Print

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

[Jeoshua]

OK, chalk this up as a miscommunication caused by using the same term to mean different things, then.

When I say "we don't need sex in this game", I mean we can keep "sex" the same as it is right now - not sex, just magically having creatures get visits from the stork or something.  That's implied sex, but it's not displayed sex.  We don't need to display sex.  We should, however, display intimacy - the actual act of building up relationships, and make social mingling a more major portion of the game. 

I'm saying lesbians are just girls that really like spending their off time throwing rock nuts at the goblins in the zoo with other girls more than spending time with guys, and getting relationship values that go into "lover" range with other women, not with men.  (Or have the ability to go into the lover range with both...)  Meanwhile, we need to have the ability for dwarves to want to seek out taking breaks with the people in their serious relationships, and having those relationships become more important and more detailed in the game.

This.  Pretty much all of this.  Right here.  Yay.

I mean really, we can't have couples that actually HANG OUT together from time to time? There need not be any explanation.  They could just be hanging out.  Maybe they're just hanging out, but it's night time, and they're in a room together.  Your imagination can do whatever you let it do there, but ultimately the game could treat it no differently than if they were hanging out at the zoo or in the dining room or down by the river.

What I want, before homosexuality is put into the game, is not sex.  It is intimacy.  This kind of intimacy that has been described above.  For more than just gays, or married couples, or lovers, or even FRIENDS.  I mean, you don't have friends come over to your house? Shouldn't dwarves hang out in each others' rooms? They could just be hanging out.

Then once we have Dwarves of the same gender who are friends and hang out together, we can start to ask the question if they have feelings for each other.  Right now they become friends by passing each other in the halls, or at work, and never spend any time together intentionally.  I want to see friendships before I want to see same-sex relationships.  Having two friends who never hang out all of a sudden decide they're a gay couple would feel very unsatisfactory to me.

Have you all no sense of romance?! 

[Reelyanoob]

I'm not even saying what setting I DO like or want it at, either.  I said that the vanilla settings are up to what Toady wants to decide.

Nope you're outlining and defending your own view on the suggestion. What Toady does has no connection to points we are pushing on the suggestions page. As for you questioning the character of those who disagree :-

[...]Abuse of sexual "deviants" is widespread and rampant, and it's a fact that many, many people have personal experiences with this. That's what makes it inappropriate for the game.[...]

The problem with that sentiment is that we already are bringing the issue into the game.

The notion that "gayness doesn't exist," or "it's just a lifestyle choice" is a political standpoint taken by the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders, as justification for what they do.  By going to lengths to "disappear the queers", you are making a pretty major statement about the game and its stance on the subject.

Now I don't want to have a flame war, but that's a clear straw man argument (ahonek never made any of those points), a non-sequiter which doesn't address the concerns raised by ahonek, and you're conflating your debate opponents views with "the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders", which would be something like Godwin's law.

You even follow "the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders" with this: " By going to lengths to "disappear the queers", you are making a pretty major statement about the game and its stance on the subject." (My emphasis)

So, ahonek is personally just as bad as the guys you mentioned in the sentence prior, is what you area saying here. Saying ahonek is 'going to lengths to "disappear the queers"' your argument has now devolved from any sort of argument to pure ad-homimem puttting words in people's mouths.

Get a grip!

Now you're seriously going to sit back and make the claim "I'm not even saying what setting I DO like or want it at, either."?

[Jeoshua]

Hi, I'd like to follow suit with many of the posters of this thread and ignore every valid point that has been made thus far and focus, instead, on stoking a flame war that others are trying to avoid.  I will ignore anything that anyone says unless it is directly applicable to my point, and keep hammering at points that nobody made until I sound like I know what I'm talking about.

[NW_Kohaku]

Hi, I'd like to follow suit with many of the posters of this thread and ignore every valid point that has been made thus far and focus, instead, on stoking a flame war that others are trying to avoid.  I will ignore anything that anyone says unless it is directly applicable to my point, and keep hammering at points that nobody made until I sound like I know what I'm talking about.

That isn't exactly conciliatory, either...

[Jeoshua]

No, but can you tell how frustrated this is all making me when I'm just trying to think of how this idea could actually work?

[Megaman]

No. It'll turn off homophobic players, and all it will do is add an unnecessary coding project.

[Reelyanoob]

I think ahonek was making the point it could also turn off some gay people who have had bad experiences with violence, if there's anti-gay violence possible in the game.

[NW_Kohaku]

[...]Abuse of sexual "deviants" is widespread and rampant, and it's a fact that many, many people have personal experiences with this. That's what makes it inappropriate for the game.[...]

