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

[DumdogsWorld]

Doesn't 'bigotry' normally imply there's negative undertones going on about the other person's existence, in a sense?

It is entirely possible to not wish to be exposed to something and yet not find it beneath you.

If some stranger sits near me in a food joint with some godawful-smelling food and I really don't want to smell it, then I'm gonna plug my nose. Do I think that person is the scum of the earth? No. Do I think their life is worth less than mine? No. Do I want them to come to my house and wave the food around in my kitchen? Hell no.

[Theodric]

Well, for starters there's no need for those opposed to the suggestion that is this thread to be bringing complicated political and social issues into the conversation to begin with. Not liking someone's character design or choice of glamour is in no way a case of bigotry. Nobody playing this game is actually their character.

It's also pretty alarming for people who identity as gay, bisexual, lesbian and so on are being treated like a hive-mind. Diversity also includes diversity of thought and diversity of opinion. Please stop trying to force specific stances on something as trivial as glamour in an online game as being representative of every single person.

The original idea in the initial post of this thread is pretty reasonable and an efficient compromise. It isn't 'erasure'. It's just hiding pixels on a screen that some people do not find interesting or enjoyable to look at - which is absolutely their right. We're all different and have broad tastes, after all.

It's also deceptive to place such a high emphasis on people not wanting to look at men in dresses when a significant number of people have expressed their support for the idea for many different reasons throughout the thread.

The fact that you consider transgender people, which are a large focus here when talking about gender and clothing, to be 'and so on' says a lot about what you think. You can claim it doesn't, but trans people being an afterthought to you when you put in the effort to type in all the other ones but couldn't bother to type a few more speaks volumes.

I hit the post limit, so I'll respond to the above quote here. The term 'and so on' is a pretty common phrase in the UK and not at all meant to be offensive or exclusionary.

[Doozer]

It's also pretty alarming for people who identity as gay, bisexual, lesbian and so on

The fact that you consider transgender people, which are a large focus here when talking about gender and clothing, to be 'and so on' says a lot about what you think. You can claim it doesn't, but trans people being an afterthought to you when you put in the effort to type in all the other ones but couldn't bother to type a few more speaks volumes.

[Penthea]

Not liking someone's character design or choice of glamour is in no way a case of bigotry.

I agree but the issue isn't that you dislike them.

The issue is that for whatever reason you dislike seeing a man wear a dress so much that you are asking SE to make him put on some trousers just for you.

It doesn't matter that no one can tell if they have trousers on your screen or not. What matters is asking for a change to the game that enables people to nurture and protect their own intolerance.

[Doozer]

The term 'and so on' is a pretty common phrase in the UK and not at all meant to be offensive or exclusionary.

Sure, and 'eh' and 'hoser' are common terms here in Canada, but somehow I managed to restrain myself and just say the entirety of what I was saying without filler or trailing off. The T is often left off, majority of the time by cis LGB people. You say to be careful who you're accusing of being homophobic because you're gay, but I say you should be careful how you phrase things because you're (presumably) cis and gay and people in the same group as you have a knack for leaving out trans people on purpose. Again, it doesn't matter what you meant, it's how it's perceived. Be mindful of how you phrase things.

I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but I suspect if I don't say it, very few others will.

[SturmChurro]

Are we still talking about glamours? Or?....

[Awha]

I was going to drop the whole moral aspect, but now I have to know, so say if someone simply has a desire to not want to see a character on their screen wearing / doing something they do not approve of for example a man wearing a dress and wishes for an ingame means to avoid seeing such things without having to inform the person behind the character is inherently considered a bigot based off that desire?

That seems odd since unless the person expressed their intent behind having the feature enabled it is fair to make an assumption based on so called soical norms instead of just chunking it up to a person just not wanting to see x for whatever reason? Seems like a guilty until proven innocent kind of mindset.

[E4EO]

Is this bait now or something? It’s getting hard to tell

[Krotoan]

How will the flag do the detection tho? Is it by one piece of the glam or the entire set? Some people might only glam one piece of a set (only a frog head instead of the entire set for example). Also (CMIIW) I'm not even sure if the current loading process is by detecting each piece of equipment of other characters. I assume when we save our character appearance (with glam or not), it'd be save as one data and this one data will be the one called from server when our character appear on other's screen. So if they would implement this glam filter detecting flag (detecting each part of appearance), then they probably would have to change the way other characters load on our screen currently instead of just adding on top of it, which could be too much work.

I'm not privvy to how it actually works since we've never been explicitly told, but going by how mods work and how other games do appearances, the "flag" would likely be on the client computer that you have the option active. If was ever implemented at all it would most likely be an all or nothing option, one of the complete replacements for a character's gear set since that would be the least amount of data strain to put on the client. SO: Client chooses to use the option and has the one flag, server still sends all data but client ignores it all and only reads job/race/sex and puts those characters in whatever gear, OR in the case of it being a giant problem if someone appears in something other than what they've picked replaces ALL character customization data with preset RNG NPC face/skintone.

