RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Reppu · **08-10-2013, 03:28 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:26 PM)Eve Malusion Wrote: So I would appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong on this, but there's one thing that is kind of bothering me about the earlier arguments about same sex marriage risking the game getting banned in some countries.

What exactly is the evidence of that happening at all in an MMO in the past? I've been trying to look it up but the only cases of middle eastern countries ever banning a game for same sex relationships has been for single player titles. No matter where I've looked I couldn't find a single case of a MMORPG being banned or having it's age rating increased due to same sex relationships. As for Russia, I haven't been able to find a case of them ever banning a video game at all.

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, I did read the entire thread but I might have missed a post on it in passing.

No MMO has currently launched with gay marriage as a feature, confirmed or implemented. The reason why one can consider it as a risk to FFXIV to confirm it before launch, is because there are games (Remember, MMOs are still -games-) that are either flat-out banned, or made into an 18+ and thusly highly inaccessible title in these places.

If an MMO HAS done this, please correct me. My research is not always correct.

Domri Blackblade · **08-10-2013, 03:30 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:27 PM)Naunet Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:19 PM)Meia Wrote: But... Rosa Parks didn't curse out everyone on the bus and act like a banshee.Â

No one is doing this. There are passionate posts, but no one is "cursing out everyone" and acting "like a banshee". It is patronizing posts like this one, however, that make me wantÂ to do so, because it is incredibly frustrating to construct strongly worded but completely rational arguments and then get told to calm down like I am some kind of child who doesn't know how to control myself.

Speaking for myself, none of my words even had you directed in mind. I've read the whole thread and I personally think you more or less represent what I'm trying to say. You aren't insulting the people who are presenting points contrary to yours. You aren't swearing every other word.

In my eyes, you've been quite effective in your arguing. So, if I personally made you feel otherwise, then I apologize. Because I think the tough words and the harsh challenges are what we need.

Not the all caps, the f-bombs, and the likening of Japan to people who execute homosexuals.

Zizirimu Yayarimu · **08-10-2013, 03:31 PM**

Hehe I had the same concerns over the Miqote as well in another thread.

Reppu · **08-10-2013, 03:32 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:30 PM)Meia Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:27 PM)Naunet Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:19 PM)Meia Wrote: But... Rosa Parks didn't curse out everyone on the bus and act like a banshee.Â

No one is doing this. There are passionate posts, but no one is "cursing out everyone" and acting "like a banshee". It is patronizing posts like this one, however, that make me wantÂ to do so, because it is incredibly frustrating to construct strongly worded but completely rational arguments and then get told to calm down like I am some kind of child who doesn't know how to control myself.

Speaking for myself, none of my words even had you directed in mind. I've read the whole thread and I personally think you more or less represent what I'm trying to say. You aren't insulting the people who are presenting points contrary to yours. You aren't swearing every other word.

In my eyes, you've been quite effective in your arguing. So, if I personally made you feel otherwise, then I apologize. Because I think the tough words and the harsh challenges are what we need.

Not the all caps, the f-bombs, and the likening of Japan to people who execute homosexuals.

I would agree that Naunet has presented themselves admirably, sans a rather snide remark to my person earlier in this thread due to a miscommunication, or a lack of understanding to the point I was making.

Despite us having different viewpoints, and ignoring that single incident, I can veryÂ much say for the approach Naunet is making, it is admirable.

Naunet · **08-10-2013, 03:33 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:20 PM)Reppu Wrote: For a mechanic not yet implemented, and thus no discrimination has yet been had. This is because there is a chance that this will change before the release in 2.1.

Discrimination has already occurred. To think otherwise is to fool yourself. Quite literally the only non-discriminatory options are 1) to NOT say that the marriage system will start with straight-only marriages and to release it without gender restrictions, or 2) to not release a marriage system at all but provide craftable wedding gear that anyone can use to RP their own weddings.

That's it. Anything else is either passive discrimination through inaction or the delay of action, or actively discriminatory in the case of the possibility (/high/ possibility, as it's something they've already said they'll do) of releasing the marriage system with gender restrictions. Waiting to "discuss" this issue is discrimination. Waiting for "feedback" is discrimination. Because all of that implies that a marriage system without gender restrictions is somehow less, somehow dangerous, somehow wrong and something that needs to be carefully considered - but it is not.

(08-10-2013, 03:28 PM)Reppu Wrote: No MMO has currently launched with gay marriage as a feature, confirmed or implemented. The reason why one can consider it as a risk to FFXIV to confirm it before launch, is because there are games (Remember, MMOs are still -games-) that are either flat-out banned, or made into an 18+ and thusly highly inaccessible title in these places.

