The idea that Gender is a social construct, Gender norms need to challenged etc, which an update like this would be seen to be supporting , would absolutely be seen as a political statement.
And yet when I suggested that characters retain their genders, but be allowed to wear whatever they want, you said that, too, is a (significant) political statement.
How can it be so, when this is the way the real world is, and has been for decades (or more)? At least in the West, people have genders, but they are also allowed to wear whatever they want (as long as it covers certain body parts). Society might frown at certain outfits, but the law doesn't. Nexon removing its "law" simply mirrors the real world. In-game society may or may not frown at certain outfits or hairstyles, but the "law" - the code of the game - shouldn't care.
The idea that Gender is a social construct, Gender norms need to challenged etc, which an update like this would be seen to be supporting , would absolutely be seen as a political statement.
And yet when I suggested that characters retain their genders, but be allowed to wear whatever they want, you said that, too, is a (significant) political statement.
How can it be so, when this is the way the real world is, and has been for decades (or more)? At least in the West, people have genders, but they are also allowed to wear whatever they want (as long as it covers certain body parts). Society might frown at certain outfits, but the law doesn't. Nexon removing its "law" simply mirrors the real world. In-game society may or may not frown at certain outfits or hairstyles, but the "law" - the code of the game - shouldn't care.
The idea that.. Gender norms need to challenged etc
Just because the real life adventure game allows something doesn't mean Nexon should make a significant political statement by allowing something.
Since you brought up the inclusion of something in the real world and then attempted to use it as justification for adding it to Maplestory I would like to ask you why you think blatant Racism should be allowed in Maplestory? Lol
In case the above 'lol' doesn't make it obvious, I'm again being facetious to highlight a silly line of reasoning.
gender neutrality is a political statement in 2017, thats why im saying those with a particular lifestyle are for it, not that theres anything wrong with having different lifestyles, but lets focus on gameplay
I wish I understood your points Daxi. If they kept the genders, wouldn't it in the end just be crossdressing then, which you've said you're fine with since it's already an option in the game, and this suggestion would just be expanding upon what Nexon already has done. What statement would they be making that wasn't already made at that point?
Did I misunderstand something in this conversation?
This is incredibly silly, in the end. Who cares what statement Nexon may or may not make? It's their company, not yours. Why do you care so much in the end anyway?
Also, to DarkPassenger: not everything has to be focused on gameplay. There are more things to a game than gameplay.
gender neutrality is a political statement in 2017, thats why im saying those with a particular lifestyle are for it, not that theres anything wrong with having different lifestyles,
My point exactly, such a drastic change, especially one that on GMS would get sends a political statement that I don't think Nexon should be making. My person opinion on cross dressing (I'm 100% fine with it) is irrelevant.
I wish I understood your points Daxi. If they kept the genders, wouldn't it in the end just be crossdressing then, which you've said you're fine with since it's already an option in the game, and this suggestion would just be expanding upon what Nexon already has done. What statement would they be making that wasn't already made at that point?
My issue is with Nexon making any significant political statement. I also liked the Donald Trump npc but I was all for Nexon removing it in the interests of being politically neutral and just leaving the npc there would have been less of a political statement then this proposed suggestion would be.
My personal opinion on cross dressing doesn't matter, my reason for not supporting the suggestion is purely to do with not believing it is in Nexons best interests to be making political statements where realistically possible to avoid making political statements. Especially with the current political climate.
As I've pointed out multiple times, I wouldn't have an issue with smaller specific changes (like freckles for male characters) etc and also have no problem with Nexon releasing future cosmetics with more of an emphasis on being available to everyone, at least where reasonable. Since they are much less drastic and can be done more 'covertly'.
We're literally on the suggestions and feedback section of the forums, literally implemented for the playerbase to tell Nexon how they believe they should spend their time. Nexon is of course free to make potentially divisive political statements if they want, I just don't believe they should.
"Nexon can do what they want" is an accurate statement, but not helpful to this conversation and invalidates this entire forum section, lol. :P
I have never once claimed that Nexon is not allowed to make whatever political statements they want,..
