Do you think taking up-skirt shots of peoples characters is creepy?

[Rasikko]

To be honest, about 90% of the times I hear this it is just an excuse people throw up as it is depressingly enough a more socially acceptable answer than "I play a female character because I want to play a female character"...

I do it because I have always loved the idea of a woman kicking butt and it was only until I got into MMOs, were I able to express this liking, since RPGs when I was coming up was heavily dominated by male protagonists.

[Agentile]

Also anyone find it weird that most of the people having this insane complaint have a join date of 2018 or sooner? lmao

[SenorPatty]

I play both. If this was like any other MMORPG I'd have probably half and half M/F characters depending on the outfit options, creator, race options, etc.. Female characters look better in this game IMO. Males don't have a lot of cool options...

Staring at their butt is a real thing though, considering how they dress their characters. Granted in this game I think there are a bunch of weebs with cat girl anime fetishes or whatever.. kind of weird.. These people are probably the same ones taking upskirt shots too. Then there are those RPers.. and the Hrothgar (literal) catcallers.

Perception is truly a fascinating thing. When I look at my character from the back, male or female, my eyes see the whole body. For my eyes to glue themselves on character's butt, it would have to be due to a camera position or I'm intensely examining a certain outfit on my character, to which that simply means that the butt area is one of the body parts I'll be inspecting. The whole thing becomes even less of an afterthought while I'm actively engaged in combat or some other type of content.

So yeah, I'm as amazed as I am perplexed at how for some people, the first thing that catches their attention the most is their character's butt.

[MaraD_]

Of corse I am very much concerned about the intent on a topic of whenever or not a behavior is creepy. The intent is in my opinion a huge part of what makes this behavior creepy.

. . . . . . +

My main concern with your argument was in the comparison of someone simply looking at you and going out of their way to take upskirt photos, which while not an everyday occurrence is still common enough to be creepy.

I agree, the perceived intent is what is creepy. Not if they actually see something or not.

But this is why this gets dicey in logistics. They can have the perceived intent/thought process w/o the action.
Though we can only know this once they do an act, which demonstrates it. But what about those who think it, want to do it, and never do it? That makes the act of "looking up a skirt" the actual issue, since we just eliminated the "idea/intent". Of course that doesnt sound right though, so that's where the weird grey area of all this is.

We can all agree, seeing the visual isnt actually an issue. (act/in context) Having certain adult interests are usually ok. (intent/in context) So for this to make sense, the real reason why it is "bad/wrong", is because it's the same thing as "I asked you not to do X, and you did X". Due to difference of opinions, its not considered morally wrong, but rude. (Obviously 99.999999% of guys at some point found out its social etiquette to not look up skirts)
It's a sort of "slap to the face" type of mentality. (W/o the violence obviously)
(EDIT: Not going to touch the argument about asking people not to do things you dislike, as this is also another issue. So I summed up with "its rude, not moral evil")

Back on topic, unfortunately, FFXIV is an even grayer area in this regard. What is considered "your avatar" in which people try to interact with "you" isnt the same as a RL version of you, or even something like your email/social media account. (Though plenty of similar comparisons)
if someone saved a picture you uploaded, and drew a mustache on your face, and saved it to their PC. They didnt do it to YOU. They didnt vandalize your property either. But its possible they intended to upset you, by letting you know about it.

Which brings me to:

I didn't go into the feelings of the victim as this varies too much,

This also applies to the perpetrator. Unlike a RL scenario, in game, far more various situations happen, and intent isnt always the same. (But I would agree its probably not as nuanced as the victim)

What if;

* You start to DC? You can no longer see anyone elses inputs. And the person/perpetrator interacts with your character when you're not even connected to the game, and any action you take isnt reflected in the game? There is now 2 versions of "you", which is the real you? are they both you?
* They start to DC? You no longer see them moving around, and they cant see anyone else moving around, Effectively everyone is an NPC to them. They interact with the 3dmodels on their screen in which ever method they want. Is this crossing the line still?
* They make a modded version of the game, to play offline, and they only interact with NPCs as such. Is it wrong?
* They create a copy of your character, and upskirt their copy?