If an MMO HAS done this, please correct me. My research is not always correct.

Rift didn't launch with marriage, and it wasn't something that was discussed as something they would implement in the future. When they didÂ release it, it came with all the bells and whistles for everyone, regardless of the genders of the couple. Not a single negative wave was made. Everyone was just excited that Trion had finally listened to the roleplayers and given us something that is really fun - oh, and there was that awesome one day marriage-a-thon where we set a world record for most online marriages in a single day.

And this is comparable to Squeenix, by the way. Rift is a global game, just like ARR. The difference here is that Trion neverÂ announced marriage with anything other than all-inclusiveness. It was never an option. It was never something they had to think over and collect feedback on. To them, equality was simply a fact. And while I've disagreed with some of their recent decisions regarding the game, I will always respect them for that one.

Reppu · **08-10-2013, 03:37 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:33 PM)Naunet Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:20 PM)Reppu Wrote: For a mechanic not yet implemented, and thus no discrimination has yet been had. This is because there is a chance that this will change before the release in 2.1.

Discrimination has already occurred. To think otherwise is to fool yourself. Quite literally the only non-discriminatory options are 1) to NOT say that the marriage system will start with straight-only marriages and to release it without gender restrictions, or 2) to not release a marriage system at all but provide craftable wedding gear that anyone can use to RP their own weddings.

That's it. Anything else is either passive discrimination through inaction or the delay of action, or actively discriminatory in the case of the possibility (/high/ possibility, as it's something they've already said they'll do) of releasing the marriage system with gender restrictions. Waiting to "discuss" this issue is discrimination. Waiting for "feedback" is discrimination. Because all of that implies that a marriage system without gender restrictions is somehow less, somehow dangerous, somehow wrong and something that needs to be carefully considered - but it is not.

Quit with the power words like 'foolish'. You're hurting your cause every time you use strong words against your own fellows. We do not have to agree on the extent of things, but we're fighting for the same thing.

When you fire on your allies, what do you even have to gain? Quit undermining the admirable stance you have shown, with words that are not needed.

Let me make something clear; Not everything is a blatant attempt to keep the LGBT community 'down'. This is something everything needs to be open-minded about. While it can be seen as discriminative, and it is, I do not personally find it discriminative because I understand the situation. I am not offended by it because I get the point that is being presented.

Come 2.1 and nothing has changed? I will push harder. But right now? I am satisfied. Because, despite logic telling me otherwise? I am open-minded, and I have hope that people will do the right thing with out pushing to the extremes.

History has shown me this optimism is foolish, but I trust humanity a bit more. Just a tiny bit. Try to practice some of that open-mindedness. It may get you somewhere.

-

Re; Also, as for that XBox One example? Yeah that was actually threatening constitutional rights. A bit different there, but a... decent example.

-

As for your recently edited add-on, I'm sorry that one of your Company members has been doing exactly what we've noted is very -bad- for this. I have not one made a snide remark as Unity as a whole (This backpedals to what I said before about presenting things as a perception, and not as their -facts-), but I have stated the representatives presented on this thread have been operating in a disturbing manner. You, for the most part, are not. Aside from a few powerful words.

Also, do you really have anything to gain with the constant use of 'Squeenix'? As far as I can pick up on this word, it's a sort of snide remark toward some of the operation standards performed by SquareEnix since their merger. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

Naunet · **08-10-2013, 03:39 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:20 PM)Reppu Wrote: Combined with your own statements earlier, and the quoted individual? All I've gathered from two of Unity's representatives in this thread so far, is a lot of hatred and... surprisingly? Intolerance.

This is 100% unnecessary. Way to cross the line in an argument.

synaesthetic · **08-10-2013, 03:40 PM**

I don't know why they don't just make the wedding clothes available and let people RP their own weddings. It'd take the pretend controversy away and Squeenix would be left completely blameless; after all, you can't hold a company responsible for what its customers do.

By actively choosing to accept only a heteronormative marriage paradigm but forbid anything outside that, they are absolutely discriminating against people and it is not cool.

The easiest way out of this for Square would be to simply add no official marriage system and allow people to do whatever they wish with whomever they wish outside of the game mechanics entirely.

I don't really get why they don't do this. I don't have a problem with other game developers who choose not to add marriage for whatever reason. If they don't want to deal with the flak they receive for "officially sanctioning" gay marriage, hey, that's fine, as long as everyone's on equal footing--both straight and gay couples have to RP their marriage themselves without the involvement of game mechanics.

Choosing to allow only straight couples to marry through a game system and intentionally excluding gay couples is discrimination no matter what you say. I'm not going to "respect their culture" if their culture unfairly excludes me simply because I don't have any interest in cocks and balls.