I wasn't saying "it's their company, they can do what they want" I was asking "it's their company, and it wouldn't affect you at all in the slightest, so why do you care this much?"
Everything that is requested for in this section affects the player in one way or another, but you being concerned about them making a statement... wouldn't affect you whether they did or not. It wouldn't take away from bug fixes, it wouldn't take away from other potentially good things being added to the game since they have a whole team of people doing this, in the end it wouldn't really make things more complicated for the player... so I'm legitimately trying to figure out, why does it matter, to you personally, if they make a statement? Why do you think it'd be against their better interests to ACCIDENTALLY make a statement? That's all I'm asking.
I wasn't saying "it's their company, they can do what they want" I was asking "it's their company, and it wouldn't affect you at all in the slightest, so why do you care this much?"
I've had to put up with enough political drama on both Maplestory and the real life adventure game to want to avoid it.
Everything that is requested for in this section affects the player in one way or another, but you being concerned about them making a statement... wouldn't affect you whether they did or not.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
It wouldn't take away from bug fixes, it wouldn't take away from other potentially good things being added to the game since they have a whole team of people doing this,
I have never claimed it was, I've not once suggested I don't support the suggestion because of feared limited dev time.
in the end it wouldn't really make things more complicated for the player... so I'm legitimately trying to figure out, why does it matter, to you personally, if they make a statement? Why do you think it'd be against their better interests to ACCIDENTALLY make a statement? That's all I'm asking.
Last thing Nexon needs is negative press and the last thing my BL needs is more drama/people quitting.
I will add that the majority of your post is simply questioning my motivation, not providing counter points. I do not see how my motivation behind my statements is relevant.
Keep in mind that attacking someones motive is a logical fallacy.
I will add that the majority of your post is simply questioning my motivation, not providing counter points. I do not see how my motivation behind my statements is relevant.
Keep in mind that attacking someones motive is a logical fallacy.
I care not much for fallacies, when I wasn't even making one because I wasn't attacking your motives? Also, I wasn't trying to counter your arguments, I was asking a question. There's a difference.
Yes, it is relevant, because otherwise we can't get to the root of the problem here.
We'd honestly go around in circles of "I don't think this a statement" and "I think it is a statement." In order to truly understand your viewpoint, we needed to know your motivation behind being against them making a statement, otherwise you'd really have no point to even disagreeing and would be merely disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
You're saying that them adding anything that would lead to a more open society would ruin their brand?
Find me numbers that prove this, because statistics would suggest otherwise.
p.s Apple marched in LGBT Parades in 2016:
"The Company posted all-time record quarterly revenue of $78.4 billion and all-time record quarterly earnings per diluted share of $3.36. These results compare to revenue of $75.9 billion and earnings per diluted share of $3.28 in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 64 percent of the quarter’s revenue."
Darn, looks like they "ruined" their brand alright.
Welcome back! I missed you.
I said it runs the risk, I did not say it would. Neither of us could provide "numbers" to prove the statement either way, because it's a hypothetical based on events that have not yet happened. The potential for it to happen is one of the reasons I'm against the suggestion, while I have no doubt that you disagree with me on its potential to happen you're essentially arguing to the motivation of my statements, which is a logical fallacy.
I will add that your example is misleading at best. You've adjusted for no other factors (pro tip, it would be impossible to). You need to quantify the effect the action had on the Apple brand. To put it simply correlation =/= causation.
Here's something just as silly as your example:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.. there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
Here's an example of a political statement from a company actually making it close:
"Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes By Melissa hit the news in 2013, when owners Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to make a wedding cake for lesbian couple Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer.. But despite raking in thousands of dollars, the Kleins quietly shut down their business this week."
Darn, looks like they "ruined" their brand alright.
Well said!
I'll also point out that you seem to be quoting me when you say "ruined", I did not say "ruined", please don't misrepresent my position. I have not once claimed that this update would be the death of Maplestory. There is a difference between hurting a brand and "ruining" a company.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
You're saying that them adding anything that would lead to a more open society would ruin their brand?