Now to wrap up, I originally said the crime was "looking" rather than intent, due to how the "intent" gets a bit complex in games, and the fact we socially associate a digital act with the real life act.
This is a trained/social behavior that we/some have accepted w/o questioning enough. (Plus this was more about how we judge something to be bad, when it has no observable negative 'consequences' (for lack of a better word/term.))
We/Some are only bothered by it, because we associate the intent to be equivalent to the RL varriation. But in reality, the intent isnt always comparable, which leads us back to "looking" is bad.
So to finalize my thoughts; having it happen IRL is very rude, but in game only slightly rude*. Both situations are rude, but severity depends on context. *Usually (not always) including both parties having to be rude, to reach the more extreme versions of this situation. And can be so little, to be comparable to no rudeness under the right context.

[Gaethan_Tessula]

Would be nice if people werent trained into thinking that somebody looking at another person is this bad "unwanted attention" taboo. But challenging it requires the 1st step, which is the 1st hurdle. (Using the quoted logic)

This statement was meant to apply to things someone thinks ought to change, not a universal appellation. In your example "training to think being looked at is unwanted attention" is the thing to be changed, is something that exists, and therefore a person wanting to change it needs realize it shouldn't be accepted just because it is the status quo. There's no conflict in logic. Even if unwanted attention is ALSO something this hypothetical person wants to change/prevent, all that is required to avoid paradox is to successfully define what actually constitutes "unwanted attention."

Second, "looking at people" is blatantly reductive and obscuring of the actual sort of behavior I'm trying to refer to. Perhaps I needed to clarify, but I suspect if a need for clarification were your actual point you'd have said so. So, to be clear, I'm referring to behaviors that express a clear intent instead of anything overly broad like "being looked at." Catcalling, sexual harassment, lewd body language, taking upskirt/downpants photos, and being disapprovingly judgmental of how someone else is dressed within the context of blaming that person for ills inflicted upon them.

Moral right/wrong are based on emotions. Certain people/groups get priority over whos emotions matter more. You cant fight "notions that are socially accepted" because they are always a part of this. And in turn, if you try to stop accepting these notions, the very logic you're using will also apply to you now. (Based on the requirement/merit of "notions just accepted because/emotion")
In the end, its a popularity contest based on popular emotions, and who's in the bigger group.

You're going to have to explain how this violates the logic I use more clearly. People can, and do, challenge social norms. They do, in turn, create their own social norms in a subgroup. Somewhere along the line, that involved rejecting rationales for the original societal norm, that it is the norm among them. Doing so is not illogical. If morality truly is a subject construct, a viewpoint you seem to be arguing from, then it is even more important that people realize the status quo is not proper just because it has been accepted as normal. To do otherwise would be to advocate for chaining down people's ability to try and influence the collective sense of right and wrong.

Sometimes a group is bigger because more people naturally feel "This is good/bad."
Sometimes a group was smaller, but convinced a larger number of people because "This might be just an emotion, but it leads to this tangible good/bad thing, such as "not starving". And we all agreed prior, we all liked not starving*." (*insert random good thing, that others naturally agree with unquestionably)

When people are split on a subject, both sides try to argue the tangible benefits/negatives.
In this case, this is something with no real tangible elements. Just emotions, which fluctuate based on perspective.

Emotional harm is a tangible enough thing that it can impact how someone functions. Enough to factor in civil suits and tangible enough that Square Enix bans harassment. I think the behavior in question within this thread should fall under harassment if it currently doesn't, especially if someone asks the actor to stop and they refuse (as someone in this thread attested happened to them).

Yes, this is my perspective, but I think I have good reasons for it that would provide tangible benefit to society by reducing potential mental and emotional damage to vulnerable groups/individuals.

By contrast, I don't think much is lost by stopping people from taking invasive and lewd photographs of another player's character. They could, after all, always just make their own.

Its an emotional popularity contest of who agrees, and who disagrees based on emotions.

