Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

YES! (i would use it)

NO! (i would not use it, and i think it is pointless/unethical/gross etc.)

yes, but i would dissable it if it was an init option (all yes voters are assumed to be for an init option, only vote here if you think it should be included but you would not use it)

[Zangi]

also consider that this poll is not asking *how* it should be implemented, just *if*. assume that it would be implemented like you want it (generic "filth," specific "poo" etc.) please take all the discussions on how to the appropriate threads.

Yea the topic is about feces(thread title) and all that it entails, including the effects of putting this in.  Deathworks and Kilo24 make a valid argument on why feces should be aborted.

In short, the standards of the community will go to hell for it.  We will more often then not attract kids who will come in and say 'Hurr hurr, look what I just did to that Elf with feces!'.  (Boasting and Showcasing it.  AKA Publicizing/emphasizing this 'feature'...)

Dwarf Fortress is defined, to the generic masses, by its violence, Boatmurdered.

Feces and all implications of what can be done with it, is going to change the definition of Dwarf Fortress to the generic masses.  Instead of being seen, by an outsider, as just another violent game, it'll be a game about killing people with feces and whatever feces memes that come to pass. 
Essentially attracting new players who many people here rather not associate with...

Gaming Friend: "Oh, you like DF?  Isn't that game about spreading feces everywhere and killing people with it?"  *Raises eyebrow at Zangi*

This is a big con.  Not a 'how it gets implemented'

[Vester]

See, now you're imparting motives to lucusLoC that seem a bit too sinister and far-reaching. I'm pretty sure he's not some kind of evil mastermind intent on besmirching the fair name of DF.

[Zangi]

See, now you're imparting motives to lucusLoC that seem a bit too sinister and far-reaching. I'm pretty sure he's not some kind of evil mastermind intent on besmirching the fair name of DF.

Unintended consequences.

[Vester]

This is a big con.  Not a 'how it gets implemented'

That right there seems to imply that you think otherwise.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Well, it's obvious at this point that shit lovers want their fix at any cost. Any argument against shit is welcomed with stuff like "you limited moron! embrace shit! bend to my will because I say so!". I've never seen people being so annoying regarding bodily functions, and using the same arguments sexual deviants use to excuse their behaviors. (because don't tell me you never heard "(my)porn is shunned but violence is ALRIGHT! BAWWW")
Basically "accept our superior opinion just because", and using borderline demagogy to support it.
Almost no one is actually talking "waste". I am fine with "waste". "waste" is that generic green liquid that flows on movie sewers. But supporters are obviously having feces in mind. The topic title specifically talks feces, and the OP specifically talked about feces at first, hence why people are against feces, not sewage.
And when challenged about their opinions, people suddenly changes and goes "NO I MEANT SEWAGE".
Also notice how there are people here that went from "no shit" to "sewage is OK", but no single feces supporter has changed his mind. They just aren't willing to back up, they want shit yes or yes.
AND it's true that this topic is present in other threads, not limited to this one, that's why I am so annoyed with the topic.

If you want to move to SEWAGE only, change the thread title and vote accordingly, or you can't be taken seriously.
The topic's title is "Feces vote" and the pool is "Would you like feces in game", and I copypaste.

we want our dwarves and animals producing sewage(filth, waste, dung, manure); biological waste. You may call it whatever you want, but the "scientific" term is actually feces. So, even tough I'd prefer a more subtle name in game, feces is also an appropriate title for this discussion, we aren't asking for a substance specifically named "feces" "poo" or "shit" (many of us would actually be offended if the substance was named "shit" and would feel awkward if it was named poo or feces) we want the substance to be there in the name of realism. The sims had it, it even had sex!! it wasn't NSFW, it was rated T by ESRB, it was rated 7+ by PEGI, probably because the lack of violence

(because don't tell me you never heard "(my)porn is shunned but violence is ALRIGHT! BAWWW")

what's your problem with porn? i find violence much less desirable than sex, and i think portrayal of the second is much less harmful for a child than the portrayal of violence... but I'm European, that's probably the problem

also , we get you voted no, your vote was sufficient for us to note your opinion, no need to barge in insulting everyone and shooting the family's dog

[EvilCartyen]

The standards of the community will go to hell.......

People are already lol'ing at genocides on elves, throwing prisoners of war into volcanos, and killing babies.

Perhaps it's because I am a relatively new player, but the community is already NSFW - arguing that a few more bodily functions would make everything crumble is difficult to take seriously.

Besides, that's not the point. The community is of course great and good and awesome, but I hardly think their maturity should be taken into account when planning new features in a game in development. The thought should be on how to make the game better. If the forums becomes worse as a result, just swing the banhammer.

[armrha]

I don't know why people are obsessed with this. Any, Toady already said he wasn't going to do it. What's the point of a poll?

[Vester]

I don't know why people are obsessed with this. Any, Toady already said he wasn't going to do it. What's the point of a poll?

Toady said he wasn't going to do sex, I think. Not sure what he said about this particular issue.

Also, it's the internet. People argue.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

yes, i'm all for the banhammer, (even tough i've received a warning for the depiction of a giant ass with a trunk)

I don't know why people are obsessed with this. Any, Toady already said he wasn't going to do it. What's the point of a poll?

that point has been brought up several times before, and toady has said that, and on a later date he said that he would consider it

[Footkerchief]

Any, Toady already said he wasn't going to do it.

I don't know how this became the conventional wisdom, because (as far as I know) he's never made an unqualified statement that he wouldn't in any form implement feces, scat, waste, or night soil.  The game already has a brown "filth" material that, according to Toady, is feces (see quotes below).

