to make even the simplest choices."  In one example I read in a related article, a person with damage to the feeling centers of their brains was asked when they wanted to schedule their next appointment and proceeded to spend the next half-hour rationally weighing the pros and cons of each possible day without actually coming up with a preference.  The problem with purely rational decisions is that we rarely have all of the information to make an entirely informed decision.

My point?  We have these emotional reactions as a useful alternative to rational opinions.  For that to work even reasonably well, those emotional reactions need to produce legitimate results roughly as well as the rational opinions do.  We probably wouldn't have emotions that trigger certain responses if they didn't serve some useful purpose.

Quote from: TonyLBReacting negatively to people of different skin colors is an evolutionarily reinforced survival mechanism, but that doesn't mean that racists have a legitimate opinion, right?

Do you have any evidence that people normally react negatively to other people simply because their skin color is different?  I've never heard of that before.

Quote from: TonyLBThe ideas themselves, absent any particular context of them being harmfully disclosed?  Legitimate response, not a legitimate opinion.

I don't think ideas are even absent of a context.  That's why psychologists use Rorschach tests and free association exercises in order to tap into what people are really thinking.

Quote from: TonyLB"If you don't find this disgusting then you might well be dangerous, and something should be done about you."

I find that line of reasoning disgusting.  The fact that you don't worries me.  There is a pretty big part of me that, based on your inability to see how appalling what you're saying is, wants to write you off as a bad person.

On what basis do you find that line of reasoning disgusting, especially as you worded it (qualified with "might be")?  What about it, specifically, makes you feel disgusted?

Does all of this hinge upon the fact that you think that what a person thinks and says don't reflect much about their psyche and personality and I think it does?

Quote from: TonyLBYou see how that works?

I think it may follow logically from what you believe but it does not flow logically from what I believe.

Quote from: TonyLB"Is harm done?"  For my money, that's the principle.  Sexual harassment is controlled when it provably harms someone's ability to do their work and earn a living.  That's real harm, done by words.

Do you think it's legitimate to stop someone from inciting a riot or do you only think it's legitimate to punish them if their words actually cause a riot?

Effect is often not immediately produced by the cause.  Are you saying that we should only punish the cause after it has caused a harmful effect?

This goes back to my drunken driving example.  Why do we punish people for driving while impaired by alcohol, even if they don't get into an accident?   Applying the principle of "Is harm done?" shouldn't we only punish people for driving drunk if they actually hurt someone?

Quote from: TonyLBIt is virtually impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet.  I mean ... really.  It's been tried, in just about every conceivable variation.

How about, "It is virtualy impossible for one person to harm another by posting something on an RPG forum on the internet"?

But that's not the only issue.

It's virtually impossible for a neighbor to harm me by not mowing their lawn, by leaving broken down cars on their front lawn, by sitting out front in their underwear scratching themselves, or (to use RPGPundit's example) by using their front lawn as a toilet.  But by doing so, they'll lower the cost of my property, drive nice people out of the neighborhood, and eventually turn where I live into a not very nice place to live.  

By the same measure, you can certainly drive certain people away from an RPG forum and degrade its quality by what you post in that forum.  You can also leave others who stumble upon the forum with a very bad opinion of the hobby and the people in it.  Is that harm or harmless, in your opinion?

Quote from: TonyLBGiven that, I don't think there's much that should be controlled here.  You?

As I've said in the past, I have no problem with ENWorld's "grandmother standard" for moderation.  In the absence of that, I prefer light moderation like we have here.  The worst case is what RPGnet does, which seems designed to prevent the freaks from being offended.  

Quote from: TonyLBI suspect that people are more absolutist about free speech on the Internet because there is so much smaller risk of words on the internet doing harm than words face-to-face.  Context is king.

We have recent cases in the news of teenaged girls beating up another girl because of what she said on MySpace and a woman under arrest for using a made-up persona to drive a girl to suicide.  And what drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb a government building if not ideas that the government was his enemy, spread by certain groups?

You can certainly argue that the benefits of free speech mean that we need to tolerate the occasional Timothy McVeigh but I don't think it's fair to argue that ideas, particularly shocking and transgressive ideas, can be assumed to be harmless and response free.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI would imagine they'd be key markers for dangerous psychopaths. Surely with the whole range of human behaviours there must be socially inept and not at all charming psychopaths?

