[New Users] Please note that all new users need to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours. Thank you for your patience.
Check out the v.254 - Midnight Carnival - Ludibrium Patch Notes
here!
Remove the "gender" attribute from the game
Comments
Regardless of if you did or didn't say, a Nexon representative, along with multiple people who have read your thread came to the conclusion that it absolutely does suggest breaking social norms.
My primary issue has always been (and I have said so multiple times) not with your intent, but with how it would be perceived and the statement it would make.
There is a reason I've also stated:
You simply can't argue that people wouldn't interpret it as a political statement when multiple people on this thread have interpreted as such, the 'proof is in the pudding', so to speak.
If you're suggestion had along the lines of:
"Where feasible make an increased number of new items gender neutral as they're added and change x, y and z to not be gender locked" Then you would of had my support, or at least my silence.
I don't think Nexon making political statements about hot-topic issues is an easy 'solution', we've been over this but I'm happy to repeat myself for the next 100 pages if you really want to, lol.
what exactly am i going back and forth on?
Daxi already explained it was a nexon admin that came it the conslusion AK was suggesting social norms, so I was wrong that I said it was ak that mentioned it, he apparently is just suggesting it. Disproving what exactly, what exactly is my thesis? My narrative? this is a video game forum not a debate
Going back to one of Daxi's points on the risk of the "political statement" damaging Nexon. I think that this is where we need to focus on, if we're going to be able to decide on anything. You two, or at least Daxi, believe that the political statement that nexon would be making be removing gender tags on equips would be harmful. Us on the other side don't think that would be the case. Either I missed something, but the example that Alex provided with apple is still sound. Just because nexon's a different company doesn't really change much. It doesn't make much sense that it would change for nexon. Unless you can explain to me exactly why it would work for apple, and not for nexon. Or how this "political statement" in the first place will hurt nexon.
I can't even see the most of the playerbase, or new players caring. Unless nexon were to proclaim, "WE'RE CHANGING CLOTHES SO ALL PEOPLE CAN WEAR IT, POLITICAL STATEMENT, POLITICAL STATEMENT POLITICAL STATEMENT" in which case people probably still wouldn't care. Nexon would most likely just leave it in patch notes.
This entire thing has been blown out of proportion with how you two "think" the playerbase will react, when they could react in just the opposite way. Which is true for every, single, change, that nexon has made in the past. If worst comes to worst, they just change it back. It's not going to hurt nexon in the way you guys think it would.
How about we take a logical look at this without giving a rats ass about "X is just trying to push their (insert Liberal or Conservative "Cuckgenda") on us"
What does the Gender attribute for our characters really do? well in KMS, many years ago it was used to auto gender pick your characters based on the info gained from the KSSN you use to have to give to make an account (there are also no skin color options when creating a character still to this day), in KMS it still sort of serves a purpose due to a gender icon that is displayed on anyone's character info page, but other than that it does nothing but limit the equipment you can wear or cash covers you can wear, which is where GMS has been on the gender situation since launch.
This is a general problem when we go forward in time to today's world where we have Fusion anvils and the equipment that is mostly used now-a-days is genderless but you want to fuse an item that has gender attribute (like the mesorangers gear) but want to fuse it to a genderless item or may want to equip it cause it looks cool but has a gender tag that is not the gender you play as and gendered tiems can't be fused with any other item other than one of the same type and gender. This is the problem most players are having with this draconian system; it has nothing to do with pushing an agenda and has everything to do with limiting a players options on what they would like to have equipped.
To fix this issue they would either have to change every item with a gender tag to nongendered or change the gender attribute by either removing it or downgrading it's effects, and I don't know how feasible either of these options are (old code and all that). There is a 3rd option where they can make new versions of all the old stuff with either genderless or opposite gender of the original but that would also take a lot of work.
either way I don't believe much will come of this and everyone blowing this out of proportion is an idiot in my eyes. There is no need to bring politics to a non-political matter, take that stupid stuff elsewhere.
looking at how they handled the NPC Donald.. an NPC which literally no one has cared about in years, except one forumer, I just dont see that being true.
when you throw in a word like cuckgenda suggesting your stand on political views, the idea of logical perspective falls apart. youre basing that off of one instance where influence is used in a statement.
my argument is that this is more of a suggestion to make players with a certain lifestyle more comfortable than anything to improve gameplay.