Again, reductive. You're discarding the impact rational and philosophical arguments can have, AND downplaying the validity of the 'irrational' emotional response to feeling helpless or hurt. A stranger taking invasive photos without one's consent and (perhaps more importantly here) refusing to stop when asked to can provoke those feelings, especially when put into the broader context of real life where some players may experience similar acts of unwanted sexual attention or harassment.

Basically, I don't think that postmodernist or even nihilistic viewpoints of society and its constant clash of worldviews lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't care about changing things because it's a "popularity contest" as you put it.

As to the later posts about "percieved intent," any good policy prohibiting an action will not be overly broad. Furthermore, an actual policy enforced by an authority isn't necessarily needed. Social pressure to discourage behavior can work just fine, if acutely targeted at those confirmed to engage in the undesirable behavior (which would exert pressure on those not confirmed to cease, such that they aren't exposed and then subject to said criticism).

Also anyone find it weird that most of the people having this insane complaint have a join date of 2018 or sooner? lmao

Forum join date is irrelevant to when someone actually began playing; if you check lodestone, Gaethan here was "born" in 2015. For that matter, when someone joined the forums OR began playing the game is irrelevant to whether unsolicited upskirt photographs are creepy and if something should be done about it.

As I've been debating, something having previously been acceptable is not an unassailable argument in favor of maintaining its acceptability.

[MaraD_]

EDIT: Just noticed the bolded was your reply, and not you just highlighting what I said.
So Ignore the following until I read it, sorry lol. edited post will be in dark blue at the bottom.

Basically, I don't think that postmodernist or even nihilistic viewpoints of society and its constant clash of worldviews lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't care about changing things because it's a "popularity contest" as you put it.

The way you mentioned "nihilistic" was a bit vague. So if i mistook how you intended to use that word, sorry in advance. (It sounds like you had a certain intention for the use of that word, which doesnt seem to fit this scenario)
Nihilism should never mean something SHOULD or SHOULDNT be anything. Nihilism should be purely neutral, never taking sides. In this case, you said a Nihilistic view = "shouldn't care about changing things because of reason".
Nihilism should be neither caring, nor uncaring. Nihilism is best used as a tool for observations, not to come to conclusions from observations.
So technically you're correct, and technically sort of not. (Its just too vague and broad a statement)
As for my own view point, I observed with a neutral stance. (as much as im humanly capable of, as we just arent naturally nihilistic beings) If I were to remain completely neutral, then every action is equally good and bad, and nothing gets accomplished. I could set goals, and pre-requisites, so i dont cross any boundaries to reach said goals. But I also need to accept I have emotional biases in which to reach said goals. So the only way to question my own goals/bias, is to use as much of a neutral perspective as I can.
In which case, as I mentioned before, it all boils down to emotions, and the winning emotion(s) in the popularity contest of society.
So Im suggesting quite the opposite of what you're saying here about "shouldnt change". If anything, Im asking for change, but just the opposite change from what some people are fighting for.

As to the later posts about "perceived intent," any good policy prohibiting an action will not be overly broad. Furthermore, an actual policy on SE's part isn't necessarily needed. Social pressure to discourage this behavior could work just fine, and could be acutely targeted at players confirmed to engage in the undesirable behavior (which would exert pressure on those not confirmed to cease, such that they aren't exposed and then subject to said criticism).

I'm not disagreeing with this part, but, isnt that what we're doing right now? Isn't that what we already have? (Or did I misunderstand, and this is just defending what we have, and not asking for it? If so, nvm, carry on.)

EDIT: I forgot to touch on the "postmodernist" part. This I also dont feel is relevant to what I said. (But can still be relevant to what point you're trying to make.) As I share some common ground, in that some argued "truths" were flawed/incorrect, but sometimes I argue the opposite, and that some truths have lost the details in history as to why they were true.
I also think we can reach absolute thruths/learn, at least in part.
Your last bit is an example of this:

As I've been debating, something having previously been acceptable is not an unassailable argument in favor of maintaining its acceptability.

Its not quite postmodernist thinking to say this, though it may sound like it.