You serious act as if I am making you stare at my privates. And on top of that Im not MAKING you or anyone stare at me so don't be trying to pull that lame excuse. glamour is endgame is not just a meme, its true to a very high degree. quite frankly if there was a feature added to the game it would lose people. and I doubt HIGHLY that people be like, wow a feature that defaults your glam, that makes me want to grind hours, pay irl money to stare at myself. No at that point id play a single player rpg where there is no one to interfere and i could just mod. That is just stupid, you are in an mmo for Fs sake. You and all these people KNEW what they were getting into. And they had the choice to say yes to buying or no. and if this game blocked glam I wouldnt have bought it. Any person thats even seen an mmo knows that people will find ways to make whacky ass outfits to run around in. I don't support time being wasted on such a dumb feature that counters one of the main reasons many play MMOs at that point they might as well just shoot themselves in the foot a few times.

And you are welcome to choose not to play based on the knowledge you are given. However EITHER direction it goes is not the "Right" way and nobody asking for this is wrong. Everything you argue seems to assume you have some right to your appearance on my computer which is simply untrue. The ONLY reason I have to see what you've done is that in this particular game mods are currently frowned upon and even then if I never mention it I can mod away. It's not a right, it's not morally right, and your indignity at the possible suggestion it might not be shows you are as intolerant as you suggest others might be. People might leave for nearly every decision made by the developers and this isn't any different.

I've been skipping through this, but to my understanding, people are suggesting that only the person seeing the glamour would see a "censored" (for lack of a better word) Glamour, and not what the person actually created. So if that's the case, why do other people care if someone doesn't see your glamour? You'd still see it wouldn't you? Isn't that all that matters, if you like it? Why does it matter if someone else doesn't want to see it and has the option not to?

Honestly, this doesn't sound any different to me than the people saying "Get rid of genderlocked items."

That would be one of the benefits for both sides really, the excuse to genderlock items because they look weird or people wouldn't want to see them would be gone.. cause you could just flip a switch and poof, not on your screen anymore. There have been many iterations of the feature proposed but essentially yes, the option to have a toggle to turn off others customizations either by stripping actual glamours or writing over placeholder "standard" glamours.

He is free to look elsewhere. Just like IRL. I don't see the issue, considering XIV is a visually busy game.

What's next, clothing people you deem ugly in Burqas because you do not want to see them?
You're basically asking for the ingame equivalent.

Again. This isn't real life, there is no actual request for someone to actually change what they're doing or to have their character dress differently in any way that would be visible to them. Your adherence to real world constraints is the block here I think.

Only option I see, that would keep DEV efforts appropriately limited, is changing every character into AF gear when the option is enabled.
That is done client side (since it is not character/item specific) and does not affect server performance.

Implementing a filter on "inappropriate" items would open pandoras Box and initiate a neverending war because everyone defines "inappropriate" differently.
Doubt many would like that though because the game world would look extremely boring.

This was one of the options I proposed pretty early on. It's simple and effective and follows the devs supposed need for easy class identification. The only real opposition to this one was that some of the scholar AF is a little skimpy and one person said they didn't like it.

I agree but the issue isn't that you dislike them.

The issue is that for whatever reason you dislike seeing a man wear a dress so much that you are asking SE to make him put on some trousers just for you.

It doesn't matter that no one can tell if they have trousers on your screen or not. What matters is asking for a change to the game that enables people to nurture and protect their own intolerance.

And again we're taking turns into the "this feature is bigotry" narrative.

Tolerance is letting people do what they want and not telling them it's wrong or immoral. Intolerance is telling other people their personal preferences are WRONG Like telling people that their dislike of men wearing dresses or women having short hair or men being in light colors is bigotry.
Can you not see the irony in telling someone that what they prefer is wrong and immoral and is bigotry?
For whatever reason I don't like something and don't wish to see it isn't particularly wrong. SURE there are going to be actual people who don't want to see things for whatever hateful reason, will not deny that one bit, but is one group enough of a reason to deny it to everyone? You can argue that there is a particular group out there who this feature will encourage but don't blanket statement things like "everyone who wants this is a bigot".

Are we still talking about glamours? Or?....

we have firmly stepped into the "everyone who wants this is a bigot" swamp.

[Doozer]

I was going to drop the whole moral aspect, but now I have to know, so say if someone simply has a desire to not want to see a character on their screen wearing / doing something they do not approve of for example a man wearing a dress and wishes for an ingame means to avoid seeing such things without having to inform the person behind the character is inherently considered a bigot based off that desire?

That seems odd since unless the person expressed their intent behind having the feature enabled it is fair to make an assumption based on so called soical norms instead of just chunking it up to a person just not wanting to see x for whatever reason? Seems like a guilty until proven innocent kind of mindset.

I don't know about you, but I have this in-irl function installed that, when I see something I don't like, allows me to move my eyeballs in such a way so I don't see it anymore. It's pretty high tech. Really new stuff. And if it's in a video game where maybe I can't turn my eyeballs away or else I can't see the screen, I have this thing called a hand that lets me turn the camera in-game so the thing isn't on screen anymore.