Rewrite Lt Harris's arc redside so it's not so offensive

[SwitchFade]

Sorry, no vote on this.

 

The person is unhinged, regardless of gender.

 

He thinks she's his gf because he's unhinged.

 

There's such a thing as zealotry.

 

By this logic, eliminating his reasoning for taking her life, means we should then eliminate other villains reasons for taking lives. Or change it so the victims don't die. And escape. And good wins. And then we should eliminate villains. And then just make everything city of heroes.

 

And then eliminate villains from City of heroes. Then we just have city of social hour.

 

I'm highlighting the absurdity of the slippery slope, obviously, but the reason is there's two sides to the slope, and many types of zealotry

 

The story arc is villainous, and fine.

[justicebeliever]

If you don't have a personal stake, where's the slope?

 

I think preventing people from making changes, when I am not personally impacted, on the grounds of "well I just don't like change" seems a rather restricting view for a MMORPG where change is norm...

 

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

 

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

[Steampunkette]

No one here is invalidating your argument, Atom. It was invalid from the start. We're just trying to explain to you -why- it's invalid.

 

I don't see how this arc is any different from Terra or blinding the two children so the guy can creep on their mother. If you can't see the connection i can't help you.

 

Are you literally ignoring anything I say that you don't wanna acknowledge?

 

I've said: Yeah. This discussion might spark other discussions of problematic arc. Like Terra in particular.

 

That's not a slippery slope. That's people continuing a conversation.

 

The slippery slope part comes from the idea that such continuing discussions WILL result in the banning of female NPCs. Or result in them becoming immune to damage. Or some other "All Violence is unnacceptable!" ending.

 

The part where you go from A to B right over over to P238 and hit cricial mass.

 

I don't know how to convey that to you. I can't help you if you're dedicated to not comprehending.

[justicebeliever]

I'm highlighting the absurdity of the slippery slope, obviously, but the reason is there's two sides to the slope

 

There are not 2 sides to the slippery slope.  It is a logical fallacy used to generate fear.  That's it. 

 

Slippery Slope assumes that once one change is made there will be no stopping future changes.  But the fallacy is that you (or the Dev's or whoever is invoked in the discussion) is powerless against future changes.  But that's not how life works.  It's a series of decisions one by one...

[EggKookoo]

EggKooKoo - you are clearly just playing devil's advocate here, or the argument would be - let's get rid of CoV in totality.  And City of Heroes, because it too deals with violence...

 

But since that isn't your argument (and if it is, you picked an odd game to play), let's stick the specifics and not abstract them beyond the pale.

 

And I'm also assuming that when you suggest gender violence is "fashionable" you are being facetious, which would be unhelpful in a serious discussion about a serious issue.

 

So my question to you - why are you for the current storyline as is and unchanged?

 

I tend to play devil's advocate in a lot of arguments. I'm happy to argue positions that I don't agree with, assuming I can. Defining a thing is not endorsing a thing, and all that. That's the essence of civil debate, IMO.

 

I am not "for" the current storyline or arguing that it should remain unchanged. I even said earlier I'd support changing the "girlfriend" line, but not having hit that mission in recent memory (maybe I did back "live" in CoV), I don't know if the line is objective mission text or a line of villain dialogue. If it's the latter, I think context should be applied.

 

I generally oppose the notion of special victim categories, mainly because such a thing implies there are victims of crimes who don't get such protection. If a victim can be assigned "class A" and then gets some kind of special treatment, despite another victim of the same crime not getting such treatment because they don't belong in "class A," I think injustice has occurred. This is on top of the problem of people seeing a crime against a person who could be in "class A" and deciding the crime happened because the victim was in "class A," without justification. It becomes less about making things right and more about leveraging emotional social points.

 

Were you a poisoned orphan or something? I ... I don't understand where you're going with this, here. Why is this example so key to your identity when there's several missions about lawyers getting killed or kidnapped for not getting their clients off on all charges, endless muggings, and so forth which are all much more common than poisoning of orphans..?

 

You understand the "poisoned orphan" metaphor was someone else's, right? And that it's essentially a placeholder for "obscure but horrific crime?" I'm saying that a crime's frequency or probability has no bearing on the injustice dealt to its victims. Men are physically victimized far less frequently by women than women are by men. That's no consolation to the man who's had his bully wife crack his skull with a baseball bat (and believe me, that does happen). We shouldn't be telling him that his pain is less significant than that of a woman who has been beaten.