Find me numbers that prove this, because statistics would suggest otherwise.
p.s Apple marched in LGBT Parades in 2016:
"The Company posted all-time record quarterly revenue of $78.4 billion and all-time record quarterly earnings per diluted share of $3.36. These results compare to revenue of $75.9 billion and earnings per diluted share of $3.28 in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 64 percent of the quarter’s revenue."
Darn, looks like they "ruined" their brand alright.
cant compare apple to nexon. Apple's connections extend beyond nexon, apple needs more PR than nexon does. Youre alluding to something that isnt comparable.
Fashion can absolutely be political. The idea that Gender is a social construct, Gender norms need to challenged etc, which an update like this would be seen to be supporting , would absolutely be seen as a political statement.
If you don't think that Gender identity and the like are not political issues then you've not been paying attention to the News. :P
I still wouldn't necessarily find it as "challenging the norms of society". If people are able to cosplay as a different gender in real life, I am certain we can cosplay a male character as a female character or vice versa. The aspect of "Role-Playing-Game" is similar to cosplay.
But lets step back for one moment. Some equipment in-game may look like it's made for a particular gender or it's suppose to be gender neutral but it's not. I'm not talking about April Fools cosmetics. I'm talking about things such as the Orange Sporty T-Shirt, Red Casual Suit, Ragged Top, Washed Jeans, Sky Blue Picnic, Ghost Uniform, etc.
There's no challenge against the norms of gender. There isn't an attribute in real life where you can't wear those clothes just because it's made for certain people. But at the same time the game revolves around cosplay, this is a Role Playing Game, right?
If anything challenges the norms against gender it would be changing the current state of marriage in-game. But that's not what we're talking about.
I said it runs the risk, I did not say it would. Neither of us could provide "numbers" to prove the statement either way because it's a hypothetical based on events that have not yet happened. The potential for it to happen is one of the reasons I'm against the suggestion, while I have no doubt that you disagree with me on its potential to happen you're essentially arguing to the motivation of my statements, which is a logical fallacy.
Incorrect. This is risk analysis. It can be proven. Don't avoid the question - you said it "could damage the brand". Find me similar examples of companies being more politically left that have their brand damaged. It's worth noting that a damaged brand could lead to a ruined brand, arguing the semantics of end results isn't relative. The world of business is all numbers, and you're arguing that it would be bad for business - prove it.
I simply gave an example of a company that is well known for making BOLD political statements, and yet it hasn't damaged the brand what so ever. I would say you're using unproven beliefs to argue something, a fallacy in itself.
I have already proven to you previously that the Company has indeed made statements that are in this same field with its other games. You're arguing something that they shouldn't do, based on what? What exactly do you believe will happen when they make this so-called "political statement"? The entire argument in unsound, and riddle with your opinions - not fact.
t compare apple to Nexon. Apple's connections extend beyond Nexon, apple needs more PR than Nixon does. You're alluding to something that isn't comparable.
This makes no sense. Try again. Two companies, two tech companies. I'm alluding to Brand imagine - something relevant to any global company.
try again with what?
one is a tech company, one is a limited liability game developing corporation.
what youre doing is a false comparison, because you believe theyre the same type of companies. Brand image, nexon has no real brand, per se, just intellectual property. while apple has a name and a logo. a name and a logo, thats why they use their platform to support lbgt, to extend public relations and extend sales. a limited liability company doesnt need as much public relations as a company like apple does.
I said it runs the risk, I did not say it would. Neither of us could provide "numbers" to prove the statement either way because it's a hypothetical based on events that have not yet happened. The potential for it to happen is one of the reasons I'm against the suggestion, while I have no doubt that you disagree with me on its potential to happen you're essentially arguing to the motivation of my statements, which is a logical fallacy.
Incorrect. This is risk analysis. It can be proven. Don't avoid the question - you said it "could damage the brand". Find me similar examples of companies being more politically left that have their brand damaged. It's worth noting that a damaged brand could lead to a ruined brand, arguing the semantics of end results isn't relative. The world of business is all numbers, and you're arguing that it would be bad for business - prove it.
