It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

[MOZZYSTAR]

So now that we have female characters tanking in string bikini's and now men in wedding dresses, it's time to adopt an option a lot of other games have: Hide Glamour. Naturally troglodyte are going to assume it's because of the men in dresses. It's actually because it's breaks the theme and feel of it being a final fantasy game.

Sooooo... Female avatars can wear wedding dresses in dungeons and feel immersive and fine, but men can't... ... ... And I assume that female in tuxes (although heaven forbid they wear bikinis when that sort of style has been all the rage in RPGs since... RPGs were a thing practically).

-Sniffs at the air- Crikey! I think I smell a bit of sexism here! Y'all need to get over it. Right now, things are "exploding" because it's new. Once the hype cools down, people will go back to their usual glam. When weddings first became a thing, every female avatar and her sister were wearing wedding gown glams (at least on my old server). Now that guys get some more options, they're exploring them! Let them explore. People like you are exactly why they don't don't cater to the "female" audience because - regardless of gender/sex - they're too stuck on the stereotypes of what makes a man and what makes a woman. "Oh my god, that male character is showing his hips! CHANGE IT!" <-- What happened to male protagonist on one of the FF mobile games (his outfit did get changed).

Though I will say if you hate it so much, move servers... because I have not really seen an explosion of anything on my server (not saying I want someone like you on my server). Sure, everyone was wearing 2B's dress when it first came out. Within a week, almost no one wears it. It's like BLU explosion with BLUs everywhere! Crap happens, wait it out, get over it. Here's hoping they don't implement such a stupid system just because some people are soooo offended by men in dresses. News flash: 99% of healer gear are dresses. My regular bard attire (not a glam) is a freaking dress. Men had speedos/thong-like things even before 2B's tights came out, just as an FYI (and they're skimpier, too!). They're just uglier.

Immersion is not an excuse to be a bigot, considering we have so much crap that breaks immersion (e.g. Regalia, Yokai watch stuff, and more). Don't be a bigot.

[Vonleo]

Its a freaking OPTION if you want to see all these guys in bikinis or speedos have at it but others dont want to see it so whats the problem? you get what you want and they get what they want no harm no foul jesus christ. Also there really shouldnt be people for or against it just have it in game because again it does not effect anyone because people wont know if its on or off.

[RognarB]

Immersion is not an excuse to be a bigot, considering we have so much crap that breaks immersion (e.g. Regalia, Yokai watch stuff, and more). Don't be a bigot.

There are people out there that take offense with looking at some glams, lets take men in dresses for example. Having the (official) option to quietly turn off glamour would be a tool to avoid said people getting upset and lashing out at the offending man in a dress, reducing the amount of bigotry thats being expressed. And since its clientside, everyone wins. I doubt that upon turning off a glam there's going to be a system message stating "Momeen Dapoulet has turned off player glamour because they are disgusted by how you look."
Unless the man in a dress's identity entirely revolves around how hard they can make some people uncomfortable (which is pretty shallow, tbh), everybody walks away satisfied with themselves and there's less bigotry in this low world.

[Iscah]

There are people out there that take offense with looking at some glams, lets take men in dresses for example. Having the (official) option to quietly turn off glamour would be a tool to avoid said people getting upset and lashing out at the offending man in a dress, reducing the amount of bigotry thats being expressed. And since its clientside, everyone wins.

"We'll prevent bigotry by letting everyone be a bigot privately so they don't have to stop themselves from insulting other people! Isn't that nice?"

I'm sorry, I just... what.

[Tranquilmelody7]

"We'll prevent bigotry by letting everyone be a bigot privately so they don't have to stop themselves from insulting other people! Isn't that nice?"

I'm sorry, I just... what.

I legit loled.
What they just described isn't progressive behavior in the slightest.

[RognarB]

"We'll prevent bigotry by letting everyone be a bigot privately so they don't have to stop themselves from insulting other people! Isn't that nice?"

I'm sorry, I just... what.

Precisely.
What you call bigots could very well be people with different sensibilities and they have rights to their own thoughts and tastes. Unless your plan is to purge every online spaces from people that are different, it would be much easier and better to foster tolerance via clientside tools.
For instance, instead of getting into a shouting match with your neighbour everytime you log on, there's the option to blacklist people. Blacklisting allows both parties to exist despite the often unreconcilliable personalities and prevents the blacklister from being further offended or harassed.
This is the objectively best option since it allows that the maximum amount of people can enjoy the game.
The same can go for glamours.

[Iscah]

Precisely.
What you call bigots could very well be people with different sensibilities and they have rights to their own thoughts and tastes. Unless your plan is to purge every online spaces from people that are different, it would be much easier and better to foster tolerance via clientside tools.
For instance, instead of getting into a shouting match with your neighbour everytime you log on, there's the option to blacklist people. Blacklisting allows both parties to exist despite the often unreconcilliable personalities and prevents the blacklister from being further offended or harassed.
This is the objectively best option since it allows that the maximum amount of people can enjoy the game.
The same can go for glamours.

I'm more boggled by the implication that someone who objects to someone else's appearance can only restrain themself from commenting on it by removing it from their sight - which gives them exactly what they want, at the expense of what the other person might want.

That's not tolerance.

[RognarB]

I'm more boggled by the implication that someone who objects to someone else's appearance can only restrain themself from commenting on it by removing it from their sight - which gives them exactly what they want, at the expense of what the other person might want.

That's not tolerance.

If the other person want to impose their appearance on someone despite said someone being uncomfortable with it, would it not be harassment? I doubt someone dressed as a south american ghost, complete with a white pointy hat, would make many friends in limsa or anywhere else in public. What you're asking is for the uncomfortable player to suck it up and endure something that might deeply offends them coming from someone that might be dressing in such a way that purposefully causes distress the uncomfortable player. Endure or walk away. Said player might even lash out from being cornered and at that point everybody's time is ruined.
If the player instead had a tool to shield themselves from offense, like how blacklists work, they would be able to tolerate better what offending them.

Ideally nobody would be offended by anything but alas its not the world we live in. Us humans are wired differently from one another and the best we can do is not exclude others but tolerate each other.

[Iscah]

If the other person want to impose their appearance on someone despite said someone being uncomfortable with it, would it not be harassment? I doubt someone dressed as a south american ghost, complete with a white pointy hat, would make many friends in limsa or anywhere else in public.

On the specific costume, if deliberate (which it probably would be), there are other rules that would come under besides direct harassment.

in any case you've flipped your example around and are trying to claim it's the same thing.

The first time, you were talking about giving someone the ability to turn off an "offending man in a dress" that they are personally unable to tolerate. Not because they are trying to harass the person but simply because they are wearing a dress, and somehow (according to you) if the other person "lashed out" it would be the fault of the so-called offender and not the one expressing bigotry.

Now you're talking about someone dressing up as a commonly-identified racial hate group (which, without actually checking, I would assume is prohibited in the TOS, if not actually illegal) and equating it to the same situation, which it is not. It should not be "quietly turned off" and a moderator would probably tell them to change their outfit even if the player claimed they had no idea it was offensive - whereas they wouldn't just because a male character has equipped a normal piece of clothing that their character is able to equip.

"Tolerating each other" does not involve literally refusing to tolerate the fact that someone want to dress in a way you disapprove of. It's putting aside that opinion and accepting that the person can dress like that if they want - and that they want others to see them like that. And putting up barriers where each person can see the world as they like it might create an "illusion of harmony", but really everyone is living in their own little box and it would create a really awful world where you can never be sure how you're coming across to others. It would be an uneasy feeling all the time - maybe it wouldn't bother you personally but it would certainly bother me.

Someone was recently given a suspension for existing in a public place while using a spell and it was considered harassment.

We weren't there and we don't have the context for that ruling. Did people ask him to stop? Did he say anything to others?

[Kohl]

There are people out there that take offense with looking at some glams, lets take men in dresses for example. Having the (official) option to quietly turn off glamour would be a tool to avoid said people getting upset and lashing out at the offending man in a dress, reducing the amount of bigotry thats being expressed. And since its clientside, everyone wins. I doubt that upon turning off a glam there's going to be a system message stating "Momeen Dapoulet has turned off player glamour because they are disgusted by how you look."
Unless the man in a dress's identity entirely revolves around how hard they can make some people uncomfortable (which is pretty shallow, tbh), everybody walks away satisfied with themselves and there's less bigotry in this low world.

No, no one wins until bigotry is dead and something that people read about in cultural anthropology with confusion as to how anyone could think like that.