 

Are you trying to suggest that it's a binary situation where ALL violence must be taboo or no violence is? I Kant understand that.

 

I assume you mean in fiction (of course all violence should be taboo in real society). But in fiction? Yes, all or nothing. We have age-based ratings to keep shockingly violent entertainment away from young children. But in product meant for adults? Who's to tell you what fictionalized violence is appropriate for your entertainment? I'm certainly not. Maybe a little iffier with a T-rated game, but if you're saying violence against women specifically should be kept out of that age range then that's a separate argument, and one that would be pretty difficult to enforce. I mean, what's "violence against women" vs. "violence that involves both men and women"?

[Rylas]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

Just to be clear, its possible to oppose the change because you find the logic behind it insufficient or ill-reasoned. Yes?

[justicebeliever]

No one here is invalidating your argument, Atom. It was invalid from the start. We're just trying to explain to you -why- it's invalid.

 

I don't see how this arc is any different from Terra or blinding the two children so the guy can creep on their mother. If you can't see the connection i can't help you.

 

I've said: Yeah. This discussion might spark other discussions of problematic arc. Like Terra in particular.

 

That's not a slippery slope. That's people continuing a conversation.

 

The slippery slope part comes from the idea that such continuing discussions WILL result in the banning of female NPCs. Or result in them becoming immune to damage. Or some other "All Violence is unnacceptable!" ending.

 

The part where you go from A to B right over over to P238 and hit cricial mass.

 

I don't know how to convey that to you. I can't help you if you're dedicated to not comprehending.

 

Super Atom - I agree 100% with what you just said.  The conversations might continue...and in fact, probably guaranteed at this point, more so by the people who keep pushing back on the change who are causing others like me to dig in more and more.

 

The conversations continuing isn't the slippery slope.  There is no slippery slope.  No one is going to suggest banning female NPC's, making them immune to damage, or saying all violence is not allowed.  Since those outcomes are beyond the extreme in likelihood (I mean your odds of getting struck by lightning and winning the lottery, in the same day, are higher), it brings us back to the discussion on this particular change.

[Steampunkette]

I tend to play devil's advocate in a lot of arguments. I'm happy to argue positions that I don't agree with, assuming I can. Defining a thing is not endorsing a thing, and all that. That's the essence of civil debate, IMO.

 

I am not "for" the current storyline or arguing that it should remain unchanged. I even said earlier I'd support changing the "girlfriend" line, but not having hit that mission in recent memory (maybe I did back "live" in CoV), I don't know if the line is objective mission text or a line of villain dialogue. If it's the latter, I think context should be applied.

 

I generally oppose the notion of special victim categories, mainly because such a thing implies there are victims of crimes who don't get such protection. If a victim can be assigned "class A" and then gets some kind of special treatment, despite another victim of the same crime not getting such treatment because they don't belong in "class A," I think injustice has occurred. This is on top of the problem of people seeing a crime against a person who could be in "class A" and deciding the crime happened because the victim was in "class A," without justification. It becomes less about making things right and more about leveraging emotional social points.

 

Were you a poisoned orphan or something? I ... I don't understand where you're going with this, here. Why is this example so key to your identity when there's several missions about lawyers getting killed or kidnapped for not getting their clients off on all charges, endless muggings, and so forth which are all much more common than poisoning of orphans..?

 

You understand the "poisoned orphan" metaphor was someone else's, right? And that it's essentially a placeholder for "obscure but horrific crime?" I'm saying that a crime's frequency or probability has no bearing on the injustice dealt to its victims. Men are physically victimized far less frequently by women than women are by men. That's no consolation to the man who's had his bully wife crack his skull with a baseball bat (and believe me, that does happen). We shouldn't be telling him that his pain is less significant than that of a woman who has been beaten.

 

Are you trying to suggest that it's a binary situation where ALL violence must be taboo or no violence is? I Kant understand that.

 

I assume you mean in fiction (of course all violence should be taboo in real society). But in fiction? Yes, all or nothing. We have age-based ratings to keep shockingly violent entertainment away from young children. But in product meant for adults? Who's to tell you what fictionalized violence is appropriate for your entertainment? I'm certainly not. Maybe a little iffier with a T-rated game, but if you're saying violence against women specifically should be kept out of that age range then that's a separate argument, and one that would be pretty difficult to enforce. I mean, what's "violence against women" vs. "violence that involves both men and women"?