I simply gave an example of a company that is well known for making BOLD political statements, and yet it hasn't damaged the brand what so ever. I would say you're using unproven beliefs to argue something, a fallacy in itself.
I have already proven to you previously that the Company has indeed made statements that are in this same field with its other games. You're arguing something that they shouldn't do, based on what? What exactly do you believe will happen when they make this so-called "political statement"? The entire argument in unsound, and riddle with your opinions - not fact.
t compare apple to Nexon. Apple's connections extend beyond Nexon, apple needs more PR than Nixon does. You're alluding to something that isn't comparable.
This makes no sense. Try again. Two companies, two tech companies. I'm alluding to Brand imagine - something relevant to any global company.
try again with what?
one is a tech company, one is a limited liability game developing corporation.
what youre doing is a false comparison, because you believe theyre the same type of companies. Brand image, nexon has no real brand, per se, just intellectual property. while apple has a name and a logo. a name and a logo, thats why they use their platform to support lbgt, to extend public relations and extend sales. a limited liability company doesnt need as much public relations as a company like apple does.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
Meaning they are free to make whatever "Political Statement" they want. No brand image to damage = no issue making statements. I guess you don't support your friend as much as we first though.
I support it to the extent that nexon doesnt have to make a political statement, for me it's about not having to do with gameplay more then sociological views.
once op said break social norms, it became a sociological suggestion more than a gameplay suggestion. as much as i dont have power to deem the suggestion of less priority, I am merely voicing against the suggestion. it then becomes a question of is this game trying to influence a certain way of life? one thing is being against it or blocking different lifestyles, but another would be pushing those lifestyles onto the player base.
I said it runs the risk, I did not say it would. Neither of us could provide "numbers" to prove the statement either way because it's a hypothetical based on events that have not yet happened. The potential for it to happen is one of the reasons I'm against the suggestion, while I have no doubt that you disagree with me on its potential to happen you're essentially arguing to the motivation of my statements, which is a logical fallacy.
Incorrect. This is risk analysis. It can be proven. Don't avoid the question - you said it "could damage the brand". Find me similar examples of companies being more politically left that have their brand damaged. It's worth noting that a damaged brand could lead to a ruined brand, arguing the semantics of end results isn't relative. The world of business is all numbers, and you're arguing that it would be bad for business - prove it.
I simply gave an example of a company that is well known for making BOLD political statements, and yet it hasn't damaged the brand what so ever. I would say you're using unproven beliefs to argue something, a fallacy in itself.
I have already proven to you previously that the Company has indeed made statements that are in this same field with its other games. You're arguing something that they shouldn't do, based on what? What exactly do you believe will happen when they make this so-called "political statement"? The entire argument in unsound, and riddle with your opinions - not fact.
t compare apple to Nexon. Apple's connections extend beyond Nexon, apple needs more PR than Nixon does. You're alluding to something that isn't comparable.
This makes no sense. Try again. Two companies, two tech companies. I'm alluding to Brand imagine - something relevant to any global company.
try again with what?
one is a tech company, one is a limited liability game developing corporation.
what youre doing is a false comparison, because you believe theyre the same type of companies. Brand image, nexon has no real brand, per se, just intellectual property. while apple has a name and a logo. a name and a logo, thats why they use their platform to support lbgt, to extend public relations and extend sales. a limited liability company doesnt need as much public relations as a company like apple does.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
Meaning they are free to make whatever "Political Statement" they want. No brand image to damage = no issue making statements. I guess you don't support your friend as much as we first though.
the way companies like nexon handle public relations is different than apple would. obviously im no spkesman for nexon but i know this and that about business and marketing to point out when youre comparing the two in a false way. in the words of sherlock holmes, people tend to twist facts to suit theories rather than twist theories to suit facts. Nexon's brand is different than apple.