Colyer · **08-10-2013, 03:41 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:08 PM)synaesthetic Wrote: Hey, hey, guys?

This calmly sitting around and protesting in a meek tone while sipping tea? That shit doesn't work. It just doesn't.

Remember when the XBOX One was announced with all those restrictions? No used games, always-on internet connection, all that stuff?

Yeah. You know now the xbone doesn't have any of those restrictions anymore, right?

You know how they got removed? Not by fucking being calm and polite!

First, Xbox showed extreme resistance to changing even with the initial blacklash, they were not budging at all in the face of all the screaming and posting. It was the drop in pre-order sales that got them to move. I guarantee that if sales were not affected they would of not of changed one thing.

Secondly people response more to reason discussion than (NOTE I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANYONE HERE IS ACTING THIS WAY, I AM SPEAKING IN GENERAL) when people scream and rant at them. Square Enix said that it is on the table, they are considering it. They are being reasonable so lets be reasonable back. That is not to say don't make your case or be passionate. Its don't go over board, don't start harping about it so much that you turn off sympathetic players and developers.

Naunet · **08-10-2013, 03:42 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:37 PM)Reppu Wrote: Quit with the power words like 'foolish'. You're hurting your cause every time you use strong words against your own fellows. We do not have to agree on the extent of things, but we're fighting for the same thing.

I didn't actually use that word, but it is true and I will in no way "quit with" them, because it is foolish to think that people who have already engaged in discrimination will do anything else without active, strong pressure against it.

(08-10-2013, 03:37 PM)Reppu Wrote: Also, do you really have anything to gain with the constant use of 'Squeenix'? As far as I can pick up on this word, it's a sort of snide remark toward some of the operation standards performed by SquareEnix since their merger. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

It's just a nickname. I've been calling them that for a long while.

Reppu · **08-10-2013, 03:44 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:39 PM)Naunet Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:20 PM)Reppu Wrote: Combined with your own statements earlier, and the quoted individual? All I've gathered from two of Unity's representatives in this thread so far, is a lot of hatred and... surprisingly? Intolerance.

This is 100% unnecessary. Way to cross the line in an argument.

Alerting you to blatant thoughtcrimes is a favor, not a negative line being crossed. If you see it purely as malicious, that is not my intent. I do apologize if you took it as such, but I do not apologize for pointing it out.

(08-10-2013, 03:42 PM)Naunet Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:37 PM)Reppu Wrote: Quit with the power words like 'foolish'. You're hurting your cause every time you use strong words against your own fellows. We do not have to agree on the extent of things, but we're fighting for the same thing.

I didn't actually use that word, but it is true and I will in no way "quit with" them, because it is foolish to think that people who have already engaged in discrimination will do anything else without active, strong pressure against it.

(08-10-2013, 03:37 PM)Reppu Wrote: Also, do you really have anything to gain with the constant use of 'Squeenix'? As far as I can pick up on this word, it's a sort of snide remark toward some of the operation standards performed by SquareEnix since their merger. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

It's just a nickname. I've been calling them that for a long while.

'Fool' and 'Foolish' are hand in hand. When you say I am fooling myself, you are undermining my opinion.

And, flatly speaking? If you really think that SquareEnix is 100% discriminative, then by all means. However, truly discriminative individuals do not come out and say 'We are looking into it'.

This is open-mindedness and empathy. Period. Unless you FIRMLY believe it's a blanket statement, then I really can't convince you otherwise.

Domri Blackblade · **08-10-2013, 03:45 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:40 PM)synaesthetic Wrote: I don't know why they don't just make the wedding clothes available and let people RP their own weddings. It'd take the pretend controversy away and Squeenix would be left completely blameless; after all, you can't hold a company responsible for what its customers do.

By actively choosing to accept only a heteronormative marriage paradigm but forbid anything outside that, they are absolutely discriminating against people and it is not cool.

The easiest way out of this for Square would be to simply add no official marriage system and allow people to do whatever they wish with whomever they wish outside of the game mechanics entirely.

I don't really get why they don't do this. I don't have a problem with other game developers who choose not to add marriage for whatever reason. If they don't want to deal with the flak they receive for "officially sanctioning" gay marriage, hey, that's fine, as long as everyone's on equal footing--both straight and gay couples have to RP their marriage themselves without the involvement of game mechanics.

Choosing to allow only straight couples to marry through a game system and intentionally excluding gay couples is discrimination no matter what you say. I'm not going to "respect their culture" if their culture unfairly excludes me simply because I don't have any interest in cocks and balls.

