Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
While we are waiting on Grahf, i pull out my lute and begin playing a tune. A soft and melancholy melody that matches the dark atmosphere of the town and house.
Created:
Posted in:
(oooh, a secret room full of implements of dark magic. My guess is we're gonna find out its the same letter currently in our possession)
Created:
Posted in:
*potentially in need of a replacement for Beginners 1.3*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(Kewl kewl. So I guess we wait till Grahf gets back)
Created:
Posted in:
I grab any and all books relating to posion, alchemy and medicine. If there is a book about magic, grab that too
(Inb4- 🚫 Player has exceeded carry weight! 🚫 😂)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(I think its best we avoid going to the source of the lullabye until we are all together again.)
Created:
Posted in:
(Grahf, grab a couple alchemy books, preferably a book that seems to be about poisons, and one regarding medicines. Merlin and I will assuredly out such tomes to good use. Try to see if there is a book on the history of Barovia, maybe a personal journal of some sort)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
If the mirror currently has people trapped within, destroying the mirror means they cannot be rescued. I think before we take such a measure we need to try to get anyone potentially trapped within, out.
If we haven't found the baby yet, then i fear the child is either dead or trapped in the mirror. I suggest we investigate the basement to see what type of monster is potentially trapped down there, after searching the library for clues and spells 💯👌
Created:
Posted in:
(dude a library? Dope as shit, we should look in that to see if there are any spell incantations lying about, or information on that mirror)
Created:
Posted in:
I think what we have here is a mirror of transfixion. Basically, if you look into your own reflection, it paralyzes you, then traps you, or your soul, cant remember which, inside. I remember hearing about it when i visited the Underdark as a small child.
As long as you don't get too close, and dont look into the mirror, we should be safe. Cause i swear, that reflection was not moving with Grahf as he passed by, it was looking right at him even as he was moving across and not looking at it.
If im right, we might have an exelanation for the dissapearances, and why this town is desolate and abandoned, yet the children only claimed two days had past. Either the original messenger, amd children escaped somehow, or the mirror purposely let them out to lead further prey here to trap within. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
😂 Just don't get close to the mirror Grahf, you should be safe still. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
(can i provide thoughts as to what I think that mirror is/does?)
Created:
Posted in:
(im pretty sure i know what that mirror is, but I suppose I'll have to roll to see if my character does through an (intel?) roll before i explain?
Created:
Posted in:
(well done 💯)
Well, that was interesting. Something tells me with the painting we saw, the children might actually be telling the truth about their plight. After a check for items of interest, we should continue to the third floor.
I wonder what sort of family this is, that has animated armor in their house 🤔
i examine the surroundings with everyone else who is for anything of pecularity or seeming importance.
Hold on there Easy E! Don't leave us behind!
Upon seeing Eikken continue upstairs I run after her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
(oooh thats pretty dope).
(It looks like arrows won't do much and I'd rather Heroism not be broken) so I'll move so eikken and roberts are between me and the suit of armor.
Created:
Posted in:
Keep concentrating on Heroism for another round, and (if i can while channel casting), i slowly position roberts and eikken between me and the suit of armor 👍
(Continuing concentration still counts as the original cast, right? 🤔)
Created:
Posted in:
Cast Heroism on Roberts using my lute to channel the cast.
Created:
Posted in:
(Are those rats in the bottom left room? That looks like rats 🤔. It's milestone leveling, so its not super necessary we take them out unless we want to explore that room)
Created:
Posted in:
(there's only one way to proceed right now until the map is updated and we figure out what's fogged and where the stairs, basement entrance, and the like are. Merlin is leading the way, I guess earth and I are in the middle, and Roberts is guarding behind us?
The house is silent, so if anything is here, it already heard us as we approached from outside I would think.)
I keep my lute out, dagger still sheathed, and shortbow still slung around my back.
@drafter (I don't think ive actually cast a spell yet? Or did that previous cast count? 🤔)
Created:
Posted in:
Splitting up with a claimed monster about, and a potential trap seems reckless. Roberts is right that a few extra minutes won't make that much of a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
(once the children are out of earshot)
given the children's account, its been 2 days that their sibling has been left alone in the nursery. It cannot be doing well if what they say is true and this is not a trap. We should make haste to the nursery
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Snerp eyes low
(As if I could choose otherwise at 3 ft tall 😂)
Created:
Posted in:
I have to wonder how this town appears to be utterly deserted except for these guys, but nonetheless, a baby potential being in danger kinda forces our hand fmpov.