another thing youre doing is using my correcting you in terms of how you compared two companies/corporations using general theory and using what i said to counter Daxi, my saying nexon has no brand per se has nothing to do with Daxi's statement. It's to point out the two differences in what they would consider "brands"
the way companies like nexon handle public relations is different than apple would. obviously im no spkesman for nexon but i know this and that about business and marketing to point out when youre comparing the two in a false way. in the words of sherlock holmes, people tend to twist facts to suit theories rather than twist theories to suit facts. Nexon's brand is different than apple.
another thing youre doing is using my correcting you in terms of how you compared two companies/corporations using general theory and using what i said to counter Daxi, my saying nexon has no brand per se has nothing to do with Daxi's statement. It's to point out the two differences in what they would consider "brands"
I'm not trying to be mean, but can you reword this? I cannot understand you.
thousand pardons but theres no simpler way to put it
I support it to the extent that nexon doesnt have to make a political statement, for me it's about not having to do with gameplay more then sociological views.
once op said break social norms, it became a sociological suggestion more than a gameplay suggestion. as much as i dont have power to deem the suggestion of less priority, I am merely voicing against the suggestion. it then becomes a question of is this game trying to influence a certain way of life? one thing is being against it or blocking different lifestyles, but another would be pushing those lifestyles onto the player base.
I am the OP and I never said "break social norms."
All I said is "let every character wear every equipment, hairstyle, and face in the game."
You are the ones who claim this is breaking social norms, when in fact this is exactly what is happening in real society. You're allowed to wear whatever you want. Most people in real society still stick to heteronormative clothing, and most people in Maple do, too - and will continue to - despite the option to "cross-dress" being there.
The problem I am trying to solve is that of many many cosmetic items in the game being gender-restricted despite not breaking any social norms. It's a lot easier to just remove the check for gender match from the code, then to manually go over everything and re-evaluate whether it really needs to be restricted. That's all I'm saying.
The solution of "we'll try to make more gender-neutral clothing in the future" is not really satisfactory, because there are already thousands of items in the game, and the rate at which new ones are added is slow. Plus new ones try to be different from what is already there. So if one has one's eye on a certain wrong-gendered item, one might have to wait years for a similar (but gender-neutral) item to be released.
I support it to the extent that nexon doesnt have to make a political statement, for me it's about not having to do with gameplay more then sociological views.
once op said break social norms, it became a sociological suggestion more than a gameplay suggestion. as much as i dont have power to deem the suggestion of less priority, I am merely voicing against the suggestion. it then becomes a question of is this game trying to influence a certain way of life? one thing is being against it or blocking different lifestyles, but another would be pushing those lifestyles onto the player base.
I am the OP and I never said "break social norms."
All I said is "let every character wear every equipment, hairstyle, and face in the game."
You are the ones who claim this is breaking social norms, when in fact this is exactly what is happening in real society. You're allowed to wear whatever you want. Most people in real society still stick to heteronormative clothing, and most people in Maple do, too - and will continue to - despite the option to "cross-dress" being there.
The problem I am trying to solve is that of many many cosmetic items in the game being gender-restricted despite not breaking any social norms. It's a lot easier to just remove the check for gender match from the code, then to manually go over everything and re-evaluate whether it really needs to be restricted. That's all I'm saying.
The solution of "we'll try to make more gender-neutral clothing in the future" is not really satisfactory, because there are already thousands of items in the game, and the rate at which new ones are added is slow. Plus new ones try to be different from what is already there. So if one has one's eye on a certain wrong-gendered item, one might have to wait years for a similar (but gender-neutral) item to be released.
You did, the post was edited where you said it, it was after the admin responded
Don't avoid the question - you said it "could damage the brand". Find me similar examples of companies being more politically left that have their brand damaged.
I will add that your example is misleading at best. You've adjusted for no other factors (pro tip, it would be impossible to). You need to quantify the effect the action had on the Apple brand. To put it simply correlation =/= causation.
Here's something just as silly as your example:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.. there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
You Apple example is a false cause fallacy, all my false cause example was doing was attempting to highlight how silly it is.