The problem with that sentiment is that we already are bringing the issue into the game.

The notion that "gayness doesn't exist," or "it's just a lifestyle choice" is a political standpoint taken by the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders, as justification for what they do.  By going to lengths to "disappear the queers", you are making a pretty major statement about the game and its stance on the subject.

Now I don't want to have a flame war, but that's a clear straw man argument (ahonek never made any of those points), a non-sequiter which doesn't address the concerns raised by ahonek, and you're conflating your debate opponents views with "the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders", which would be something like Godwin's law.

What I said was no judgment of ahonek, but rather a demonstration of why the status quo is untenable in the long term.   

Ahonek was talking of sensitivity to those who have suffered at the hands of those extremists, of course I was not comparing him/her to the extremists, I was simply arguing that the current game is a world of absolutely no homosexuality anywhere, exactly the ideal of those extremists. 

I argued that the proper way to oppose that extremism is to put these sorts of things into the game. 

There is nothing in there that in any way implied that ahonek was one of those extremists.

[Jeoshua]

We're playing a game in which dragons come to eat you in your sleep, kings and queens are secreted away in the night by fell beasts who change them into twisted freaks, and people go to war over the other side lying to them.

Basically, anyone who plays a game like this, wants gays, and doesn't expect a little violence to happen to those gays is absolutely fooling themselves, and should go play farmville or something equally innocuous, Dwarf Fortress not being the game for them at ALL!

If someone doesn't go to war with the elves for the explicit reason that they're okay with gays, we're not playing DF anymore, are we?

[Reelyanoob]

Come now, you described the extremists (in response to ahonek's points), with italics on the word is - implying that his argument was exactly their arguments.

Then used the pronoun you (referring to ahonek) and the phrase "disappear the queers" - in quotes no less - as something ahonek was going to "great lengths" to do.

How is this not saying ahonek holds those views? I don't think you initially took the time to properly read and consider what ahonek was saying. I clipped the ahonek quote down, to highlight the key point he was making, but you may have missed it in the original text.

[knaveofstaves]

Sexual orientation seems more like a trait than an attribute, but traits don't really change except for the alcohol-dependence/cave-adaptation group, and the exploration of that group is going on right now on the wiki. But to evaluate it as if it were a normal trait...

[PERSONALITY:SEXUAL_ORIENTATION:0:50:100]

Apologies for the U.S.-centrism, but according to the Williams Institute, 3.5% of Americans identify as lesbian/gay/bisexual. A further 4.7% have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior but still label themselves heterosexual or straight. 2.8% more call themselves straight/heterosexual, have never engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, but admit to same-sex sexual attraction.

So if your number is 99-100, you're gay/lesbian. If your number is 97-98, you're bisexual. If you're 93-96, you're "open to experimentation". And if you're 89-92, you're thinking about it. And you can mod the gay out of your world with a quick raw edit, or if pregnancy annoys you, you can shut off heterosexuality.

Though this ignores the fluidity of sexuality, which is why it'd be nice to know exactly how alcohol dependence/cave adaptation/detachment work. It also ignores any transgender issues.

[NW_Kohaku]

Come now, you described the extremists (in response to ahonek's points), with italics on the word is - implying that his argument was exactly their arguments.

Then used the pronoun you (referring to ahonek) and the phrase "disappear the queers" - in quotes no less - as something ahonek was going to "great lengths" to do.

How is this not saying ahonek holds those views? I don't think you initially took the time to properly read and consider what ahonek was saying. I clipped the ahonek quote down, to highlight the key point he was making, but you may have missed it in the original text.

OK, let me try quoting the whole thing, then:

But I am going to claim that no rational people are going to feel physically or emotionally uncomfortable due to those things, primarily because they do not involve issues as sensitive as sexual-orientation-based abuse. The above "issues" also don't actually happen in real life, at least for the most part (read: they don't happen enough to make enough people feel uncomfortable when they see them in games). Abuse of sexual "deviants" is widespread and rampant, and it's a fact that many, many people have personal experiences with this. That's what makes it inappropriate for the game.

However, having listened to the most recent DF Talk where Tarn mentions not wanting to bring racism into the game (by forbidding certain races to enter your tavern), I feel 100% confident that he's not going to put this sensitive issue into the game either. And I, along with most of the player base of DF I predict, am entirely fine with that.

The problem with that sentiment is that we already are bringing the issue into the game.

The notion that "gayness doesn't exist," or "it's just a lifestyle choice" is a political standpoint taken by the most extreme of anti-homosexuality crusaders, as justification for what they do.  By going to lengths to "disappear the queers", you are making a pretty major statement about the game and its stance on the subject.