Weapons ready, we might have to fight our way out!
I pull out my lute and begin playing it, using the music to focus my casting of Heroism on (Roberts).
Let's do this 😤
Created:
Posted in:
If active consent still holds revocation of consent must be expressed, then it doesnt differ from tacit consent. 🤔
But if revocation need not be expressed, then that necessarily requires holding people as guilty of crimes they otherwise have potentially no indication they are committing. The whole purpose of active consent laws is in establishing the grounds to hold revoked consent not indicated as a valid form of revocation, thus establishing rape/assault/misconduct as being committed. Where in tacit consent it is largely not.
To address the proposed issue of lack of reporting, prosecution, and conviction, active consent must necessarily flip these presumptions, else it doesnt address these proposed issues at all, because the same criminal and civil standards will be present that create this proposed issue anyways.
Nor does active consent address the amibiguity of non verbal cues and communication, because it holds those as valid forms of consent and revocation, the same as tacit consent does. Which also means this ambiguity is not exclusive to tacit consent, ergo, not causing it.
Created:
Posted in:
Cite this.
Silent; not expressed; implied or inferred; manifested by the refraining from contradiction or objection; inferred from the situation and circumstances, in the absence of express matter. Thusly tacit consent is consent inferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an opportunity to forbid or refuse.[1]
Hrmmm, silent, not expressed, implied or inferred, in the absence of expressed matter. The issue at play here to you is that tacit consent does not allow for the revocation of consent outside of even the expressions of nonverbal communication. Consent once given, must be revoked actively, or else consent is considered given throughout the singular instance.
This thread was created as an attempt to multilate tacit consent, no? Are you magically now not presenting active consent as an alternative to tacit consent?
If tacit consent holds as its core principle that revoked consent must be made known through verbal or non-verbal communication, but active consent does not hold the inverse principle, that being it does not need to be made known, then active consent and this discussion as a whole is consequentially a herring to mutilating tacit consent as you arent even addressing the core principle. Either you disagree that consent cant be revoked passively, or you agree. If active consent does not operate as an inverse to that principle, then it is not addressing tacit consent, full stop.
Created:
Posted in:
The idea that there are consequences to this isn't what I'm calling hyperbole. What I'm calling hyperbole is this notion that this change somehow completely and utterly inverts the presumption of innocence. It doesn't. There is no evidence it has
wew 😂 wew, despite me point out it actually has with how Title IX is being carried out under the adoption of active consent standards.
Yup, like i said, you're pulling a "ItS NoT rEaL GomMuNiSm". Title IX adopted active consent as the standard. That standard has directly resulted in what it was meant to do as a means to address this proposed epidemic of unreported, unprosecuted, unconvicted rapes. A presumption of guilt.
That it is not a criminal adjudication does not magically mean its not a consequence of the position. Particularly when that position is being carried out to exact punishments under pretenses that could not by any stretch of the term be ethically defined as a "fair" jurisprudence.
The crucial difference between active and tacit consent here is that under tacit consent revoked consent cannot be passive, it has to be active and made known either verbally or non verbally. Under active consent, revoked consent can be passive, it does not have to be made known verbally or non verbally.
Again, this shifts the responsibility, and thus burden of proof, from one individual, onto the other. More specifically, from the accuser to the accused. It turns the question at onset from one of, "what did you do to make it known?" To, "what did they do to find out?"
That is pretty clearly a reversal of the burden of proof. And establishes one party as of greater responsibility(greater burden) to establish clear consent. All under the basis of accused v accusser. As the he said she said nature of such cases cannot ascertained, exact details can't really be used fairly. So you are left with parsing the responsibility to be on the party being accused at fault for not sufficiently acting in a manner to be able to determine that consent.
Instead of, "what evidence do you have you didn't consent?" it again becomes, "what evidence do you have the other actually did consent?"
Again, that's a clear reversal of burdens of proof 🤔.
Created:
Posted in:
I do agree that men should take body language into account, and if they're continuing to do something even though the girl is being quite hesitant, there's something wrong
You say this as if men for the most part arent factoring that in already. "Active v Tacit" consent is not an issue of body language and non verbal cues. Active consent holds nonverbal cues as just as much a form of consent as tacit.
Tacit would be a presumption of consent when no rejection or indication of lack of desire has been offered despite having opportunity to do so. Active would be both partners actively consenting(verbally or non-verbally) throughout the encounter.
Non verbal cues are included within active consent as a form of consent. Ex:
Mid-sex, assuming active consent up to that point, Person A attempts to cease, or indicates they wish to cease, sexual activity in some way. Under both, if the other persists they are now committing rape.
Also for illistration:
Same situation, but instead of person A attempting to, or indicating they wish to cease activities, they do not in any way. They still wish for it to cease though, which is what is crucial to establish the claim of rape. If person B persists, under active consent, they are committing rape. Under tacit consent, they are not.
Now, Drafter proposes this as something that addresses the ambiguity of non verbal communication. But no, it doesn't, as active consent allows for non verbal cues as consent.
What it actually does is it reverses the onus from Person A to make it otherwise known they wish activities to cease, to being on Person B to determine that. Glaring issue, between two consenting adults, this stance necessarily views one participant as having greater responsibility than another. Which necessarily means burdens of proof are shifted AND presumption of guilt. These reversals arent negotiable, they are intrinsic to active consent. As bolded, it places whether or not wrongdong has been committed, squarely onto whether or not one feels wrongdoing has been committed. Which necessarily places burden of proof onto the accused to prove they did not, as opposed to the accused needing to prove that they did.
Claims of reversals of fair trial principles are not hyperbolic to the situation, they are necessary consequences of the standard, and have already resulted in such applications being carried out to punishments in areas that have longstanding ill effects to a persons livelihood(Title IX).
Which brings up consequentially, being that under active consent *it is only necessary a person not want to continue sexual activities* even after otherwise consenting previously in the same encounter, without having to make it known or indicate otherwise(non verbal cues being applicable to this), then how is a person to reasonably determine this?
Furthermore, as reversals of burdens of proof and presumption of guilt are necessary to the adoption of active consent both at a fundamental level and as illustrated in practical applications of Title IX. This independently also a necessity to addressing the proposed issue of lack of reporting, prosecution, and conviction, as active consent does not address in the absence of. This leads to a necessary issue, how would a person, short of videotaping entire sexual encounters,(as written consent is inapplicable) something that in itself requires written or verbal consent, reasonably protect themselves from such accusations?
Which just circles right back to what is being advocated for, would necessitate, particularly if we are going to be tying consequences to deviations from said standard, a total shift in how sexual encounters tend to operate.
Not just from the perspective of both parties being incentivized to record consent, but also in that it incentivizes pre-emptive reporting of such deviations as a means to insulate oneself from potential accusations.
Something that is already being witnessed as, where these advocacies are actually being carried out, something Drafter would otherwise wish to ignore, males are starting to preemptively claim wrongdoing to insulate against accusation, and there is no choice but to railroad the accused anyway... welcome to what this standard creates
There is nothing in law that mandates presumption of innocence and burdens of proof being on the accuser. That is just near universally considered to be a necessary component to the right to a fair trial. To say it hasn't happened yet criminally, is a herring to it already happening non-criminally and to it being a necessary practical effect of the standard as illustrated. 🤔
And as pointed out in the first paragraph, the proposed issue of non verbal cues not otherwise predominantly being understood and recognizable, won't be addressed by active consent, as active consent accepts non verbal cues as a form of consent.
To address non verbal cues, you would have to create a standard that emphasizes verbal cues(written excluded).
Non verbal communication is ambiguous and often results in misunderstandings in all areas of social interaction, not just sexual encounters. Which turns this less into an issue of primarily sexual consent, and more into an issue of consent standards overall.
As Drafter is positing, non verbal cues are unreliable, and that lack of reliability leads to serious harm in areas where it fails. But how is active consent going to solve that/how is that exclusively the issue of tacit consent, when non verbal cues are forms of consent in both?
🤔
,
Created:
Posted in:
To summarize:
I pointed out that these standards reverse the principles of presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on the accuser.
You responded with saying that such standards havent been adopted criminally, *yet* .
But *yet* does not address the future and practical effects. As you established, the widespread adoption of a standard change leads to that often being codified into law(spousal rape laws).
Which then honestly raises the question, if you wish to see the standard change, but do not want to see deviations from said standard met with punishments(due to those standards being inherently unjust when applied perhaps? 🤔) What purpose does your advocacy even have?
Unjust punishments are unjust punishments, regardless of how you try to slice it. And implementation of your advocacy necessarily leads to unjust punishments already. And it's well within likely probability, that such standards eventually become codified into law if they become the general standard(spousal rape laws, Title IX, California Law).