But okay, lets play some more of the false cause fallacy game (since you're literally asking for them, lol):
"An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed with a followup question, “Do you trust the political news you are getting?” By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news.. While once considered a pioneer of 24-hour TV journalism, CNN has faced criticism and accusations of bias over its political news coverage"
It's worth noting that a damaged brand could lead to a ruined brand, arguing the semantics of end results isn't relative. The world of business is all numbers, and you're arguing that it would be bad for business - prove it.
You literally quoted me as saying something I didn't say, that's not semantics. I did not say this potential update would "ruin" the brand, I said it could. Which is an accurate statement.
I have stated that it could be "bad for business", there is no way to prove it either way. You're literally asking for evidence to the outcome of something that hasn't happened, lol.
I simply gave an example of a company that is well known for making BOLD political statements, and yet it hasn't damaged the brand what so ever. I would say you're using unproven beliefs to argue something, a fallacy in itself.
While I obviously disagree with your conclusion, even if I accepted your premise then you'd be guilty of a fallacy fallacy.
I like this spot the fallacy game, lets play it more going forward, I'm been limiting myself to 1 a reply but you seem to want to play now too.
I have already proven to you previously that the Company has indeed made statements that are in this same field with its other games. You're arguing something that they shouldn't do, based on what? What exactly do you believe will happen when they make this so-called "political statement"? The entire argument in unsound, and riddle with your opinions - not fact.
We're debating the outcome of a potential future update that hasn't happened yet. All any of us are doing is sharing our opinions, lol. There are no "facts" to be shared.
I disagree with you notion that anyone has "proven" anything on this thread.
[/quote]
I still wouldn't necessarily find it as "challenging the norms of society". If people are able to cosplay as a different gender in real life, I am certain we can cosplay a male character as a female character or vice versa. The aspect of "Role-Playing-Game" is similar to cosplay.
But lets step back for one moment. Some equipment in-game may look like it's made for a particular gender or it's suppose to be gender neutral but it's not. I'm not talking about April Fools cosmetics. I'm talking about things such as the Orange Sporty T-Shirt, Red Casual Suit, Ragged Top, Washed Jeans, Sky Blue Picnic, Ghost Uniform, etc.
There's no challenge against the norms of gender. There isn't an attribute in real life where you can't wear those clothes just because it's made for certain people. But at the same time the game revolves around cosplay, this is a Role Playing Game, right?
Obviously everything can be interpreted as a political statement to varying degrees. Which is why I have less of an issue with less overt changes, such as future Gender restriction consideration (where reasonable) or a limited pool of specific changes to existing content.
Comments
And yet when I suggested that characters retain their genders, but be allowed to wear whatever they want, you said that, too, is a (significant) political statement.
How can it be so, when this is the way the real world is, and has been for decades (or more)? At least in the West, people have genders, but they are also allowed to wear whatever they want (as long as it covers certain body parts). Society might frown at certain outfits, but the law doesn't. Nexon removing its "law" simply mirrors the real world. In-game society may or may not frown at certain outfits or hairstyles, but the "law" - the code of the game - shouldn't care.
Just because the real life adventure game allows something doesn't mean Nexon should make a significant political statement by allowing something.
Since you brought up the inclusion of something in the real world and then attempted to use it as justification for adding it to Maplestory I would like to ask you why you think blatant Racism should be allowed in Maplestory? Lol
In case the above 'lol' doesn't make it obvious, I'm again being facetious to highlight a silly line of reasoning.
Did I misunderstand something in this conversation?
This is incredibly silly, in the end. Who cares what statement Nexon may or may not make? It's their company, not yours. Why do you care so much in the end anyway?
Also, to DarkPassenger: not everything has to be focused on gameplay. There are more things to a game than gameplay.
My point exactly, such a drastic change, especially one that on GMS would get sends a political statement that I don't think Nexon should be making. My person opinion on cross dressing (I'm 100% fine with it) is irrelevant.