Here's all the quotes I could dig up (note that this first one is from 2004, and that "no plans" is very different from "won't do it"):

There are no plans to add "night soil".  Dwarves poop little pebbles which seemlessly disappear into the cavern floor, or they collect them and cherish them or something.

Do dwarves have water closets? Will we need to carefully craft "flushing" mechanisms to carry the unmentionables away?

There is currently no potty.

4.  Manure, as a fertilizer.

4. They just drop it everywhere?  Everyone will might be doing it after a while... night soil, and so on.  But it's a dangerous door to open, especially if the room on the other side is full.  If a god turns you into a horse in adventure mode, would you suddenly start dropping the bomb?

From DF Talk:

Toady:   [...] I like the idea of being able to track things and find them, and pick up little kobold scats and dig around to see what they've been eating ... after a fashion, anyway.

Rainseeker:   So there's no poo creatures either?
Toady:   It was a close thing! Because it was literally a decision I had to make, going down this list, because in the Hidden Fun Stuff of course if you get the tentacle demons then you get a layer scattered with various filth on the ground; and there's brown filth and yellow filth and so on and it's not clearly stated but it's a material that I had to put in properties for right? So there's these hard-coded filth materials, and when I was going down the list, you know 'Do I want creatures made out of mud? Do I want creatures made out of vomit? Do I want creatures made out of glass?', there's all these hard-coded materials, and I was just like 'Yeah, yeah, yeah ... No ... No ...' on the filth. But there are creatures made out of the grime, and the grime material is the material that collects on your body slowly over time, and it's also the material that's used in swamp water, so there's this ... I just needed this material called 'grime' for these miscellaneous purposes, it's just crap, just stuff that collects over time and when a creature is made out of that it just says 'composed of grime and filth'. So if you want to call that 'poo' even though it's not it's possible for you to extend your imagination.

Toady:   [...] But the kind of thing that's on the table is gunpowder, and the materials that you need for that are already in the game, I think. We've got brimstone, which is sulphur, and I don't remember if we have saltpetre, if it's there or not, but ... I guess you could do all kinds of things with manure and urine to make it, or you can find it in a crystalline form in the ground perhaps.

And finally, sewers full of filth were a powergoal in the old dev item system:

# PowerGoal153, THE CRACKS OF DOOM, (Future): You flee into the sewer with the baron's ring, but sliding in the muck, you drop it. Try as you might, you cannot locate the precious object in the town's filth.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i was pretty sure he said it, but havent been able to find quote, and if theres nothing in the footkerchiefiopedia then it probably doesnt exist.

[Djohaal]

I don't know why people are obsessed with this. Any, Toady already said he wasn't going to do it. What's the point of a poll?

He talked about possibly using manure and urine as sources of nitrate for future possible implementation of gunpowder on the latest DFtalk too. So yeah, reductio ad toady's Word is quite pointless.

I still don't get why we continually are bashing the key "we want sewage, not feces" (in spite of sewage being essentially feces with water and some other extra waste) but the opponents of the idea seem to keep on ignoring the fact, cherry-picking on the OP and bashing "OMFG TWO DORFS ONE CUP!!! NOOO!!"

I have a proposal (well not me specifically, some chatters at the IRC came up with this too) for a test run of sewage management. It would need no big changes to DF and as a matter of fact it is and would fix one of the major issues the current version has. Split the "water source" zone into "water source" and "cleaning area" (what I think will be inevitable considering the current chaos contaminant management is).
Dwarves will drink from the water source area and never wash themselves there, while in the cleaning area they'll wash themselves but not drink. Adding flowing water or a method of flushing the cleaning area will pretty much sum up the sewer system idea apart from the regular digestive physiology, dwarven plumbing from the hypothetical toilets and the custom "sewage" flow.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

This is a big con.  Not a 'how it gets implemented'

That right there seems to imply that you think otherwise.

I think you misunderstood Zangi there. Zangi elaborated on the point I was making and which seems to have been rebutted by LucusLoC with reference to the OP stating that this discussion is NOT to be about how things get implemented. Although, I don't really think that LucuLoC was really rebutting that argument there, but probably referring to the discussion about using different terms/implementations - somehow this thread has gotten quite confusing (^_^;;

Zangi points out that it is a strong contra-argument and not just a finesse of implementation, and I don't see how you would see negative intentions with LucusLoC in that statement.

Djohaal: Since I am one of the demi-opponents (as I said, if it was not for that one reason, I would be all in favor of it, actually), I feel that your comment is directed at me as well. As I said, the only term I don't want to see used is "poo". I don't mind the term "feces"

Anyhow, your suggestion sounds quite nice. While I don't think it would really be a test run for the one issue I have with the thing, I am personally in favor of your suggestion.

Deathworks

EDIT: Removed outdated information.

[Djohaal]

I also would hate to see my dwarves's lower body being covered in a contaminant called "poo". Just call it filth and have it appear both due to failed toilet job or general lack of hygiene. If it gets dropped on the floor it'll also be called filth. It could be an umbrella term and contaminant that would also spawn with corpse rotting for instance and produce miasma.

[Footkerchief]

To reiterate some points I edited into my post above, the current fecal material IS called "filth" and the contents of a town's sewers are termed "filth" in Powergoal153.  It's a safe assumption that an implementation in the vanilla game would retain that terminology, possibly using "scat" in the context of tracking/hunting or whatever.  (This should go without saying by now, but it's also a safe assumption that Toady would make it an init option.)