This, this, this. This is exactly what I feel down to a T. I wouldn't even mind if they removed wedding as a game mechanic. Give me pretty clothes to wear and I'll take it from there.

Naunet · **08-10-2013, 03:47 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:44 PM)Reppu Wrote: Alerting you to blatant thoughtcrimes is a favor, not a negative line being crossed. If you see it purely as malicious, that is not my intent. I do apologize if you took it as such, but I do not apologize for pointing it out.

Thoughtcrimes? This is not 1984 (the novel). There is absolutely nothingÂ wrong with being passionate about opposing inequality, but there's certainly something wrong with telling said passionate person that they need to stop.

synaesthetic · **08-10-2013, 03:48 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:37 PM)Reppu Wrote: Let me make something clear; Not everything is a blatant attempt to keep the LGBT community 'down'. This is something everything needs to be open-minded about. While it can be seen as discriminative, and it is, I do not personally find it discriminative because I understand the situation. I am not offended by it because I get the point that is being presented.

You're being intentionally dense. You don't need intent to discriminate; you can discriminate without intent. As was already mentioned, it doesn't matter why you exclude black people from your whites-only cafe, you're still excluding and discriminating against people because their skin is a different color than you.

By your logic, segregation is totally okay as long as it has a profit motive. "I'm not going to let black people shop here, because it might cause me to lose white customers" is exactly just as racist as saying "I'm not going to let black people shop here because I hate blacks."

And the logic Squeenix is using? "We're not going to let gay couples get married because it might cause me to lose bigoted customers" is no less homophobic than saying "I'm not going to let gay couples get married in-game because I hate fags."

They are exactly the same thing and you're blind and willfully ignorant if you cannot see this.

Eve Malusion · **08-10-2013, 03:49 PM**

(08-10-2013, 03:28 PM)Reppu Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 03:26 PM)Eve Malusion Wrote: So I would appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong on this, but there's one thing that is kind of bothering me about the earlier arguments about same sex marriage risking the game getting banned in some countries.

What exactly is the evidence of that happening at all in an MMO in the past? I've been trying to look it up but the only cases of middle eastern countries ever banning a game for same sex relationships has been for single player titles. No matter where I've looked I couldn't find a single case of a MMORPG being banned or having it's age rating increased due to same sex relationships. As for Russia, I haven't been able to find a case of them ever banning a video game at all.

Sorry if this has been addressed earlier, I did read the entire thread but I might have missed a post on it in passing.

No MMO has currently launched with gay marriage as a feature, confirmed or implemented. The reason why one can consider it as a risk to FFXIV to confirm it before launch, is because there are games (Remember, MMOs are still -games-) that are either flat-out banned, or made into an 18+ and thusly highly inaccessible title in these places.

If an MMO HAS done this, please correct me. My research is not always correct.

True, though, as brought up multiple times already, this game isn't launching with it either. While it being rumored that it "might" have it down the line could create some bad PR in these countries, without it specifically listing it as a feature to come, most rulesets for banning video games on this basis will require to actually be in the game already.

I also realise that one can't completely overlook that games, even if single player, have been banned for it. Though, I still feel it worth at least noting that in the scenario of an all the time online multiplayer game coming out, then later down the line introducing same sex marriage, there has never been a case of them going back to it and banning it for it.

When it comes down to it there really are some things that I feel have to be looked at differently for it in a MMO however. First thing being a general way of the game being handled: This is not a game belonging to you in the same way it would be with a single player title. You are subscribing to utilise a service, rather than actually being the owner of the game.

Second: In the case of a single player title, for example in Mass Effect 3, the developer has to put in a character that is there for the purpose of having a same sex relationship (just for the record, I'm not trying to say the characters are just there for the romantic option, but their story purpose is redundant to this point). This meaning that there is only the one player involved in the fantasy of the same sex relationship in that game. In the MMO scenario, the fact that there are two humans who have to agree to it and have a same sex relationship with eachother.

While one scenario has a ready, set, complete story involving a same sex relationship on the disc, the other having two humans involved and the relationship and story around it will be formed by them, rather than what the developers themselves have programmed in. The important thing about that being that there are two people subscribing to a service who happen to be in a same sex relationship, rather than someone in a game that has a NPC made with a same sex relationship in mind available for anyone that has the game. It is much harder to ban a game for two people subscribing to it as a service happening to have a same sex relationship, rather than the single player alternative.

Sorry if any of it comes across as blunt or patronizing in any way, English isn't my first language so when it comes to more complicated things than everyday conversation my vocabulary is very limited.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (21): « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 21 Next » Jump to page:

Arguments For Marriage Equality in Eorzea

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes