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

[Awha]

Question, would people be against this idea if the OP made the suggestion that blacklisting a person blocks them across the board so the one who blacklisted the person no longer has to interact / see them?

And some people's insistence on freedom of choice "trumps their empathy" for others who feel differently about the situation and have explained that they do feel unhappy, if not actually hurt, about the prospect of others having control over how their character is presented.

It goes both ways, and it seems like the people in favour put no value in others' explanations of why they wouldn't feel unaffected by it.

People on both sides can be arguing for what they consider to be empathetic.

It is true it does go both ways, but from my perspective issue I have with the side that is against the idea is that is a akin to modding, no one really knows who is modding or not outside the fact if the say something, stream, or post a screen shot. Now I could see how it could personally impact someone if they make the base assumption that most people will use the feature, but at that point they are putting a self imposed limitation based off an assumption. Seems odd to me that is all.

[Iscah]

Honestly, I learned something from all this though. It seems some people's vain desires to show off to everyone trump their empathy for other people's freedom of choice. I did not expect so many people to be opposed to this in my wildest dreams considering it doesn't hurt anyone, but here we are.

And some people's insistence on freedom of choice "trumps their empathy" for others who feel differently about the situation and have explained that they do feel unhappy, if not actually hurt, about the prospect of others having control over how their character is presented.

It goes both ways, and it seems like the people in favour put no value in others' explanations of why they wouldn't feel unaffected by it, and just keep repeating "nobody would be affected".

People on both sides can be arguing for what they consider to be empathetic.

[Iscah]

I'm just glad that the posters against the idea do an excellent job at keeping the thread at the top of the page and ensure that more people see it and leave a like on the original post.

On that note, as of the time of this post there's 101 likes!

104 on the original post, 103 on the first "absolutely not" post, and 112 on... well.

I have a strange desire to make all of my glamours consist of thongs.

[Bright-Flower]

Question, would people be against this idea if the OP made the suggestion that blacklisting a person blocks them across the board so the one who blacklisted the person no longer has to interact / see them?

Well mid duty it would pose a problem potentially of not being able to see where people are. Out of duties, it 'might' work but I don't know if it'd be feasible on a technical level to have the game checking all the time to see if it should render people based on black lists just as I don't know if dynamically displaying or hiding glamours would cause technical problems always checking when rendering players.

I feel like this could potentially lead to griefing in other ways though, allowing a blacklisted person to follow a character around unseen. So probably not worth it.

[DumdogsWorld]

...

And then you get my sorry self, who cares nothing for whether or not people empathize with me or my points as long as they don't tell me what I can and can't do with my screen.

I hardly care if this feature ever gets implemented or not, seeing as to how I rarely ever look at other characters. And if it did get added, I would most likely never use it. It's more of a principle thing.

[Awha]

Well mid duty it would pose a problem potentially of not being able to see where people are. Out of duties, it 'might' work but I don't know if it'd be feasible on a technical level to have the game checking all the time to see if it should render people based on black lists just as I don't know if dynamically displaying or hiding glamours would cause technical problems always checking when rendering players.

I feel like this could potentially lead to griefing in other ways though, allowing a blacklisted person to follow a character around unseen. So probably not worth it.

Yeah it would cause more issues, I am just curious how many would tolerate an idea like that. This is all hypothetical because end of the day none of this will ever happen, but still interesting to see how many would tolerate a full wipe from ones personal world blacklist feature. Since I have seen suggestions like that brought up in other threads regarding blacklist and stalking, and generally was not hit with such disdain as the hide glamour option. Dispite the technical and practical issues it would cause.

[Theodric]

Concerns of a lack of 'empathy' in the context of this proposal make me wonder if it is just another buzzword being exploited to sound a little nicer than pointing a finger at someone and calling them a 'bigot'. The implication is that if someone isn't opposed to the idea then they're not capable of empathy which is completely false.

Ultimately if we accept that people are different then we also accept that they have different needs, tastes and opinions. As such, giving players options to tweak their game in a way that appeals to them seems to be an excellent compromise instead of holding everybody hostage for the sake of those who are unable to accept that not everybody wishes to look at or even cares for their chosen character or glamour.

[Zabuza]

And some people's insistence on freedom of choice "trumps their empathy" for others who feel differently about the situation and have explained that they do feel unhappy, if not actually hurt, about the prospect of others having control over how their character is presented.

It goes both ways, and it seems like the people in favour put no value in others' explanations of why they wouldn't feel unaffected by it, and just keep repeating "nobody would be affected".

People on both sides can be arguing for what they consider to be empathetic.

This argument is unfortunately not equivalent. We do empathize with that you want to express your character freely. We're not preventing you from doing that. Of course it has already been said.

If the glamour toggle actually changed your clothing server side then you would be correct in saying that we do not emphasize and the two sides would be logically equivalent in their opposition. However, as it stands it is not because one side doesn't give a rat's behind if keeping things as they are makes someone uncomfortable or hurts them whereas the side that supports the feature is still trying to account for the user's preferences to express themselves. One side is showing empathy while the other isn't. One side is offering a compromise while the other is unwilling to budge even an inch to compromise. You can't be hurt because you wouldn't even know it's happening unless by some freak .001% chance someone takes a screenshot who enabled the toggle and you come across it.

[Iscah]

Concerns of a lack of 'empathy' in the context of this proposal make me wonder if it is just another buzzword being exploited to sound a little nicer than pointing a finger at someone and calling them a 'bigot'. The implication is that if someone isn't opposed to the idea then they're not capable of empathy which is completely false.

Ultimately if we accept that people are different then we also accept that they have different needs, tastes and opinions. As such, giving players options to tweak their game in a way that appeals to them seems to be an excellent compromise instead of holding everybody hostage for the sake of those who are unable to accept that not everybody wishes to look at or even cares for their chosen character or glamour.

Well, as far as I can remember, most of the "lack of empathy" accusations (or certainly a portion of them) have been from the side in favour trying to say that those against are lacking empathy for them. Either it was here or the last time the same topic came up - and it hurts, because I do care about how I treat others but in this case I'm being told I'm the opposite.

I wouldn't throw the accusation exactly because it's miserable to be in the receiving end. Empathy shouldn't be a buzzword for scoring points.

[Iscah]

This argument is unfortunately not equivalent. We do empathize with that you want to express your character freely. We're not preventing you from doing that. Of course it has already been said.

You're "not preventing my choice" only by your definition. As I have tried to explain, there are two ways of feeling about that.

It's an unwinnable argument because if I say "yes I feel affected by you changing my character on your screen" you just declare my opinion invalid. There's nothing wrong and I'm really not affected at all.

How do I possibly refute that, IF my point is valid and the person rejecting it is wrong?



(Now I am out of this argument for now because I really need to be doing real-world important things.)