Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
PsychologicalWar.orgPeople before labels.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

INTERNATIONAL GAME SYSTEMS

Deception, Consent, Social Trust, and Anti-Harassment Boundaries

A social-deception framework that distinguishes strategic fictional betrayal from griefing, abuse, discriminatory targeting, and real-world manipulation.

Read the working brief Choose a learning path
LEVEL 1

ORIENTATION

Why this matters

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

One-sentence brief

Deception can be compelling when everyone understands the possibility and retains agency. It becomes exploitation when the platform hides the rule, targets vulnerability, blocks exit, or rewards harassment.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three key points

  1. Consent is specific to a mode, encounter, and type of risk.
  2. Warmth, disability, diagnosis, nationality, language, or social isolation cannot be turned into exploitability scores.
  3. Trust can be rebuilt through evidence, apology, restitution, and changed behavior.
LEVEL 2

WORKING BRIEF

Evidence, context, and limits

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Name the social contract before play

Modes describe whether lying, concealed roles, theft, betrayal, or partial information are possible. Players can choose safer spaces without losing essential progression or being mocked as less skilled.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Never optimize targets by vulnerability

The system cannot recommend targets based on age, disability, diagnosis, loneliness, language proficiency, migration status, economic hardship, grief, or inferred suggestibility. Those fields are not legitimate difficulty modifiers.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Make risk legible without revealing every secret

Interfaces can show contract class, moderation scope, potential loss ceiling, whether an AI is involved, and whether settlement is guaranteed. Mystery remains inside the disclosed boundary.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Trust has a repair loop

After betrayal, affected players can access the record, seek restitution, correct false reputation, block future contact, and choose whether to reconcile. A perpetrator’s apology is not automatic forgiveness or restored access.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Moderation remains responsible

A player-run bounty or reputation system cannot replace platform governance. Operators intervene in harassment, collusion, fraud, discriminatory targeting, and exploit abuse, and publish appealable reasons for sanctions.

LEVEL 3

COMPLETE DOSSIER

Limitations, game links, and review context

DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Known limitations and gaps

  • These pages are authored design syntheses, not independent validation of every claim in the supplied reports.
  • No country, culture, language, religion, diagnosis, disability, migration status, income level, or region is assigned a hidden competence, honesty, criminality, loyalty, or risk modifier.
  • The public edition omits operational intrusion, evasion, targeting, coercion, weapons, exploit, and real-person profiling instructions.
  • Regional, economic, accessibility, clinical, lived-experience, legal, privacy, and consumer-protection review remain open human gates.
  • RogueIntelligence.org remains authoritative for live game state; these pages describe design principles and correction boundaries.
LEVEL 4

RESEARCH EDITION

Sources, methods, and stable links

REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Method and corrections

This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.

Read the methodView corrections
NEXT

CONTINUE

Related learning

International Game SystemsAfter-Action Accountability, Civilian Harm, and Institutional RepairA post-mission system that reconstructs events, preserves uncertainty, records harm, hears affected perspectives, and requires remedy instead of rewarding concealment or punitive spectacle.International Game SystemsAI NPC Identity Disclosure, Consent, and Human–AI BoundariesA clear rule that players can tell when they are interacting with an AI-controlled character, what the system can remember, and which decisions always remain deterministic or human-reviewed.International Game SystemsAI Reliability, Corrections, Human Oversight, and ContestabilityA lifecycle for testing, monitoring, correcting, overriding, and retiring generative NPC behavior without pretending that fluency is accuracy or that a model can adjudicate its own mistakes.International Game SystemsCognitive Safety, Reality Anchoring, and Respectful SupportA non-diagnostic safety framework for AI and fictional espionage content that avoids affirming frightening real-world beliefs, avoids humiliation, and routes urgent needs to human support.