 

The Devil doesn't need an Advocate. Being contrary for the purposes of being contrary can be useful in some circumstances, but it's a really narrow set of circumstances.

 

As to special fictims as a category: It's a simple understanding that there are crimes and violence which impact some groups more than others. People outside of that group have a tendency to ignore thos crims 'cause "If it doesn't happen to me it's not really a problem" see pretty much all of racism forever. White people in New York largely didn't care about Stop and Frisk 'til months after the protests and activism against it started.

 

As to my final joke line: Kant is a deontologist who believed that any action was either unilaterally moral or immoral with circumstances and consequences being irrelevant. 'Cause binarism is a self-blinding viewpoint.

[GamerKate]

At the time I wrote it I just saw a ‘standard’ hero situation. But I had written a woman character who was a victim of domestic violence who needed rescuing. Unoriginal and casually, unintentionally sexist.

 

Women who need rescuing from domestic violence don't exist? Cool story bro. Maybe she just needed to suddenly become an Uberfrau like in your dialog edit.

 

What are you talking about?  It's not a real story...It's a story that HE wrote...Are we in such a place that we can't even criticize our own writing?  Seriously...If you don't like the changes he's suggesting than don't like them - but attacking people's morality over this?  Seems unnecessary

 

This is where that whole "self awareness" concept I was talking about.  Nowhere in the post you quoted, did he attack someone's morality.  He literally just made a post about not liking the suggested changes and nothing more.

 

Seriously, he suggested that the poster doesn't think women of domestic violence are worth rescuing.  Seems like a morality attack to me

 

I changed my arc because I think that women should be PORTRAYED less often as hapless victims or princesses needing a man to come rescue them, in fiction. I don’t want to propagate the image of women being helpless and abused etc.

 

MCM

[justicebeliever]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

Just to be clear, its possible to oppose the change because you find the logic behind it insufficient or ill-reasoned. Yes?

 

Depends on the change.  Are we talking about powersets or AT's - something that will have extended ramifications when the change is executed?  Big ramifications to a broad base of players, regardless of whether the change is well executed or not.  Yes...let's have lots and lots of debate on that.

 

If I change my mind and want a new bio for my character, no matter how bad or ill-reasoned you think I am, then no, you really shouldn't get an opinion on whether I change it or not.

 

This lies in between - it will have no ramifications except to the small villain playerbase (sorry it's true), but not all of them,  just the even smaller amount of that base who reads the mission objectives carefully, but not all of them, just the even smaller amount of that base that actually likes to immerse themselves in the storyline, and not even all of them, just the few that actually care about the quality of the content.  So for that small minority - I say they are the most impacted, why not allow them to make the change.  Is there a bigger stakeholder I am missing?

 

Also, my suggestion was that someone from the community propose a new storyline to the community and the Dev's...so in that case, where's the risk?

[GamerKate]

GOOD GRIEF.

 

Is it a story about something horrible happening?  YES, yes it is.

 

Should it therefor be changed?  NO, not only because of that!

 

IT.  IS.  A.  VILLAIN.  STORY.

 

And, seriously, it isn't even the kind of nasty squick story that would be truly hard for the majority of people to play through.  It's petty insecurity and fragile masculinity taken much too far.  And that's all it is.

 

Honestly, I wish there were MORE stories where you were asked to do truly despicable deeds.  When I play a villain, I want him or her (or it - some of my characters are robots, after all) to be completely effing EVIL.  CoV usually only gives is the Kick the Dog level of villainy.  MEH.

 

Seriously? You’d be happy to have your character perform really morally repulsive deeds?

 

Where does your personal line lie in terms of what you’d be fine with in a CoV arc? What would an arc have to contain before you would +1 a call to change it from someone like myself?

 

MCM

 

MCM

[justicebeliever]

I generally oppose the notion of special victim categories, mainly because such a thing implies there are victims of crimes who don't get such protection. If a victim can be assigned "class A" and then gets some kind of special treatment, despite another victim of the same crime not getting such treatment because they don't belong in "class A," I think injustice has occurred. This is on top of the problem of people seeing a crime against a person who could be in "class A" and deciding the crime happened because the victim was in "class A," without justification. It becomes less about making things right and more about leveraging emotional social points.

 

Well, your viewpoint is the minority in this case.  Right or wrong, society has to judge the level of criminality so as to assign appropriate punishments.  And intent is absolutely part of criminality. 