Which its important to note, you are right that no such reversals of principle have been brought forward in prosecution independent of universities in the realm of criminal law. Which necessarily concedes that even if we adopt the standard, punishment for deviation from that standard still results in the same issue of lack of reporting, prosecuting, and sentencing criminally, because those reversals of principles are what directly addresses that issue, This still only mattering statistically if you are presuming guilt from the onset. This not to say there aren't actual victims who don't report, or actual perpetrators who aren't prosecuted or sentenced, rather, that the existence of those, does not justify presuming guilt and having the means of punishing innocents, does not justify the ends of catching those who actually do. As again, the only feasible way you address this proposed issue, is by reversing fair trial principles, as Title IX did for that reason. As without doing so, the proposed problem still exists, and our hands are tied as to do anything about it.
.
Created:
Posted in:
On the note of "hyperbole"
I'm not the one that brought up that these changes in standards have real world consequences in law. To state that "what you are concerned about no longer being a core principle, is still a core principle.
And thats the thing. They are core principles, neither of the two is codified into law. And to state, " its not happened yet criminally"
is true, but wholly ignores that such a standard has been adopted(Title IX) which has, to no surprise, resulted in young adults being railroaded out of university without any semblence of a fair trial, in proceedings where guilt is presumed and burden of proof is on the accused.
You are the one advocating for active consent standards, you are the one who brought up that these shifts in standards, have the real consequence of sometimes being codified into law. You brought it up with spousal rape laws, i further cemented that in bringing up Title IX.
Now, I'm pretty sure we can both realize, that though these students arent usually criminally prosecuted, they are still ousted from a federally funded university and given a black mark on their record that will follow them around for life. This all from something that it seems obvious both of us would agree does not at all constitute a fair trial.
So to say, "well that's not a criminal prosecution" is rubbish and disingenuous to your stance still having real world consequences. Now either you own up to those consequences, which are, as established, the direct result of the standard you are advocating for, or the one committing a fallacy here is you with a "no true scotsman". Because when you can be railroaded out of an upper education and left with a permanent scutch on your academic record, all without a fair trial, that one isnt being criminally prosecuted is of little consolation to the injustice that been done already.
To clarify, your statistics on the lack of criminal prosecution for cases of rape and/or sexual assault, and such instances going unreported, don't matter at all unless you are presuming, even if just in part, guilt where guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And you honestly want to try to claim pointing that out, and pointing out that these standards already are having severe impacts on the lives of many, impacts which are being adjudicated without any semblence of a fair trial, is hyperbole?
Hyperbole- exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Tell me, how are the claims exaggerated and/or not meant to be taken literally when the claims are already happening? 🤔. You cant have your cake and eat it too here. You want to advocate for active consent, and point out that changes of standards have real world consequences in law(spousal rape laws) and/or punishments independent of criminal prosecution(Title IX), Then you are going to have to own up to the real world consequences of the very position you are advocating for. That is not hyperbole, and claims that such consequences are irrelevant because criminal standards haven't changed *yet* both ignores the direct consequence of a change to predominant standards(incoporation into law), and the necessary consequences of that incorporation as already witnessed via California Law and Title IX.
To call it hyperbole, to claim it wouldn't happen, is what is itself as absurd as the strawman of written contracts, because it already is happening. And to repeat again, as established by you with spousal rape laws, the widespread adoption of standards, leads to those standards being codified into law.
Honestly, your response to these consequences is equivalent to someone going, "BuT tHaTs NoT ReAl ComMuNiSm/SoCiAlIsM" when somebody brings up the myriad of governances that have adopted those Marxist ideologies. As said, no true scotsman fallacy at its finest
Created:
Posted in:
To clarify regarding the sexual assault/rape proportionality(1/6, it was once 1/4, but I guess people werent buying that piece of alarmist BS, so you gotta try to tweak the numbers so they might be more believable, if not still absurdly out of line with all other crime rates.
The issues with that survey were the non response bias(only 19% of those requests actually responded. And that misconduct, was too easily lumped in with the more serious crimes of rape and/or sexual assault.
Which, holy shit, this directly ties into my point about C.K. and coercion.(which btw, in person, he was pretty clear he asked for consent before pulling out his junk.), And yet, you hold he still committed wrongdoing because his celebrity, as you held, constitutes as "pressuring" which is itself included within "intimidation" itself included in "coercion". Ergo, you still consider it to be coercive, for a celebrity, to make a sexual advance on someone.
Which is absurd, because then any advance from a celebrity, towards a non-celebrity, becomes coercion by default, regardless of whether consent, active or otherwise, is sought.