I never took a political stand or said anything that would suggest my political views other than dislike of SJW's, the statement you're picking at is a basic overview of the argument that is being had and is still stupid if you take a non political viewpoint and look at the facts.
when you look at the facts everyone is made more comfortable no matter if they live what you believe is an "certain Lifetyle" (whatever the eff that means) or not.
and Playstyle can be different for everybody, some people won't "play" a character till they have it looking how they want it to, some people find that playing dressup in maple is their play style and is why they play or still play; however, character customization is definitely a big part of the game for may players and in my eyes means that it is considered part of playing the game and playstyle of the game even if it's not the main part of the game and allowing more customization would obviously improve the customization (which is gameplay,just not main gameplay.).
but now that I've given my 2 cents i'm done, cause I know nothing will change and there's no reason to argue with a wall (the wall being both Nexon and people that think a change like this only favors people with a "certain lifestyle").
BTW, the fact that people think that removing the genders would be making a political statement of some kind is bringing politics into this and came up more than "once" and does noting but muddy the waters for real conversation. also saying "players with a certain lifetyle" is impling someone-elses "lifestyle" agenda is being pushed onto others vs a gameplay change.
I suppose so, it's worth adding that literally all of my replies have been in defense of my views when challenged by others (which I have no problem with, it's jolly good fun). While I'm happy to have a conversation as long as people want it, it's definitely driven by their desire to engage in a debate rather then mine. I've made an effort to avoiding replying to anything not to me or about me/my positions.
The last few pages haven't really even been about my reason for not supporting the suggestion, lol. Most of the replies are arguing over wordplay and minutia. I maintain that an update like this has the potential to cause a potentially negative backlash from an impossible to quantify percentage of the community, which is reason enough for me to oppose it when alternatives I've suggested I believe achieve the same goal with less of the potential to be interpreted as a political statement.
Not quite, but that's a fairer representation then most so far. I believe it has the potential to be harmful, not that it definitely would be harmful. I am of the position that it would be impossible to say accurately either way because we're essentially debating a hypothetical.
I disagree because it doesn't adjust for any other factors and would be impossible to accurately do so.
For example, say I started a new diet for a year and during that year I won a $100m lottery. It would not be fair to then claim at the end of the year that the new diet was a fantastic way to make money because my net worth is $100m more then it was at the start of the year. Correlation =/= Causation
If it is a sound example then so is the following:
Plus this one when additional criteria was added:
First I'd like to add that this suggestion isn't about clothes directly, it's about eliminating Gender entirely. I believe those are two different things, with one possibly being seen more negatively then the other, not that I support either potential updates. However, I'll just assume a clothing change for the remainder of this section of my reply:
I'm curious if by "most" you acknowledge that the update has the potential to be seen as a political statement from Nexon by some and that those people would treat it as a negative.
I'm then curious if you think think the number of people who would see it as a negative would be likely to increase or decrease if Nexon just quietly made an effort to release new items without a gender tag and only changed specific existing clothes where most desired.
I am of the opinion that the latter option would decrease the amount who may see the update as a political statement and view it negatively.
To be blunt, it's a bit hypocritical to criticize my talking about how people might potentially react to an update only go on to say how people would react to the potential update, lol. My entire reason for not supporting the update was because I believe that there is a greater possibility for a negative outcome and reaction with the proposed update when I believe there's less drastic and less likely to be viewed negatively solutions that achieve the same thing.
My only "narrative" is that I don't believe Nexon should make unnecessary significant political statements, I have no personal issue with cross dressing.
I have not accused anyone of attempting to forward an agenda, please don't strawman or misrepresent my positions.
So then you support my opinion that it would be better to just make an effort to make new items gender neutral (where feasible) and change specific existing clothes where most desired?
I liked how they handled the removal of the Donald Trump npc, made an effort to avoid making a political statement.
Keep in mind people are replying to DarkPassenger too. I bring this up because you've replied to people as if they are solely talking to you, which isn't the case.
This post of mine is not an argument, so please don't take it as one. I'm just bringing this up.
The context for the quote began with "The people reading too deep into a change like this..", While I obviously don't agree with the idea that I am guilty of that it has certainly been suggested that I have more then (I believe) anyone else. I deduced that the comment was likely referring to me at least in part.