EDIT#2:

This statement was meant to apply to things someone thinks ought to change, not a universal appellation

Then I was mistaken by the intent of the post, and you can ignore what I said. (The details you replied with more or less match where I was going, though I probably didnt express it in the best way. Mostly just thought you werent following your own advice. But I feel I was mistaken after reading what you said.)

Second, "looking at people" is blatantly reductive and obscuring of the actual sort of behavior I'm trying to refer to.

Blatant gives off the wrong impression of my intent, but none the less, this was brought up by another poster defending you, to which I explained in length as to why I went that route (but in short, because of the "This statement was not a universal appellation" being misunderstood on my part. If you want more details on this, follow the train of text between that person and myself.)

You're going to have to explain how this violates the logic I use more clearly.

This part was more so an "alternative approach", not so much me explaining a flaw in your prior logic.

If morality truly is a subject construct, a viewpoint you seem to be arguing from, then it is even more important that people realize the status quo is not proper just because it has been accepted as normal. To do otherwise would be to advocate for chaining down people's ability to try and influence the collective sense of right and wrong.

Mostly agree, but want to mention, the observation is that its "subjective", but subjective stuff follows rules, and within another set of rules, becomes "tangible" in a different way. (for lack of better words) I was trying to say how the rules flow normally for these subjective issues, and from that observation, using it to judge the merits of other subjective perspectives. (sorry if im not explaining too well, most people dont get this far with me in discussing this, as they usually outright reject the notion of a "neutral" outside. (also lack a term for that, w/o suggesting the wrong thing))

Emotional harm is a tangible enough

While I dont disagree, there's a lot more complexity to that than what was over simplified there. Some people are equally effected by non threatening/harmful intentful interactions (or lack of interactions too) which you COULD have separate ways to deal with separate issues. (such as a unique way to deal with this issue, vs and other similar issues)
But for those with more extreme emotional issues, they need therepy, which requires them to confront and deal with the issues. Avoidance doesnt fit it for them. (And from a Nihilistic view, nor do they need to fix it.)
Due to the vagueness of "Dont do X, it bothers me emotionally" it can harm those who arent actually doing "wrong". (here's where it gets hard to say basic words, im putting wrong in quotes) The law starts to have a hard time distinguishing very specific contexts, and is left to bias interpretation. Someone can quite literally be emotionally damaged because someone wore the color orange. (Yes i know its a ridiculous example, but for the sake of not arguing what things are right or wrong, this extreme example helps speed up the conversation) Should the person wearing orange be warned, and then if they wear it again, be considered the "wrong doer"?
If it really does bother someone, i would probably not wear it around them. But sometimes its equally just as offensive to be told not to do X. And sometimes the law sides with the opposite person. Its a game of bias. There is a lack of consistency. This can still work, but when it doesn't, the current system being "normal" doesnt help, and giving direct counter examples needs to be done, just to explain why it doesnt work. (and its a very lengthy process to get to this point)

This isnt to say you're wrong. Just that its not overly simplistic. I dont have a concrete answer, but I do have some subjective opinions on the matter.

Again, reductive. You're discarding the impact rational and philosophical arguments can have, AND downplaying the validity of the 'irrational' emotional response to feeling helpless or hurt.

I dont disagree, but I see nothing wrong with that, within this wording. I tried to simplify it, so it can be understood. But its also broad enough, to be all the tings you say I left out. I only left them out, so its easier to get on the most fundamental level. From there, you can extrapolate into what you said.
So I guess we both agree, but it doesnt appear like it?
Though I think you may be saying I need to not focus on explaining the fundamentals, but focus more on someone being hurt in the moment, which then I'd say that depends on what our goals are in the moment.
I started off thinking you had a hypocritical statement, to which I both wanted to show, along with correct. It would be a bit off topic to go on about "rules" in how people come to decisions of right and wrong, but feel its necessary to bring up, so people dont accidentally mix up logistics. (For the sake of the original topic)

[Gaethan_Tessula]

1. My point on nihilism is that even the viewpoint that all is pointless does not preclude us from attempting to change things (however devoid of meaning it is). But it is a poor usage; positively appealing to existentialism and the ability to create meaning would probably have been better. My allusion to postmodernism is similar: if truth is a collective construct, being able to reject it in favor of something more desirable is still important (even though the substitute is itself a construct).

