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

[Krotoan]

The proposal does not allow for people to be seen as they wish though. This proposal removes choice from one party and is therefore, a very unfair suggestion.

Currently with no glamour switch, if you do not like people's glamour you can :

1. Leave the party.
2. Remove the offending person from party.
3. Make your own party and friend group with glamour rules.
4. Run trusts.
5. Turn your camera away.
You currently still have choice to avoid what you don't want to see.

All these choices being "you need to avoid THEM.". No compromise here. Just it's your problem that you don't like the glamour, THEY can do whatever they like wherever they like. Why doesn't this bother people who seem to have the same problem with just the possibility of not being seen exactly as they've crafted? Someone out there is now beyond ignoring them and is now actively resenting their existence and changing their entire experience to AVOID them.

With your proposal, there is nothing that the affected party can do. They cannot make their own party or remove people, as people can conveniently leave out the fact they have the option on. Unless they mark people who use the function for us to do the above as well, it is an unequal proposal and completely removes choice from people who do want to be seen for whatever reason.

The compromise is that the people who wish to have an option to remain in certain spaces NOW DO instead . You are, as others have, operating on the premise that currently what we have is a fair and balanced situation. Which it is not.

[Iscah]

All these choices being "you need to avoid THEM.". No compromise here. Just it's your problem that you don't like the glamour, THEY can do whatever they like wherever they like.

Yes. You have the objection to the outfit which the person has every right to wear, therefore it's up to you to not look at it. Just like if you don't like someone's outfit in the real world.

If they're making it clear they're wearing it to annoy you, then that's harassment and you have other routes to deal with that.

Why doesn't this bother people who seem to have the same problem with just the possibility of not being seen exactly as they've crafted? Someone out there is now beyond ignoring them and is now actively resenting their existence and changing their entire experience to AVOID them.

Because instead it's bothering me that I'm almost certainly not someone they would go out of their way to avoid, but it would target me regardless.

I'm actually pretty conscious about not wanting to end up wearing something that looks out of place in a serious battle.

The compromise is that the people who wish to have an option to remain in certain spaces NOW DO instead. You are, as others have, operating on the premise that currently what we have is a fair and balanced situation. Which it is not.

Your proposal isn't fair and balanced either. It just tips the unfairness in an opposite direction.

You now get to remain in the place you want. But you don't want a marker on because then people might decide to leave you.

So on the one hand, the current situation is unfair because it might force you to leave.

On the other, you get what you want and it would be unfair to you to let other people know if you have the filter on.

All the protections are going one way.

[Awha]

Only reason people feel it tips the scale is the divided between right to wear verse right to be seen.

[Krotoan]

Yes. You have the objection to the outfit which the person has every right to wear, therefore it's up to you to not look at it. Just like if you don't like someone's outfit in the real world.

If they're making it clear they're wearing it to annoy you, then that's harassment and you have other routes to deal with that.

Except this situation does not follow real world rules or physical limitations. There are solutions beyond going up to someone and telling them they cannot wear what they are wearing around you.

Your proposal isn't fair and balanced either. It just tips the unfairness in an opposite direction.

You now get to remain in the place you want. But you don't want a marker on because then people might decide to leave you.

Leave? No, harass and target. I don't care if people don't want to party with me. I don't want people unfairly targeted.

So on the one hand, the current situation is unfair because it might force you to leave.

On the other, you get what you want and it would be unfair to you to let other people know if you have the filter on.

All the protections are going one way.

The current situation is unfair because the people who want to "express themselves' have all the advantages and no detriments.

If I get the choice to not see them, or see them represented but with a placeholder, this is now equal. They can wear whatever they want and be seen by (likely) the majority of the playerbase, I get to opt out and be left alone. I still have to enable an option that would also screen even glamours I would have liked to have seen.
When one side finally gets one detriment, this doesn't mean the side that finally got some equality needs ANOTHER detriment.

[rxantos]

It should be an option. And does not breaks anyone wish. You get to wear what you want. And other people get to see it as it its.
Both get what you want that does not involve forcing the other.

[Awha]

It should be an option. And does not breaks anyone wish. You get to wear what you want. And other people get to see it as it its.
Both get what you want that does not involve forcing the other.

According to those against it does go against the wish of those against since it infringes on their right to be seen the way they wait. It has less to do about what they are wearing and more that people wish to be seen a certain way.

Sadly there is no method SE could add just a feature that would please the side that wants to be seen a certain way. Though those against it would be more honest and call it for what it is, people want to be a special snowflake that is all, or that is how it seems to me.

[Theodric]

It should be an option. And does not breaks anyone wish. You get to wear what you want. And other people get to see it as it its.
Both get what you want that does not involve forcing the other.

Yeah, it's a pretty efficient compromise.

It's also impossible to implement any feature with complete approval, so it's bizarre to me that so many additions to the game are shot down through extremely contrived arguments. The 'concern' about appearing differently on the screen of strangers feels very contrived to me, especially with the consistent evasion of the simple fact that we can already tweak how strangers appear on our screen. My character's skin tone, for instance, looks pretty different based on the environmental lighting and character lighting - the latter of which is a client side toggle.

We can also turn down spell effects, which means that if a character is shooting a fireball at something it can look pretty epic on their screen but will be completely absent on the screen of a player who has disabled spell effects in certain situations.

We can also reduce other player's character names to initials if we so wish and if glamour is an expression of how someone wishes to portray their character to other players then it stands to reason that their character name follows the same path.

So, to me, it doesn't make much sense for glamour to be considered to be a no go. It isn't even universally considered to be super important for every single player - I know quite a few individuals who don't care about it in the slightest.

[Awha]

According to those against it does go against the wish of those against since it infringes on their right to be seen the way they wait. It has less to do about what they are wearing and more that people wish to be seen a certain way.

Sadly there is no method SE could add just a feature that would please the side that wants to be seen a certain way. Though those against it would be more honest and call it for what it is, people want to be a special snowflake that is all, or that is how it seems to me.

Also do not mean it in a negative way, just not sure how else to Express what I feel regarding those against the idea to make this an option for the reason it would infringe on the enjoyment of others because they cannot be seen a certain way.

[Canada_bangs]

Also do not mean it in a negative way, just not sure how else to Express what I feel regarding those against the idea to make this an option for the reason it would infringe on the enjoyment of others because they cannot be seen a certain way.

I just want to say you can say the same about people who can't leave well enough alone and just move their camera or walk a few feet somewhere else to not have to stare at something so ugly to them too. But I am tired of this... nothing is being gained and noone is going to move from their post. I'm going to play the game.

[Awha]

I just want to say you can say the same about people who can't leave well enough alone and just move their camera or walk a few feet somewhere else to not have to stare at something so ugly to them too. But I am tired of this... nothing is being gained and noone is going to move from their post. I'm going to play the game.

True we could leave well enough alone, and truth be told I do feel many people in favor of the idea know it will never happen. So that point is kind of moot, and is already a granted position. Same with the fact it may not be use of resources, I can agree with that point. Though being against something because well it prevents one from being seen a certain way is kind of meh and seems like a call for attention not else how to put it.