 

An example would be straight up murder - Murder in the First degree, requires pre-meditation, as well as intent.  Murder in the second, requires just intent.  And manslaughter does not have intent.  In all 3 cases your loved one is dead.  But in all 3 cases the criminal is treated differently, based on intent.

 

And when a class of people are poorly or underrepresented in the justice system, society owes it to that class to provide additional resources. 

[Leogunner]

 

Dude had at least 15 years with his dad, and I can't say he had more than that 'cause I stopped reading after that point. He lived with both of his parents up to that point on a weekly basis, swapping back and forth. Dude had plenty of time for his dad to smack him upside the head on masculinity. His dad didn't. Why? Fucked if I know.

 

He was 7 when they divorced. 

 

Having read some of the leaked emails between his father, mother and himself, it's obvious his obsession was money, over-compensating with said money and his obsessions with relationships.  Frankly, I'd chalk it up to just bad parenting in general, but he was constantly pampered by his mother, sent on trips and the like and hoped his mother married someone rich.  His dad tried to discipline but he'd always retreat to his mother (common child tactic).  But he had very little structure. 

 

I find it interesting you think his Dad needed to knock some sense into him and his mother had only negative impact on him in the matter... Nevermind the fact that he grew up with his Dad's girlfriend Soumaya and his Uncle Dan going through girlfriends every few months...Wonder what kind of impact it had on him when he realized his Dad had been cheating on his Mom before the divorce... huh.

 

Again, his mother was no saint either.  But I'd recommend you look at your bias now.  You're demonizing the men here.  The only thing I said was the mother couldn't provide the structure he needed.  I didn't go on trying to paint her as horrible or scandalous...and it was the truth.

 

Yeah. Maybe his Dad couldn't have fixed him. Maybe he could've. But the idea that boys "Need" a father to teach them about masculinity or relationships is just mindboggling. It's based entirely on conjecture because you can't make an experiment to test the hypothesis. In such an experiment you'd need a control group, all the families functioning identically outside of testing conditions, and then the testing conditions themselves presented in Single Father families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity, Single Mother families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity, and Nuclear Families presenting appropriate and inappropriate masculinity. And the control group would just raise their kids however they feel is appropriate.

 

And you'd need thousands of kids in each group to get a decent sample size. It's a massively unethical concept since you'd be willingly training at least some portion of the subject to be shitty people, denying them appropriate care and relationships.

 

Thus it's conjecture. An untestable declaration of a belief as fact.

 

Yeeeah... Now I remember why I had you ignored on the live forums!

 

I enjoy these types of discussions.  Not sure why you feel averse to the prospect.

 

As for the rest of your post, I'm curious if you see your own bias here.  We're so quick to judge and prescribe motive but when called on said judgements, we retreat to our biases when in reality, we should question them. 

[SwitchFade]

I'm highlighting the absurdity of the slippery slope, obviously, but the reason is there's two sides to the slope

 

There are not 2 sides to the slippery slope.  It is a logical fallacy used to generate fear.  That's it. 

 

Slippery Slope assumes that once one change is made there will be no stopping future changes.  But the fallacy is that you (or the Dev's or whoever is invoked in the discussion) is powerless against future changes.  But that's not how life works.  It's a series of decisions one by one...

 

Erm, the colloquial  meaning of slippery slope, or the formal meaning as proposed in arguementation theory, is that a fringe argument can be used to validate another, this pushing the argument so far from syllogistic reasoning that it is absurd.

 

As an example, ice cream makes you fat. Fat people are lazy. Lazy people are a drain on society. Draining society is evil. Evil people kill people. Thus, ice cream causes people to commit murder.

 

So, my statement about a slippery slope is accurate.

[justicebeliever]

I'm highlighting the absurdity of the slippery slope, obviously, but the reason is there's two sides to the slope

 

There are not 2 sides to the slippery slope.  It is a logical fallacy used to generate fear.  That's it. 

 

Slippery Slope assumes that once one change is made there will be no stopping future changes.  But the fallacy is that you (or the Dev's or whoever is invoked in the discussion) is powerless against future changes.  But that's not how life works.  It's a series of decisions one by one...

 

Erm, the colloquial  meaning of slippery slope, or the formal meaning as proposed in arguementation theory, is that a fringe argument can be used to validate another, this pushing the argument so far from syllogistic reasoning that it is absurd.

 

As an example, ice cream makes you fat. Fat people are lazy. Lazy people are a drain on society. Draining society is evil. Evil people kill people. Thus, ice cream causes people to commit murder.

