Content warning for violation of consent (vague), discussion of consent, discussion of the need for consent in games and community, accountability in all spaces
This article discusses the nature of soft no’s, hard no’s, using these in meta accessibility tools, and the use of accountability meta accessibility tools.
Why Soft No’s Are Part of Script Change
When I originally designed Script Change around 2013, I was just getting into indie games and coming from a background where, in and out of games, consent was basically a foreign concept. I wanted to make something that would be easier for people like me to accept, but let me engage without causing a lot of conflict. I wanted to feel safer without having people realize I was doing it, sometimes.
I want to highlight first some behaviors and phrases that you may hear in a game, professional, or personal setting.
“I don’t know about this.”
“Uh, that’s gross.”
“That sounds weird.”
“Hey, I need a little space.”
“My character doesn’t seem like the kind who would do that.”
“That’s a little much?”
For physical behaviors, these are things like leaning away, sighing or stepping back, uncomfortable laughter, becoming unusually quiet, or disengaging to play on their phone, etc. These are examples of soft no’s. Hard no’s are things like walking away, saying “no,” clear denial or rejection “That’s not okay, don’t do it.” These are just some of the examples.
I want to bring up the concept of hard no’s and soft no’s. These are familiar concepts even if we don’t know the actual terms. The X-card, for example, is basically a hard no. Lines are hard no’s, veils are soft. Yellow in the stop light is soft, and red is hard, but when we use things like an OK Check-In, we’re also asking people whether they need a soft or hard engagement of these kinds of tools or support.
Script Change is full of soft no’s. Rewind is a “hey uuuuh let’s try a different way,” while fast forward is an “okay let’s just skip the details?” Even pause is the opportunity to discuss and address boundaries to make rejection of an idea or plot point more palatable, more comfortable, and easier, to avoid greater conflict and pain.
It took me a long, painful time to realize part of why I designed Script Change like this is because I had been giving soft no’s my entire life, in games and in real life, and no one would acknowledge them. People overstepped my boundaries left and right. I had also ignored or stepped past other people’s boundaries, or their soft no’s (and even, admittedly, hard ones) in large part because I hadn’t been educated about consent, and I thought those things were normal.
I knew that formalizing these things in Script Change gave them more weight. The formalization of tools and mechanics makes a lot of people who might otherwise not understand consent or fear rejection of their ideas feel less threatened, more accepting, because it’s a conversation, it’s a dialogue, it’s soft with structure. It teaches about consent minded behavior, which contributes to safety.
As we all know, even with safety tools, you cannot guarantee safe tables. It takes a lot of time to cultivate a safe space, and even when you think it is safe for you, it may not be safe for others. This is where accountability comes in.
Accountability
It became evident to me over time that there were always going to be violations, breaking of boundaries, or causes of hurt no matter how much we cultivate our table or use safety tools, and that it spills out into the community and how we engage in daily life. With this in mind, as I integrated wrap meetings, then later bloopers and outtakes, I wanted to introduce ways of having thoughtful, emotionally validating conversations post-game where players are accountable to their own behavior AND can request accountability from others.
With a lot of things in the games community and industry, I feel like accountability is sorely lacking, so I want to talk about what I mean by “accountability.”
Accountability is when you not only genuinely apologize for wrongdoing or ignorance that supports wrongdoing, but also acknowledge your role in events that cause harm to others, and demonstrate both desire to change and enactment of that change. Accountability is an ongoing process, one that can often need to be public because harm spreads across communities and so does awareness of that harm.
There are people I have hurt who I try to demonstrate my accountability to without injecting my emotions into their life years after the fact. Sometimes, addressing issues well after the fact only raises the issue again for the person who was harmed – it can be triggering, traumatizing, emotionally draining, and weighty. That’s why accountability is complex, but is still vital, and addressing issues early tends to be better. It is important to remember consent applies here, too – if a person doesn’t want you to apologize to them, don’t push it. It’s okay to ask “hey, I would like to apologize about my behavior in x context, but I want to give you space to see if you’re up for that conversation.” However, if they say no, don’t push. Give them the space.
This is why wrap meetings involve a lot of open ended questions, and why further structured conversations like outtakes allow players to state their feelings and invite accountability or the option to apologize and be accountable for their own behavior. While it is expected that someone who causes harm should be accountable, it is okay for people who are harmed to feel like it’s either not sufficient, or to not want to engage because it hurts or is too much energy. The harmed person is priority, and because accountability takes a degree of ownership over harm caused, we have to learn to accept that sometimes our actions need to be held by us and we may never be forgiven by others. We can change and move forward, but we can’t forgive ourselves (or forgive others for hurting people who are not us).
Designing conversations about accountability and harm into a toolbox that is based heavily on soft no’s encourages players to acknowledge soft no’s, how their can be long term damage from ignoring or not valuing soft no’s, and teach behaviors that respect soft no’s without having to build up to hard no’s. Hard no’s can still happen, and often do, but they should be the option we take when those we’re playing with are unable to acknowledge a softer engagement. In the case of Script Change, designing toward the soft no is my way of saying that we all need to learn to be accountable and to respect discomfort or needs expressed by other players that are given even with the lightest touch.
You shouldn’t have to use a hard no and risk greater conflict because of the inherent fear of creative or personal rejection that many people experience, and learning to read the reactions and actions of other players through caring dialogue is the first step to that reality.
Script Change is available for free at briebeau.com/scriptchange and for free or donation at briebeau.itch.io/script-change. I am available for safety and design consultation through my contact page, as well as for integrating Script Change into your games for a custom design! Stay safe(r) out there, y’all.