When comments talk about both me and DarkPassenger I make a point of only defending my positions, for a number of reasons including (but not necessarily limited to):
If I'm mistaken that the comment wasn't referring to me at all then I'll happily apologize for my mistake.
Note: Err, some where during your quote of me, my quotes turned into Alex's?
Correlation may not equal causation, but they definitely effect each other. If I have a bunch of friends that study for a test and get a good grade, and I don't and get a bad score, then the pattern or correlation is: If I study, I'll have a higher chance of getting a good grade.
Also.. If you haven't been responding because of the reasons you disagree with the suggestion, then try to get back on topic?
The example you provided about the diet in the lottery doesn't really pertain to this situation either? We're not saying that if nexon adds this change that suddenly the rewards will be plentiful. I, at least, am saying that there wouldn't be backlash in the form, or amount you've surmised.
If you remember, AKradian offered a compromise if not removing gender, then just removing gender tags.
I said most, because I can't speak for everyone, yes, there's a possibility that *someone* out there may not like this change, but again, the same is true for every change. Can you safely say that you think that the backlash you've invisioned would cause players to quit? If you say yes to that, I'm done here. With so many players asking for gay marriage, then I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that this change would cause that.
Lastly, I'm not being a hypocrite if I'm disagreeing with you on how people are going to react. I simply disagreed with how I think people would react and provided my opinion on that subject, if that's hypocrisy, then darn that sucks.
The definition you got from a Wikipedia article that doesn't even have a source... Not going to lie, that actually made me laugh in the real life adventure game.
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for the "definition" of anything for me sorry, I have no faith in Wikipedia at all. Even High Schools don't accept Wikipedia as a source, lol.
Rather I would encourage you to look up the meaning on the words individually. Though I will add that it's silly to attempt to argue over the definitions of words unless you actually don't understand what I mean by political statement, if that is the case I would be happy to try and explain it to you again.
Nexons intent would be irrelevant, my issue is with potential interpretation of said statement. As I've said multiple times.
You have no data to support that it would increase revenue for Nexon, I can just as easily posit that people would need to roll less boxes to obtain 'acceptable' gear, thus decreasing profits. Please note, I'm not actually suggesting that as a fact, since it would be impossible for either of us to say either way.
I'm very sorry that your hypothetical statement from Nexon doesn't meet the definition of a Wikipedia definition without a source. :^)
Also "Political Statement" is two words, friend.
Well I certainly hope it isn't your final comment, as I've said before I've found this conversation to be jolly good fun. I guess we'll see if you change your mind (I hope you do).
It is worth noting that no one has provided "sound factual proof", because it's impossible to prove. We're discussing the potential outcome of a hypothetical in-between you quoting Wikipedia articles without any source in order to disprove your own hypothetical.
Which facts exactly? I must have missed them.
Their suggestion then goes on to talk about gender locked characters and why they believe it would still be okay to remove gender, lol. I'm starting to question if you've even read the suggestion, since it absolutely talks about eliminating Gender completely. :P
Covered here:
Lucky me (/s), two logical fallacies in 1 sentence! Personal Incredulity ("I do not understand, so it must not be true!") and a Bandwagon ("x amount more agree with me, so you must be wrong").
Would you rather I not enjoy my time spent talking to people? What would be my motivation? I would hope everyone in this thread is having jolly good fun or else why would they post?
Fixed already, honest mistake.
What agenda are you accusing me of pushing exactly?
Think they're all fixed, it's 5am here sorry! :P
Didn't mean to misrepresent you or what you said.
Are you actually trying to claim that Apples participation in a Pride parade is the reason for their record sales? Do you have any data to support that?
Why is it that you believe that companies that more regularly participate in Pride are not bigger then Apple? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? lol
Near on everything I say is a direct response to what others say, I don't believe I'm driving, so to speak. If I were driving then I would be expecting people to address each point that I make, rather then 1-2 sentences from each reply.
All 4 of my provided examples are just as valid as the Apple one and by just as valid I obviously mean not at all.
I have not specified an amount, unless you've quantified an amount then you have claimed their would be potential backlash in the same amount as me.
As far as the form that backlash might take, I don't believe I have been all that specific about that either. Nor would I be. That said, neither of us could be specific about the form any potential backlash might take because it is impossible to say exactly what form potential backlash might take (which is why I'm non-specific).