 

So, my statement about a slippery slope is accurate.

 

I have no idea what you are saying here...So maybe you can clarify what you are saying or say it in a different way, because you lost me...

[Steampunkette]

Stuff

 

Oh, hey, Leo. Because of our discussion I went ahead and looked at page 60+ of his Manifesto. At 17 he was still spending a week with his dad and a week with his mom, alternating between the two. He says at 18, and I'm gonna quote, here, 'cause it's just -so- hilarious with your rejection of the premise of the impact of media:

 

"At father's house, we watched the movie Alpha Dog after dinner one night. This movie depicts a lot of teenagers and young people partying and having sex with beautiful girls, living the life that I've desired for so long. The main character is a fifteen year old kid who has sex with two hot girls in a swimming pool. I was so envious that I delighted at his death in the end. I remember thinking that I would rather live his life than mine, even though he died. He had sex and I didn't. The movie deeply affected me, emotionally, and I would think about it for some time afterwards."

 

Media. Has. Impact. It shapes people's perspectives by creating a culture of shared values. Not all of those values are good.

[SwitchFade]

If you don't have a personal stake, where's the slope?

 

I think preventing people from making changes, when I am not personally impacted, on the grounds of "well I just don't like change" seems a rather restricting view for a MMORPG where change is norm...

 

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

 

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

 

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone."

 

The original post is fallacy of logic based on "slippery slope" theory as defined very clearly in argumentation and communication. It is contrary to syllogistic reading and is one of the primary tools used by arguers that attempt to persuade others USING fear emotions.

 

Proclamations about what all others are doing that are not their positions, that oppose your view, is also another fallacy of logic in argumentation, called straw-man theory; wherein a position is assigned to someone falsely, and then refuted to make the other seem wrong.

 

In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit.

 

Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

 

 

[Rylas]

This lies in between - it will have no ramifications except to the small villain playerbase (sorry it's true), but not all of them,  just the even smaller amount of that base who reads the mission objectives carefully, but not all of them, just the even smaller amount of that base that actually likes to immerse themselves in the storyline, and not even all of them, just the few that actually care about the quality of the content.  So for that small minority - I say they are the most impacted, why not allow them to make the change.  Is there a bigger stakeholder I am missing?

 

I would view this similar to the "fix the clamp" suggestion. The change ultimately wouldn't be all that impactful, no. But I prefer changes to be made for good reasoning, not just because how it's going to appeal to how someone feels about something. That's just a preference I hold for implementing change. And the reasoning provided by OP falls faulty.

 

Also, my suggestion was that someone from the community propose a new storyline to the community and the Dev's...so in that case, where's the risk?

 

A whole new story line that replaces the current one, or just additional to the current one of topic? I'm all for more content creation, especially community driven since these devs have enough work already (I'm assuming). And I'm all for arcs that have better writing for female characters (and all characters, of course). And if the aim is to empower, that's fine. I just hope it avoids infantilizing the audience in the process of doing so. I think of Ripley in Alien when I think of good writing.

[justicebeliever]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

 

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone."

 

<SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive>

 

In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit.

 

Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

 

1.) Never used the word "everyone".  I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change.  It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 

2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out

3.) This is all opinion.  Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change.  However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences.  So we get to debate consequences here...

 

Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic.  But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding?

[Rylas]

Stuff

Equally off-topic stuff of equally non-contributing value.

 

You two are talking about a particularly disturbed individual and in neither direction does that individual help your respective points. Let's not go down that rabbit hole.

[OEM61]

Thank you for making this post @MrCaptainMan! I had the same thoughts when I played this mission. It made me severely uncomfortable. There's a bunch of this kind of weird gender content in the game, but I think you've usefully identified the strongest details that make this particular mission something that stands out as reinforcing misogyny instead of merely depicting it.

 

- The objective reference to Lt Page as 'girlfriend'

- The player taking part in the murder of a woman for rejecting a man

- The player being given the option to agree that this was right

 

So you are fine with just "killing people" for fun, but "killing a female" because a psycho can't handle rejection is too much?

 

Every time a villain character goes about a mission that results in the death of innocents that are accepting that as "right".  Period.

Rather than looking at the characters as having an option to agree that this was right, what should stand out here is that they have an option to decide that the mission was wrong.

 

"Hey villain, I need you to go here and kill these guys for not paying their protection".  A few minutes later they are all dead, you are getting rewarded, and the contact is pointing you towards your next victim.