Which brings up a huge issue, you are advocating for active consent as if this will solve alllll these problems. When you necessarily conceded with the C.K. issue, that you can still be held as having committed wrongdoing, criminal or non-criminal is irrelevant, as the accusation still has heavy real world consequences, even if they seek consent, active or otherwise.
I'm having a hard time seeing how this advocacy is all that stellar, if even you admit by virtue of your arguments, that it holds little weight regarding whether or not wrongdoing has been committed. As you can seek consent, and get it, without the people being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, without at all referencing that celebrity or directly threatening to use that influence and power to negative effect, and still be held as having committed wrongdoing.
Not to mentioned "1/5" is a rate that is astronomically absurd. Not a damn crime has a rate of being committed that it rates at 25% of the female population per capita. All other crimes fall into the low single digits and most lower than 1% per capita. (DoJ has it at .76%(7.6) and .61%(6.1)).
Created:
Posted in:
1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted
This statistic is absolute rubbish. First of all, that information was from a survey. A survey that had numerous issues.
Indeed, AAU’s 23 percent figure should be interpreted within the survey’s broad definitional umbrella of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, which includes incidences of unwanted “sexual touching: touching someone’s breast, chest crotch groin, or buttocks—grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes.”
While researchers wrote that the “sexual touching” behaviors they outlined fit with criminal definitions of sexual battery, it is impossible to know whether participants’ varying accounts of unwanted “sexual touching” would hold up in campus tribunals, let alone in criminal court.
Though the survey’s results are more nuanced in the fine print, the AAU researchers still lumped together varying degrees of “sexual assault and sexual misconduct.” This, too, could mislead readers, given that degrees of assault are generally categorized under the law and punished accordingly. And lumping assault and misconduct together may minimize more serious traumas.[1]
Sexual misconduct is inexcusable, but a minor incident of unwanted touching should not be equated with rape. Indeed, we should educate college women to distinguish varying degrees of sexual assault while still understanding that they shouldn’t tolerate or be ashamed of speaking out about sexual assault or misconduct.[1]
AAU researchers acknowledged that their findings could reflect an inflated victimization rate at participating schools due to “non-response bias”; in other words, they determined that the hundreds of thousands of students who didn’t participate in their electronic survey (only 19 percent of those asked to take the survey did so) were less likely to have been sexually assaulted. The non-response bias further weakens the oft-recited “one in five” figure—the number of women who say they have been sexually assaulted during their college years—since AAU’s survey and others that preceded it are not representative of all college women[1]
The study clashes with data gathered by the Justice Department between 1995 and 2013, which found that college-age women who aren’t students are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women who are students. The number of victims was significantly lower than those in other recent surveys: 7.6 of 1,000 non-students compared to 6.1 of 1,000 students
"Only 1 in 5 cases get reported to police"
And those are irrelevant considering to hold them as relevant you are assuming them to be true, something you nor I can know. So to get this straight for all observers. Though Drafterman clearly takes issue with presumption of guilt and burden of proof being placed on the accused, we see here in action how that is exactly how he views it regardless.
"1/5 cases arent even reported"
"Sexual assault cases already have an extremely low prosecution rate (about 1 in 30) and, of those that actually get prosecuted only about half result in actual incarceration "
For these statistics to even matter you would have to be presuming guilt where it's either not been prosecuted, or does not reach a conviction.
And if current legal standards are what is bringing about these results, in combination with the numerous aforementioned difficulties in proving a crime happened beyond a reasonable doubt, if you are going to change these numbers, obviously an issue to Drafter who brought them up, you are going to have to change the standards that cause those results, namely the presumption of innocence and BoP being on the accuser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
You have quite the preoccupation with forges. Grahf, do you secretly wish to become a smithy? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Simmer down there hoss, they're just kids! Maybe they can help us?
(They are creepy, I agree, but staying in character RN 👌. Don't put down the bow please lol)
Created:
Posted in:
I stop and look down the street the kids are standing in the middle of.
Hey you two! We need some directions, can you help us?
Created:
Posted in:
Grahf barges into a shop... Quietly, of course.
Well, we already lost Grahf 😂
Created:
Posted in:
the bill is inherently “reversing” the traditional presumption of innocence for those accused because the accused now have to prove they did get permission to be found not guilty -- at least in college disciplinary hearings.