My issue is with Nexon making any significant political statement. I also liked the Donald Trump npc but I was all for Nexon removing it in the interests of being politically neutral and just leaving the npc there would have been less of a political statement then this proposed suggestion would be.
My personal opinion on cross dressing doesn't matter, my reason for not supporting the suggestion is purely to do with not believing it is in Nexons best interests to be making political statements where realistically possible to avoid making political statements. Especially with the current political climate.
As I've pointed out multiple times, I wouldn't have an issue with smaller specific changes (like freckles for male characters) etc and also have no problem with Nexon releasing future cosmetics with more of an emphasis on being available to everyone, at least where reasonable. Since they are much less drastic and can be done more 'covertly'.
Well I do, obviously. lol.
Covered that here:
Everything that is requested for in this section affects the player in one way or another, but you being concerned about them making a statement... wouldn't affect you whether they did or not. It wouldn't take away from bug fixes, it wouldn't take away from other potentially good things being added to the game since they have a whole team of people doing this, in the end it wouldn't really make things more complicated for the player... so I'm legitimately trying to figure out, why does it matter, to you personally, if they make a statement? Why do you think it'd be against their better interests to ACCIDENTALLY make a statement? That's all I'm asking.
I've had to put up with enough political drama on both Maplestory and the real life adventure game to want to avoid it.
Yes it would, it also runs the risk of hurting the Maplestory brand, which I also want to avoid.
I have never claimed it was, I've not once suggested I don't support the suggestion because of feared limited dev time.
Last thing Nexon needs is negative press and the last thing my BL needs is more drama/people quitting.
I will add that the majority of your post is simply questioning my motivation, not providing counter points. I do not see how my motivation behind my statements is relevant.
Keep in mind that attacking someones motive is a logical fallacy.
I care not much for fallacies, when I wasn't even making one because I wasn't attacking your motives? Also, I wasn't trying to counter your arguments, I was asking a question. There's a difference.
Yes, it is relevant, because otherwise we can't get to the root of the problem here.
We'd honestly go around in circles of "I don't think this a statement" and "I think it is a statement." In order to truly understand your viewpoint, we needed to know your motivation behind being against them making a statement, otherwise you'd really have no point to even disagreeing and would be merely disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Welcome back! I missed you.
I said it runs the risk, I did not say it would. Neither of us could provide "numbers" to prove the statement either way, because it's a hypothetical based on events that have not yet happened. The potential for it to happen is one of the reasons I'm against the suggestion, while I have no doubt that you disagree with me on its potential to happen you're essentially arguing to the motivation of my statements, which is a logical fallacy.
I will add that your example is misleading at best. You've adjusted for no other factors (pro tip, it would be impossible to). You need to quantify the effect the action had on the Apple brand. To put it simply correlation =/= causation.
Here's something just as silly as your example:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.. there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
Here's an example of a political statement from a company actually making it close:
"Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes By Melissa hit the news in 2013, when owners Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to make a wedding cake for lesbian couple Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer.. But despite raking in thousands of dollars, the Kleins quietly shut down their business this week."
Well said!
I'll also point out that you seem to be quoting me when you say "ruined", I did not say "ruined", please don't misrepresent my position. I have not once claimed that this update would be the death of Maplestory. There is a difference between hurting a brand and "ruining" a company.
cant compare apple to nexon. Apple's connections extend beyond nexon, apple needs more PR than nexon does. Youre alluding to something that isnt comparable.
I still wouldn't necessarily find it as "challenging the norms of society". If people are able to cosplay as a different gender in real life, I am certain we can cosplay a male character as a female character or vice versa. The aspect of "Role-Playing-Game" is similar to cosplay.
But lets step back for one moment. Some equipment in-game may look like it's made for a particular gender or it's suppose to be gender neutral but it's not. I'm not talking about April Fools cosmetics. I'm talking about things such as the Orange Sporty T-Shirt, Red Casual Suit, Ragged Top, Washed Jeans, Sky Blue Picnic, Ghost Uniform, etc.