2. I suppose we just fundamentally disagree about the degree to which the clash of worldviews is solely emotional, or that its emotional content makes it less valid or important. I don't think neutrality is an ideal to be pursued in all things either. Often, all sides arguments are NOT equal. To me, the ideals are to be informed and be just. Sadly, I admit that I do not have a wholly satisfactory definition of justice. I waver between a form of utilitarianism and harm prevention which do not always fit well together.

3. Judging by the mixed consensus of this thread, I do not think we have an effective front of collective social action against the topic behavior.

[Jybril]

[MaraD_]

BTW i had to edit my original post, missed a lot of what you said.

1. My point on nihilism is that even the viewpoint that all is pointless does not preclude us from attempting to change things

I fully agree with this. Annoys me so much when people dont realize this.

2. I don't think neutrality is an ideal to be pursued in all things either. Often, all sides arguments are NOT equal. To me, the ideals are to be informed and be just. Sadly, I admit that I do not have a wholly satisfactory definition of justice. I waver between a form of utilitarianism and harm prevention which do not always fit well together.

I agree with the red part, while the blue part is true in itself, the phrase however, could easily mean something else/incorrect. (Too lazy to go into that, since im sure we're not really going there to begin with)
The black part is rather interesting. I feel im far too neutral to anything that doesnt directly effect me, plus i see pros and cons to everything, so I have a hard time really putting myself into a position. (But thats off topic, so i wont go into it.)

3. Judging by the mixed consensus of this thread, I do not think we have an effective front of collective social action against the topic behavior.

Gotcha, a little bit of both. (Adding, and defending)
I commented directly to the OP earlier, and pretty much said "This shouldnt be considered a crime/'morally evil' but it should be viewed as rude". Somewhere near the "badness" of yelling loudly in a public quiet space. (im contradicting myself by calling it "badness" but again, for simplicity)

Some people arent going to agree. Some will agree.
The few who hate it (the "act"), will feel the need to say something about it (social repercussions), and those who didnt agree (they think the act is ok) wont stop the social repercussions, because they feel its ok to express why the victim dislikes the act.

IMO, it comes rather close to what you're after, here on the forums, but then again, text/internet does change things a good bit.
My interest in this subject is that neither side goes too far with a middle ground issue.
Dont look for criminal charges for the perpetrator.
Dont look to harm the original victim either.

Since the average reaction doesnt ever seem to get too extreme in the Red example, I havent had much reason to fight against it. I think its just obvious at this point. But for the Blue text, there's a few people who seem to get rather close. (not necessarily in these forums, but I do run into them in other online places)

[SturmChurro]

Perception is truly a fascinating thing. When I look at my character from the back, male or female, my eyes see the whole body. For my eyes to glue themselves on character's butt, it would have to be due to a camera position or I'm intensely examining a certain outfit on my character, to which that simply means that the butt area is one of the body parts I'll be inspecting. The whole thing becomes even less of an afterthought while I'm actively engaged in combat or some other type of content.

So yeah, I'm as amazed as I am perplexed at how for some people, the first thing that catches their attention the most is their character's butt.

Oh yeah, most definitly. I like looking at my entire character, and in combat personally I like watching animations (content I don't have to pay attention to mechanics, in an actual fight my eyes are on the fight) - one reason I really like flashy classes, rather than ones with more subtle animations. I spend a lot of time playing around with outfits, etc.. The whole character design is what matters.

That's what they say, I agree that some probably just SAY that, or some guys just say that because they are embarrassed that they are playing a female. I know of a lot of people that make fun of dudes for playing females, these are usually the type of people, or from what I've heard in conversations, they see their character as an extension of themselves, so they find it weird for a male to be playing a female, and vice versa. Funny thing is, other than viera, and au ra (From their pose) the females in this game have a completely flat behind..