Outrage of the Day: VR Sexual Assault.

Yes it should be, and the fact that it is not in the US (according to you) only shows up how backward in some respects that country is, while covering its shame with the fig leaf of the Constitution (as in so many areas). I am proud of the stand my country and its justice system, supported by the public, takes against bigoted abuse.

And, for the record, before the hate mob get downvoting, this post currently stands at +2, so I am not alone in thinking this.

I disagree with you. This is not surprising. The American Revolution, where we separated from British rule, was caused because England didn't respect civil rights. Free Speech, to me, is the most important of human rights. It protects the right of expression from the tyranny of the majority.

There is no progress in society; not civil rights, not abolition of slavery, not woman's suffrage, not LGBT rights, that didn't start with an unpopular minority speaking up in a way that offended general society. If you let government crack down on dissent, you make progress that much less likely.

Laws outlawing free expression do great damage to free-democratic societies.

That's great for you. That'll mean you're unlikely to experience PTSD triggers.

Not everyone is so lucky.

This is the difference between freedom and tyranny.

Do you propose to limit gaming to prevent a minority of people from having bad experiences?

You should read "Ready Player One", the design of that world and the limits placed on players in different parts of the VR world would be a good add to anything in the VR design.

Not all things that are entertaining are necessary.

It is popular art. It is culture. We don't judge these things based on what is "necessary".

We just finished banned books week. Where these books that offended people "necessary"?

Once you allow for censorship, you need to choose the people who will be the censors. If the criteria for banning something is whether it is "necessary" you are setting the bar very low indeed.

The word "trigger", as a verb meaning "to cause great offense or emotional distress", has percolated down to the pre-teen world. They are triggered by homework, and when their dads wear crocs.

One morning by daughter was triggered by soy milk (when it was the only white liquid available to put on her cheerios).

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2052796/virtual-reality-sexual-assault-games-firm-unveils-anti-pervert-safe-space-forcefield/

This just isn't an image I want in my head.

Are you suggesting that a game should be censored because it may offend someone?

How about those that are easily offended push this?

Online communities that ignore bad user experiences don't last very long.

A bunch of people punch that power button, and never come back.

These companies are businesses, and aren't driven by some anarcho-Libertarian ideology.

Compassion and empathy aren't just good manners; they're good business as well.

We were talking about this at work... and a few other solutions.

The first solution is for this woman to just ignore the jerk. Men and boys are also "sexually assaulted" in these games (all of us who have played multiplayer games have been teabagged).

You simply ignore it (or you think it is funny and you join in).

This solution is simply an artificial aid to get the "victim" to ignore the bad behavior. Of course the bad behavior can still happen and be seen by everyone else in the virtual world.

Another solution would be a more aggressive forcefield where an aggressor wouldn't be able to move within a zone around the "victim". I called this a "virtual protection order".

Of course the problem with the virtual protection order is that it would impact the game play. One player could trap the other player with the force field, or maybe even push him off ledges (how this would work in the game physics is interesting).

The real solution is for the good White middle-class adults who enter these virtual worlds to realize that this type of immature behavior is part of the culture of these virtual worlds. If they can't tolerate it, then they really shouldn't be there.

This is the equivalent of some person entering the land of Amazon tribes and being offended by the nudity.

Define "bad user experiences". These games don't cater to uptight middle-class White adults.

There are all sorts of "communities" that allow behavior that offend middle-class White women. Rap music, Country Music, Hooters, Strip clubs, Pro-Wrestling, Game of Thrones.... they all seem to be very profitable.

The notion that you can't be a profitable business if you don't cater to middle-class White women is demonstrably wrong.

If I knew a child around me, such as a niece or nephew or granddaughter was playing games like this with partners over the internet, I would strongly talk to their parents about the dangers and make sure the parents talk to their kids and make them quit. There are other things which worry me as well, for instance, just snapchat, a popular place local (I hope local)kids hang out on their phones and take snap shots of themselves. I worry about whoever else is seeing those snaps. I just have to live with the worry.

My point is that I agree with those who saying going down the censoring path is a dangerous one, by all means talk about the disgusting game, talk about it on talk shows and show all the disgusting parts of it, but, I don't agree with censoring; it is a slippery slope.

There's so many stupid assumptions wrapped up in that, that it's not worth de-tangling.

Enjoy your befuddled day.

Lot's of luck Revellette!

I think DrewDad has kids of that age. I will let him explain how reasonable your solution would be. When we were kids, it was Dungeons and Dragons that was damaging our little minds. Our parents weren't able to stop us at that either.

That's a nice dodge DrewDad. Not only did I make a very clear argument, but I provided you clear specific examples to back it up.

Why don't you pick one of these so-called "stupid assumptions" to de-tangle... just to see if you have anything.

For one, you assume that the game designers don't want or need to appeal to women gamers. An assumption refuted by the article to which I linked.


For another, you bring up strip clubs as evidence that businesses don't need to care about the user experience.... I guarantee that strip clubs care about their customers' having an enjoyable experience (while having them depart with as flat of a wallet as possible).



You've got this muddled up in your head as some kind of social-justice-warrior thing, and that it's men vs. women. It's not.


It's a business thing. The gaming company wants to attract as many customers as possible, and keep them. They also want to be able to attract talent, which is hard if you're going on campus trying to recruit for the "virtual strip club/grope the gamer chick" app. They're (I hope) trying to build a brand.

There is the problem. You are responding to things I didn't say. If you are going to try to refute my points, at least get my arguments correct.

I never said that the game designers don't want or need to appeal to women gamers. I said that some communities can thrive with content that some of what I was calling "White middle class women" would find offensive. Some successful businesses pick a market and cater to that market. Game of Thrones lost a segment of their market because of how they portrayed sexual relationships. Game of Thrones did just fine anyway, because many people found these same things compelling and no one else dares to cover this material.

I never said that strip clubs don't care about the user experience. I said that they were profitable in spite of the fact that many "White middle class women" find them offensive. The people who go to strip clubs are expecting a certain type of experience, and the strip clubs cater to them (rather than to the disapproving people who never go to strip clubs).

And, I never said it was men vs. women. Female Gamers are individuals, they don't all think alike. Many female gamers enjoy these games as they are.