There's no challenge against the norms of gender. There isn't an attribute in real life where you can't wear those clothes just because it's made for certain people. But at the same time the game revolves around cosplay, this is a Role Playing Game, right?
If anything challenges the norms against gender it would be changing the current state of marriage in-game. But that's not what we're talking about.
try again with what?
one is a tech company, one is a limited liability game developing corporation.
what youre doing is a false comparison, because you believe theyre the same type of companies. Brand image, nexon has no real brand, per se, just intellectual property. while apple has a name and a logo. a name and a logo, thats why they use their platform to support lbgt, to extend public relations and extend sales. a limited liability company doesnt need as much public relations as a company like apple does.
I support it to the extent that nexon doesnt have to make a political statement, for me it's about not having to do with gameplay more then sociological views.
once op said break social norms, it became a sociological suggestion more than a gameplay suggestion. as much as i dont have power to deem the suggestion of less priority, I am merely voicing against the suggestion. it then becomes a question of is this game trying to influence a certain way of life? one thing is being against it or blocking different lifestyles, but another would be pushing those lifestyles onto the player base.
the way companies like nexon handle public relations is different than apple would. obviously im no spkesman for nexon but i know this and that about business and marketing to point out when youre comparing the two in a false way. in the words of sherlock holmes, people tend to twist facts to suit theories rather than twist theories to suit facts. Nexon's brand is different than apple.
another thing youre doing is using my correcting you in terms of how you compared two companies/corporations using general theory and using what i said to counter Daxi, my saying nexon has no brand per se has nothing to do with Daxi's statement. It's to point out the two differences in what they would consider "brands"
thousand pardons but theres no simpler way to put it
I am the OP and I never said "break social norms."
All I said is "let every character wear every equipment, hairstyle, and face in the game."
You are the ones who claim this is breaking social norms, when in fact this is exactly what is happening in real society. You're allowed to wear whatever you want. Most people in real society still stick to heteronormative clothing, and most people in Maple do, too - and will continue to - despite the option to "cross-dress" being there.
The problem I am trying to solve is that of many many cosmetic items in the game being gender-restricted despite not breaking any social norms. It's a lot easier to just remove the check for gender match from the code, then to manually go over everything and re-evaluate whether it really needs to be restricted. That's all I'm saying.
The solution of "we'll try to make more gender-neutral clothing in the future" is not really satisfactory, because there are already thousands of items in the game, and the rate at which new ones are added is slow. Plus new ones try to be different from what is already there. So if one has one's eye on a certain wrong-gendered item, one might have to wait years for a similar (but gender-neutral) item to be released.
You did, the post was edited where you said it, it was after the admin responded
A risk analysis can not "prove" the outcome of hypothetical events. If you're somehow able to, then you've got a bright future ahead of you.
Don't avoid the answer:
You Apple example is a false cause fallacy, all my false cause example was doing was attempting to highlight how silly it is.
But okay, lets play some more of the false cause fallacy game (since you're literally asking for them, lol):
"An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed with a followup question, “Do you trust the political news you are getting?” By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news.. While once considered a pioneer of 24-hour TV journalism, CNN has faced criticism and accusations of bias over its political news coverage"
You literally quoted me as saying something I didn't say, that's not semantics. I did not say this potential update would "ruin" the brand, I said it could. Which is an accurate statement.
I have stated that it could be "bad for business", there is no way to prove it either way. You're literally asking for evidence to the outcome of something that hasn't happened, lol.
While I obviously disagree with your conclusion, even if I accepted your premise then you'd be guilty of a fallacy fallacy.
I like this spot the fallacy game, lets play it more going forward, I'm been limiting myself to 1 a reply but you seem to want to play now too.
We're debating the outcome of a potential future update that hasn't happened yet. All any of us are doing is sharing our opinions, lol. There are no "facts" to be shared.
I disagree with you notion that anyone has "proven" anything on this thread.
[/quote]
A wild Nexon representative appeared. Arwoo used:
A Nexon employee (and me too, obviously) disagree with your assessment.
Covered that already:
You're correct that that's an entirely different issue, yes.