 

Here, in this case, you get to say "No.  That was wrong, and while I did the larger mission in service to Arachnos/Lord Recluse, what you asked of me was wrong, and now you will pay for that".

 

That is not a common occurrence.

[justicebeliever]

This lies in between - it will have no ramifications except to the small villain playerbase (sorry it's true), but not all of them,  just the even smaller amount of that base who reads the mission objectives carefully, but not all of them, just the even smaller amount of that base that actually likes to immerse themselves in the storyline, and not even all of them, just the few that actually care about the quality of the content.  So for that small minority - I say they are the most impacted, why not allow them to make the change.  Is there a bigger stakeholder I am missing?

 

I would view this similar to the "fix the clamp" suggestion. The change ultimately wouldn't be all that impactful, no. But I prefer changes to be made for good reasoning, not just because how it's going to appeal to how someone feels about something. That's just a preference I hold for implementing change. And the reasoning provided by OP falls faulty.

 

Well, my reasoning for not changing the clamp was that is wasn't worth the development effort given the small impact.  That holds true here for me as well...I don't think this change should be made by the developers.  That's why I suggested what's below.  But unlike the clamp, which was very mechanical, this is pure creativity that's being debated.  On those grounds, if I am not invested in the current product, why fight change.  I mean I'm not for change for the sake of change, but I'm also not opposed to trying new things just because they are different. 

 

Also, my suggestion was that someone from the community propose a new storyline to the community and the Dev's...so in that case, where's the risk?

 

A whole new story line that replaces the current one, or just additional to the current one of topic? I'm all for more content creation, especially community driven since these devs have enough work already (I'm assuming). And I'm all for arcs that have better writing for female characters (and all characters, of course). And if the aim is to empower, that's fine. I just hope it avoids infantilizing the audience in the process of doing so. I think of Ripley in Alien when I think of good writing.

 

I don't have a stake here, so I'm open to whatever/whoever wants to rewrite it and to the extent they feel comfortable/capable.  I would hope that it would replace bad writing with good writing, or I think we need to revisit the whole discussion again...

 

Good, measured comments Rylas, thanks!

[SwitchFade]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

 

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone."

 

<SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive>

 

In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit.

 

Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

 

1.) Never used the word "everyone".  I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change.  It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 

2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out

3.) This is all opinion.  Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change.  However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences.  So we get to debate consequences here...

 

Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic.  But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding?

 

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

The OP's entire argument is slippery slope, hence, I cannot value the argument where is lacks syllogism. Should the OP do more research, and present a case for change that is syllogistic, I may then be persuaded.

 

Until then, I say no change because logical fallacy invalidates the case for change. Logical reasoning would persuade me. My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

[Steampunkette]

Thank you for making this post @MrCaptainMan! I had the same thoughts when I played this mission. It made me severely uncomfortable. There's a bunch of this kind of weird gender content in the game, but I think you've usefully identified the strongest details that make this particular mission something that stands out as reinforcing misogyny instead of merely depicting it.

 

- The objective reference to Lt Page as 'girlfriend'

- The player taking part in the murder of a woman for rejecting a man

- The player being given the option to agree that this was right

 

So you are fine with just "killing people" for fun, but "killing a female" because a psycho can't handle rejection is too much?

 

Every time a villain character goes about a mission that results in the death of innocents that are accepting that as "right".  Period.

Rather than looking at the characters as having an option to agree that this was right, what should stand out here is that they have an option to decide that the mission was wrong.

 

"Hey villain, I need you to go here and kill these guys for not paying their protection".  A few minutes later they are all dead, you are getting rewarded, and the contact is pointing you towards your next victim.

 

Here, in this case, you get to say "No.  That was wrong, and while I did the larger mission in service to Arachnos/Lord Recluse, what you asked of me was wrong, and now you will pay for that".

 

That is not a common occurrence.

 

The issue is that by and large society accepts that killing people for money is bad and there's not really any discussion around it. It's just... what is.

 

But with men killing women over rejection, there's people who cheer for it. Who -laud- it. Same thing for racists killings. There are people who basically cheer on Reddit whenever one of these bigoted murder sprees happens.

 

Makes it a particularly touchy subject for some people.

 

Like I said, before, put a note on it so people who would be made uncomfortable can avoid it and that should be enough, largely, to fix the perceived problem.

[justicebeliever]

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

<stuff I can't interpret>

 

My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons...

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience.  Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope?