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

[Krotoan]

Just bringing light to the fact your side of the argument is no better or valid than other points posted here that differ to yours. Also I can post and comment where and when I like you have no authority here. So don't presume to know what's up. You also arn't discussing at all...all you are doing is trying to refute other points to try and validate your own. Which what everyone here has been doing at this point in the thread. #ComeThruSelfAwareness

Then you haven't been reading the thread. All you've decided to do is to come in here and act like you've got some sort of authority to shut everyone up for whatever reason. There have been discussions, some blame and moral throwing and some VERY weird side tracks. Go back and read a spell, it's educational.

The real T is you'd like to see this feature because you'd like to see this feature....that's great. But you also know it has no impact on game play or performance and certainly know it has no impact in reality. So yes it most definitely is unimportant. The fact you'd happily play 10 more years without it shows you deem it unimportant. #GlameLivesMatter #ClamUpAndGlamUp

This entire game is unimportant, this doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss or post about wants. None of this NEEDS to happen. Tomorrow the servers could blow up and everyone would continue on with their lives. Keep hashtag twittertrash posting whatever. The fact of the matter is this thread and this discussion matters just as much as any other feature proposal or argument.

At this point it is all circles just like what happens with any long running thread.

The devs can get a good enough idea how well liked this feature would be should it be implemented based on the OP and the 1st No statement, both on page 1.

Let them decide if worth resource costs and for next live letter ask the question for such a feature if they answer it we'll have their stance and can put this thread to rest.

.. why must it stop? Others are joining in with their perspectives and concerns. Yes things are getting repeated but WHY do people keep coming in here and asking for it to cease? This is one thread, no spam. It's not like nobodys discussing the original topic anymore. This hasn't turned into the otter thread or the .. weird left turn the smoking emote thread went.

[Lauront]

Just bringing light to the fact your side of the argument is no better or valid than other points posted here that differ to yours.

You just made a sweeping statement that both sides are as bad as each other, when as Krotoan said, those who are requesting the feature by and large are just asking for it to be added, only to be met with bad faith responses attributing it to muh bigotry and trying to inject "moral" and political arguments into it. So you're not bringing much to light at all. Quite the opposite.

[Penthea]

At this point it is all circles just like what happens with any long running thread.

The devs can get a good enough idea how well liked this feature would be should it be implemented based on the OP and the 1st No statement, both on page 1.

Let them decide if worth resource costs and for next live letter ask the question for such a feature if they answer it we'll have their stance and can put this thread to rest.

Just want to say that one lone thread has never turned the devs around about any decision, and big decisions about new ways of experiencing content never came quickly.

Every major change at the request of players have been because they were consistently making new threads and a lot of people got involved in the support of whatever the thread proposed. Those who want glam removal are going to have to fight for it for a long time and will want to have more than just the handful of players who have been arguing the same things over and over again for the last 100+ pages. Even OP seems to have given up on this thread very early.

Sure we got viera...but how many years did that take? How many threads? How many people said they wanted them? Despite the enormous demand for them we waited a really long time for that race to finally become playable.

The famous bunny suits for men threads, that also took several years before SE finally unlocked them for male use.

Glam plates also took a super long time. Players didn't ask for them specifically but they did ask for a system that was less awkward than the old one and it took years before we got it.

Glam removal is going to need a lot more than the same handful arguing for it and bumping the same thread. And a lot more time as well.

[SoloWingMetatron]

Snip and dip

True. I have not read the whole thread. Only about half a dozen pages worth. But ain't no body got time for reading through a couple hundred pages, to find the point in this none issue. Exactly, side tracks. Which is what this has all become since I jumped into the frey (big mistake with these forums) and was my soul purpose in my replies with some added hashtags for the giggle.

Oh is it educational?...did your education teach you not to be so incredibly condescending?...see we can all do it. And your boy Theo be talking about attacks?...Where you at Theo?

Your final point is exactly it. The real T and one I can get behind. I shall happily discuss things as they are. But once it becomes about trying to "win" and/or about bizarre sidetracks. Then what is even anymore?

Seriously carby slippers and frog suits be odd and not too my taste. But some peeps like that and to truly tolerate something is not to hide yourself from it. But to allow it to exist around you without you reacting.

[Theodric]

I mean not one personal attack has been given. No name calling. No derogatorily terms. Nothing of the sort. Though if someone comes for me. Which another user did, first and foremost. Then yes I will clap back. Just as they are entitled to clap back....What was that about tolerence a few pages before?...you people be phony!

You swore at another poster in a previous post, which aside from being against the rules is an unpleasant thing to do in general. Furthermore, you're claiming that both sides are as bad as each other despite some people on one side of the debate pointing fingers at the opposition and claiming that they are 'bigots' and other unpleasant things which is a pretty hurtful thing to do.