A more accurate statement from you would have been (NOTE: BOLD = EDITED BY ME):
To which I would reply: You're welcome to that belief, clearly we have a different opinion about what form potential outcomes might take.
To be clear, only after I posted my lack of support for their idea, their proposed compromise in no way invalidates my lack of support, even if I agreed with it (which I didn't).
Covered already:
You've just agreed with me that there's a potential for it to be interpreted as a political statement, so would you also agree that it's a good idea for Nexon to limit that risk as much as possible while still achieving its desired goals?
If you do then:
I believe my suggestion keeps the risk of backlash to a minimum while still achieving essentially the same end result.
It's a possibility, yes. I believe it to be an unnecessary risk. Sorry to see you go, I'll be here if you change your mind and want to keep chatting.
You initially (accurately) point out that that my belief that an unknown percentage of the population may react a certain way given a hypothetical scenario is my opinion.
But then you (hypocritically) present your belief as a statement of fact.
Our conversation is something like this:
Me: I believe x
You: I believe you are wrong about x
Me: Okay, I have no problem with us believing differently about x, however that in no way invalidates my reason for not supporting y nor does it disprove it's possibility.
or more abstract:
Me: I believe Green Dragons rule the world
You: I believe that you are wrong because Yellow Unicorns rule the world
Me: Neither of us can prove our beliefs, but your belief does not disprove my belief
In the above quote, you admit that my worst fears could be perfect valid when you say:
That same reasoning could be applied to literally every potential outcome on this thread so far. That is exactly my point and has been from the start. I provided a alternative solution which I believe is less of a risk, for some reason people seem to keep missing it.
At first I didn't see a need to make faces gender neutral since some male eyes look pretty harsh for a girl, but now I think that would be a great feature, particularly for those who play Zero and want to make them both look like one gender. Harin Face is now available for males in KMS; Chermini from the Crimsonheart Castle questline has Neinheart Face; a female npc from the Heroes of Maple storyline and at one of the current world selections has Alpha Hair; and another female npc from HoM has My Dear Prince Hair(?). I'm so jealous - why do npcs get these styles but real maplers cannot? It surely looks doable. I would really like to see a feminine and masculine option (like used in Animal Crossing for hair) when using hair/eye coupons - PLEASE.
For clothing we should definitely have more freedom to choose what we wear ingame, but unreasonably gender labelled items get in the way. Creating character designs is frustrating when an item labelled (Male) has nothing to do with that gender like the Yellow Picnic Beret. I say we keep the (M) and (F) labels to offer maplers a feminine/masculine suggestion and clarity with item names, and get rid of the (Male) and (Female) attachment since that is the factor which prevent the opposite gender from wearing/buying an equip. Furthermore, what I've found most confusing is that both the Colourful Beach Pants and Blue Crystal nx items only cover from the waist down and expose the torso, but somehow the latter is male only. So females can put on beachwear without a shirt but they can't be a mermaid with the same bare chest? I don't even want my female characters with breasts created by clothing... so I would rather the blue mermaid suit.
P.S. My Zero Alpha wears a gender neutral dress atm so why aren't ALL dresses gender locked to females if we even have this system?
Well, it seems that we can agree that the compromise of filtering gender tags works for the both of us. (Unless I misunderstood the bolded part of where you quoted yourself) And decreases the possibility of backlash, however probable it may be.
Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on a few of the other topics that were discussed.
Pleasure to debate with you.
It seems like we agree on my entire position then. :P
I'll be here if you change your mind.
if you study you do have a higher chance of getting good grades. As opposed to not studying? because they study, they understood it, because they understood it they got good grades.
We haven't been "forced" to only use hetronormative customization for years. There have been many cash shop specials that didn't lock stereotypically "male" or "female" items like Akradian mentioned earlier in this thread. For instance when they had a sale on Pink Top it was sold for both genders.
For the sake of consistency and customization I agree that items that are locked to males or female should be removed. When it comes to creating characters at the beginning of the game I obviously don't want us to start gender neutral. If you want to be a genderfluid butterfly in MapleStory you already can! Though with limited items. And if this suggestion is implemented you will have more options. For those that have played Saints Row the III, I think their approach to customization is hillarious and great.
Why isn't this allowed?
But this is?
ahhahhah poooor zero droid