Sure.  Those are the violent thugs who generally wind up in prison.  That's the guy who, when you ask him why he killed a family, answers, "Because they were home."

You can find the full checklist here.  Few people hit on every one and just because a person hits on a lot of them doesn't mean that they are a psychopath, though a few make it highly likely.

Quote from: Serious PaulI do think some of us are saying that discussing rape (Or other adult topics of a serious nature.), whether it be a serious discussion (Like formal debates, and in many books.) or perhaps less serious mediums like South Park or the Boondocks (Which tackle issues like racism, sexuality, and more with a lighter tone.) should be allowed.

But what about discussing torture porn or talking about rape as a fun activity?  Many female role-players seem to have shared the experience, if introduced to the hobby as a teenager, of having had their character raped or even gang-raped by NPCs or other PCs.  How should we react to a person who was responsible for creating those situations and insists that it was all good fun?  Shouldn't we be creeped out by that?  Shouldn't we want them to move on to another discussion board?

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm not saying that John Morrow's, or even gleichman's morality is wrong-that's not my place. I am saying that there is no reason why we can't exist side by side, with out having to force our own morality on each other. Yes, that means occasionally we'll have to compromise.

You can't have noise and silence exist side by side.  If a person wants to play their radio loudly at 3AM and another person wants silence to sleep, do we side with the person who wants the freedom to play their radio or the person who doesn't want to listen to it?

Quote from: Serious PaulBut as I understand, society is built on compromise right? But numbers don't equate to righteousness to me, so I don't care if everyone else is a christian, or muslim, or whatever-that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. It does mean when dealing with them I have to understand where they are coming form (Or at least if I want to have a relationship with them that doesn't always end up in bottle throwing, and moltov cocktails anyways.)

That's the problem.  You claim that society is built on compromise but then claim that numbers don't equate to righteousness.  The problem is that in many cases (and certainly in the United States) free speech isn't handled by compromise.  It's handled by the least democratic institutions, including the courts and the Constitution and is treated as an absolute right.  That limits the ability for people to reach a compromise and, instead, allows a noisy minority to thumb their noses at the majority.  

Yes, there are reasons to argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, particularly when the speech in question is political.  But the problem is that as the free speech gets more an more offensive and harder to avoid, the costs start to increase and will eventually exceed the benefits, and when that happens, you wind up with all sorts of limits on speech.  This is why colleges went from being bastions of free speech to having detailed and oppressive speech codes.   It's why even RPGPundit has had to exercise moderation and ban people here.  

As such, I think it's in the best interest of everyone to self-moderate and the problem is that I don't see a lot of self-moderation.  Eventually that leaves you with either a cesspool of people with no self-control or people creating rules to stop what they don't like.

I think the general mockery and scorn tend to drive the genuinely creepy away.

Judging by the experiences of having mythusmage and Dominus Nox here, it seems fair to say that if you mock and scorn them enough they go away. Each had extremely minimal restrictions put on their "free speech", the one not to discuss ages of consent, the other not to post in Off Topic; one was even protected by having it not allowed to bait him. Nonetheless, I don't think it was those restrictions which drove them away, but the scorn and mockery.

Those sorts of people - such as would post their play experiences of shocking fantasies in gaming - rely not on free speech, but restricted speech. That is, if they're free to say what they want and so is everyone else, the scorn and mockery drives them away; if they're free to say what they want and people aren't allowed to call them names (as on rpg.net or The Forge) then they really thrive and hang around for years.

Put another way, the best thing to do is that if people ask for trouble, they should get it.

Again, Boy's Club nonsense aside, this is the only rpg discussion forum I've seen where genuinely offensive people are simply driven away by the weight of scorn and mockery, but where also people give one another genuine and unasked for apologies for offensive things they've said.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThose sorts of people - such as would post their play experiences of shocking fantasies in gaming - rely not on free speech, but restricted speech. That is, if they're free to say what they want and so is everyone else, the scorn and mockery drives them away; if they're free to say what they want and people aren't allowed to call them names (as on rpg.net or The Forge) then they really thrive and hang around for years.

That's why I prefer a site to either have ENWorld's "grandmother standard" (meaning that the moderators are policing to make the site family friendly) or light moderation such as is maintained here.  RPGnet seems to have sort of an "anti-grandmother standard".

Of course, since you're allowed to say someone's grandmother is a dirty whore, and until she registers on rpg.net it won't be a "personal attack" whereas the natural response to that comment would be one