I'm also not sure what you're talking about in regards to 'tolerance' in the context of your post. The posters in support of the thread's premise are being perfectly civil - whereas some of the posters on the side of the opposition are resorting to insults and personal attacks.

I don't expect everybody to read every single page within a thread this big, though I do expect people to not jump to conclusions when they haven't done so.

[Lauront]

Seriously carby slippers and frog suits be odd and not too my taste. But some peeps like that and to truly tolerate something is not to hide yourself from it. But to allow it to exist around you without you reacting.

It's allowed to exist. What you're equating tolerance to is disabling any negative reaction to something - one can both tolerate it, i.e. allow it to exist, and also want little to do with it. I can both allow it to exist and employ a feature to hide it from my sight. Whilst I don't consider the feature imperative, it would be a nice to have.

[SoloWingMetatron]

You just made a sweeping statement that both sides are as bad as each other, when as Krotoan said, those who are requesting the feature by and large are just asking for it to be added, only to be met with bad faith responses attributing it to muh bigotry and trying to inject "moral" and political arguments into it. So you're not bringing much to light at all. Quite the opposite.

I did indeed make a sweeping statement. What you think I'm going to retroactively go through each page in the thread to separate out each individual. To make sure you all know who is being referenced. The sad truth being I knew if I quoted anyone all of a sudden people got an opinion. I quote no one and well, just a few likes here and there. The point which I assumed people would most definitely catch is that. People be trying to refute the other side without actually trying to hear the other side and vice versa. It's lietrally quote after quote which essentially boils down to "how could you say such a thing!?...lemme teel you why you is wrong by telling you, you is wrong. With a dash of patronization and condesation " But my sweeping statement is over the line?

[SoloWingMetatron]

You swore at another poster in a previous post, which aside from being against the rules is an unpleasant thing to do in general. Furthermore, you're claiming that both sides are as bad as each other despite some people on one side of the debate pointing fingers at the opposition and claiming that they are 'bigots' and other unpleasant things which is a pretty hurtful thing to do.

I'm also not sure what you're talking about in regards to 'tolerance' in the context of your post. The posters in support of the thread's premise are being perfectly civil - whereas some of the posters on the side of the opposition are resorting to insults and personal attacks.

I don't expect everybody to read every single page within a thread this big, though I do expect people to not jump to conclusions when they haven't done so.

Lord have mercy. You mean my Piss off comment? Then you most definitely misunderstood that. The piss off was directed at no one. I take it you arnt British?

Go back a few pages, there's a discussion on tolerance which I was referencing for those reading this thread. Just because I quote you does not mean my whole post is about you. People be acting condescending to me, yet I'm the only bad one in your eyes? Yeah, coz that adds up

[Lauront]

I did indeed make a sweeping statement. What you think I'm going to retroactively go through each page in the thread to separate out each individual. To make sure you all know who is being referenced. The sad truth being I knew if I quoted anyone all of a sudden people got an opinion. I quote no one and well, just a few likes here and there. The point which I assumed people would most definitely catch is that. People be trying to refute the other side without actually trying to hear the other side and vice versa. It's lietrally quote after quote which essentially boils down to "how could you say such a thing!?...lemme teel you why you is wrong by telling you, you is wrong. With a dash of patronization and condesation " But my sweeping statement is over the line?

There has been poster after poster coming in now, attempting to frame both sides as the same and taking on a veneer of neutrality whilst actually trying to argue against the feature in reality. It is rather old hat. That is all.

[Penthea]

I'm also not sure what you're talking about in regards to 'tolerance' in the context of your post. The posters in support of the thread's premise are being perfectly civil - whereas some of the posters on the side of the opposition are resorting to insults and personal attacks.

Sorry but I'm not sure what is civil about "please allow me to remove traces of other people's preferences from my view" when that could easily be taken as the most entitled narrow-minded snobbish crap ever. Especially when it comes from a person who has explicitly said they do not want to see men in dresses.

Sure some people asking for glam removal have been perfectly civil and maybe even reasonable. I can understand wanting glams around you to not be things like a metallic gold pig suit. But that is quite different to asking for glam removal so that you can make people around you conform to your preferred gender roles.

Wanting to remove a metallic gold pig suit is targetting the outfit because the player wants it gone regardless of who is wearing it. Wanting to remove dresses from men is targetting characters because a person wants to remove dresses only from men.

I'm sure you can see the difference but you likely won't admit it. It suits you to pretend that gatekeeping who you think has the right to wear a certain outfit is the same as not wanting to see the outfit on anyone, because it allows you to hide behind those who want glam removal for a less discriminatory purpose.