That's why there was that Toady quote on the subject (thanks for finding that, G-Flex):

I don't think this game should shy away from an important human topic simply because it's currently a hot-button political issue.

Heterosexual marriage, children and all that went in fairly quickly to establish world gen with simple, ongoing histories, and so you'd be able to continue on your possibly isolated fortresses as well.  We've even got a marriage sphere, since gods of marriage are very common.  These days it might look like a political stake driven into the ground, but that's simply not the case.  As for where it goes from here, it's sort of a choice of which realities you want to model, which you want to idealize, which you want to omit, and how they are all prioritized -- I've added lots of physical characteristics now, without racism, and that more or less points toward adding sexual orientations and having them all merge in naturally in every society.

Trying to not make a decision on homosexuality is also a decision on how to deal with homosexuality, and it is almost certainly the wrong one.  People will forgive Toady for not doing it for now, because there are more pressing issues for him to work on, and he just hasn't taken the time to put this sort of thing in, but that doesn't mean that some day down the road, when personalities and romances and ethics and social modeling are more important aspects of the game, this topic will eventually have to be addressed.

I'm sure Toady will let you punch in "[ETHIC:PERSECUTE_HOMOSEXUALS:UNTHINKABLE]" on if you really want.  Maybe it's even going to be the vanilla standard.  But that doesn't mean we should side with the notion that there is no such thing as homosexuality, just "deviant lifestyles" in this game at all.

I already bolded the important part from Toady's quote, but I'll bold the salient point I was making, here, too:

Trying to not make a decision on homosexuality is also a decision on how to deal with homosexuality, and it is almost certainly the wrong one.  People will forgive Toady for not doing it for now, because there are more pressing issues for him to work on, and he just hasn't taken the time to put this sort of thing in, but that doesn't mean that some day down the road, when personalities and romances and ethics and social modeling are more important aspects of the game, this topic will eventually have to be addressed.

Now do you see what I was arguing here? 

It was not that ahonek intends to oppress gays, but that if ahonek is trying to uplift them, then trying to avoid the whole argument does nothing to accomplish ahonek's goal.  I am arguing why not putting in these things will not accomplish the goals ahonek wants. 

(This argument isn't terribly different from the one that G-Flex has been saying, either.)

[Jeoshua]

Transgender issues might be a bit too tricky of a thing, as a game mechanic, to find their way into DF.

Also, I don't think that the personality should be "98 and you're gay, lower and you're not".

[PERSONALITY:HOMOSEXUALITY:10:25:60] would probably work good for dwarves.  They're never 100% all the way straight as an arrow, but never super flamboyantly gay, either.  >50 would be leaning towards gay, obviously.

But no race is ever 50% gay.  They would never survive, evolutionarilly.  The max would be something like 10% I'd think.

[knaveofstaves]

Also, I don't think that the personality should be "98 and you're gay, lower and you're not".

[PERSONALITY:HOMOSEXUALITY:10:25:60] would probably work good for dwarves.  They're never 100% all the way straight as an arrow, but never super flamboyantly gay, either.  >50 would be leaning towards gay, obviously.

...ok... you changed the tag from SEXUAL_ORIENTATION to HOMOSEXUALITY... can you tell me why?
And by my math about 14.3% of dwarves would be >50, making them by default gayer than the United States in 2011. Is that your suggestion?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Slope of the line through (25,50) and (60,100)
y = ((10x)/7) + (100/7)

[Jeoshua]

My implication is that Dwarves are less likely to be full-blown 100% gay, but also way less likely to care.  I just chose those numbers as a quick example of a way to try and make a race pretty open but overall not really strongly gay.

And that line isn't quite accurate.  I'm not sure exactly what the formula is, but there is some kind of curve.  The outer numbers are min and max, and the central number is the median.  I might have unintentionally picked numbers which make a slope rather than a curve, but I'm not sure.

But I just typed HOMOSEXUALITY instead of SEXUAL_ORIENTATION because it's shorter.  No real reason.  I just like short words.  Since it's only an example and not legit code (yet?), I didn't see the need to stick with convention.

But SEXUAL_ORIENTATION would probably work better.  After all, if someone is 50% on their Sexual Orientation, it makes more sense than being 50% of a homosexual.

Other personality traits would be at play, too.  Some might control openness, others tolerance, still others self-worth.  These statistics are already in there, and coupled with the variable sexual orientation, would lead to a WIDE range of available types.

Sexual orientation around 50, Gregariousness at 100, and Self-Effiacy at 100 would lead to a flamboyantly bisexual individual, for example.  He'd be Bi, want you to know... and probably ask you what you're up to later.  You know... just to hang out