Denice Labertew, the director of advocacy services at the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the bill creates a "clearer standard" because instead of the alleged victim being required to prove they didn't want to engage in sexual activity, the alleged perpetrator would be required to prove his partner did want to.[1]
Now this is just in universities, right now. But it is not "omg that's so absurd, stop strawmanning hardcore" to bring up the situation where such standards end up mandating, to protect oneself legally from accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, that measures be taken to safeguard. Nor absurd to examine for effects if adopted widespread.
Ur right that written contracts would be useless and are a total strawman though, because consent can just be revoked after the theoretical contract would be signed. So then comes the issue, is the burden of proof being shifted, is the presumption of innocence being reversed, worth it?
I would hold no, my mind does not sit easy with an ends justify the means approach as that in essence is 🤔. Nor does it sit easy with me the kind of precedent that would set for criminal prosecutions. And thats not a slippery slope fallacy, because that is already an issue in universities, now even with Title IX, apart from the aforementioned law, which is now holding that same presumption.[2]
I can see the noble intent, but what do you suggest individuals do when guilt is presumed, and written consent is pointless? I agree it theoretically should be revokable at any time, but it becomes a clear issue to me when such standards constitute as reversals of the principles of presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on prosecution/accuser.
And now the accused is placed in a position of having to prove they didnt commit a crime, instead of having to prove a crime has been committed.
[2]http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html
Created:
Posted in:
Guilty as charged 😂Except no one is asking you to sign a contract. I mean, people see a positive consent law and talk about things like contracts and affirming consent every five seconds. This is basically text-book strawman
Ok, so lets get down to brass tacks. Now, these concepts, as you pointed out with the laws that recognized spousal rape, have real world consequences. There is an active consent law in place in California, so i think its a more than reasonable thing to examine for the effects of a "yes means yes"(active consent) a opposed to a "no means no" standard(passive consent)
The New Law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. [1]
"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."[1]
Now, much of this seems sensible on its face, there are clear situations at least in every situation where one could easily see situations where rape and/or sexual assault would clearly be happening.
But consider, two individuals are both drinking. Both actively consent to sex throughout the encounter. The next day Person A files a complaint against person B for rape. Now, the question here is not whether person B is guilty of rape, the question is, how do we determine that? If both are drinking, then neither is capable of consent, no? So both are guilty of rape, or neither?
Difference in inebriation potentially becomes a factor too, but yet again, how is that reasonably determined if it does become a factor?
(sorry, this page has been auto refreshing w/my phone and I've had to type this part up idk how many times, ill be making a follow up post, i just don't wanna lose this again 😂)
Created:
Posted in:
🎶just the two of us, we can reroll if we die, just the two of us, squishy guys🎶
Well, lets hear from Eikken, see if she thinks it's worth a try, anyone have some food? If we run into a wolf or wolves it might be useful as a peace offering 🤔.
(I suppose (Roberts) and (Merlin) will continue on into town? Im honestly not sure how I even feel about splitting up. If we're running into a trap that would be disaster. 😐)
Created:
Posted in:
Me and Eikstatic? Now, normally i'd be all game for taking a walk with Easy E, but having both healers go off together seems a recipe for disaster. Would be better if Grahf and I went if that's what we're gonna do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Seperating myself from the group? Sureeeeee
Created:
Posted in:
Any chance of stealth or surprise has been eliminated by the gates.
You think the gates were really that loud as to be heard clear across the valley 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
My hope is maybe we spot an animal of some sort, something i could befriend and try to work out some sort of way to ascertain what's going on. I can send messages to and befriend animals. Could prolly work out some sort of yes/no system to ask questions 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
I agree, there isnt much point to turning back now. Maybe instead of walking right into the center of town, we kinda scope it out by walking around it from a distance, see if we spot anything
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Yeah, listen to Zuddy McZudderton. Shes not wrong, this doesn't feel right 😐
Created:
Posted in:
It seems Barovia is the lightless village before us 🤔. I do not like how it is lightless, seeing as the messenger had just come from here not too long before. I fear we may be too late to save lady Ireena and collect our reward, or that we are walking right into a trap 😐
Created:
Posted in:
(😂😂😂)what kind of funeral ritual would Zud like Asking for a friend
Created:
Posted in:
My prayer finished I stride through the gates with no further hesitation.
Idk about guys, but I'm gonna follow behind good old Zuddy duddy
Created:
Posted in:
Lets walk in.
Ah yes, gates open up by themselves with headless guards at the entrance, and this guy wants to just walk right in. Got some stones on ya 😂
Created: