Messages

Um ... you know people with one hand are also represented in the game, right?   

Yeah, sorry I misread your post earlier.  I tend to post in haste and edit on reflection.  No hard feelings I hope. 

[topic]

There's a difference between the "original topic" and the "original post".  The topic is '"Gay" as a trait', i.e. how sexuality should be represented in the game.  The OP advocated imposing pansexuality on every character (which I think would be rather boring).  Much of the following discussion is in response to that, and as we began with the question of whether sexuality should be represented, it is natural to proceed to discuss how it should be represented.  Many of us, the OP included, seem to agree that the current representation isn't ideal.

I agree that the Gay Trait serves a function - but I disagree with the implication that the implementation is the best possible.  Integrating sexuality as an inherent characteristic would not only be more respectful, it would easily allow for other permutations than the two we have now ("Gay" or "not-Gay"), as I outlined here and here.  It would serve the same function that the Trait serves now, and it would be a better implementation for a number of reasons.  I honestly don't see how anyone can be opposed to a better indexing system.

I don't think a new thread is necessary; I think the topic has been well explored here and I'm sure that Tynan is aware of the ideas that have surfaced.  No real reason to lock this one, either.

The problem is there is going to be a infinite number of groups that want to be recognized.

... No, not really.  There are no floodgates waiting to burst with thousands of special interest groups demanding to overhaul the game again and again.  There aren't legions of foot fetishists and BDSM queens lurking just offscreen, waiting for Tynan to show a moment of weakness so they can spam the forums demanding recognition.  This thread is a request to, one time, format the character sheet so that sexuality is a basic, integral attribute, like gender or age.  Once that formatting change is made, any sexuality should be easily accommodated.

In a colony with twelve people, having one that is gay does make that something unique about him and I honestly would be surprised if none of you have ever heard some bloke on TV being described as "the gay one".

There's also the "token black guy" or "the token female" on TV shows.  That doesn't make it good practice or somehow not insulting to use this kind of labeling.  You'll notice that Rimworld features two genders and a variety of skin colors without making them into crazy quirks.  Would it be a good idea for "Black Guy" to be a special Trait?

Honestly, I think this topic has barely managed to stay focused on the original suggestion and has veered into some very shaky territories so I certainly wouldn't begrudge this topic being locked. This isn't the Sims, its RimWorld, we don't need all this contentious, sensitive content being added because some people want to feel personally recognized and affirmed by the developers.

I still don't understand how indexing sexuality in a more organized way equates to "adding contentious content".  Gays and transgenders are already in the game.  It doesn't get more contentious than that.

Maybe an option in the operation tab, named "mercy kill" would be appropriate.
Like the deactivation of mechanoids.

Good thought, but way too involved.

* Select target
* Select Health tab
* Select Operations tab
* Add Bill
* Select Mercy Kill
* Close list

Not the best way to go about fixing the problem.

Ingame 2% of the population means you just have someone who basically cant get married

But having the percentage higher (then real life) is the only way this isnt true, other then gay people willing to marry straight people and straight people willing to marry gay people. But if this is the case why even make the distinction?

So whats the answer? Make a crap load of people gay, or accept that it just means you probably have a person who cant marry?

Interesting observation, but honestly is this a problem that demands a solution?  The mood boost for marriage is substantial, to say the least - but there are already plenty of characters who don't get married, in my experience.  The occasional colonist who will have a harder time getting that bonus is hardly going to change the face of the game.  It's strange at best to suggest the idea of artificially inflating the gay population to induce a greater incidence of marriage.

Once again we dont have to figure out this shit for him just eat whatever is given to you and say ty

Good point.  In that light, I move that the Suggestions forum be shut down permanently and all existing threads deleted.   

19 years old ...   

It's very stupid when I'm "hunting" a downed animal and I walk up and have to shoot 50 rounds to finish it off.

[responsibility]

Interesting topic!

The "problem" of "too much freedom" from the point of view of "What should I do with my life?" as you describe it is rampant nowadays, at least from where I sit.  There is much handwringing about treating every child as special, everyone gets a trophy, kind of thinking, as being damaging, and this point of view is not without merit.

Recently I saw the basic problem summed up very well.  Children these days, or at least in my day, were/are encouraged from an angle that does not truly encourage; it merely flatters.  I was often told, growing up, "You're so smart," which made me lazy and entitled.  If I'm smart, then obviously I should expect good things and a happy life.  Turns out that's not how it works.

Instead of "You're so smart," a much better encouragement would have been "Look at what you achieved."  Reinforcing accomplishment instead of "inherent virtue" gives a person not just satisfaction, but incentive to achieve more.

But I'm straying a bit from the question the thread seems to ask: is "too much freedom" damaging?  I don't think so.  Taking away freedom seems unlikely to produce greater satisfaction.  "I was forced to work on this assembly line since I was 12, so the work makes me happy and fulfilled."  Doesn't ring true, does it?

But I think that another ingredient needs to be added that I lacked as a child: a sense of responsibility for one's own direction in life - the knowledge that one's talent and potential is there to be realized, not squandered; that every choice means sacrificing an alternative, and that no decision is a decision (usually a terrible one).

But, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev.

I disagree.  I don't see anyone asking Tynan to make a statement as to whether he supports gay rights or whatnot.  Gays and transgenders are already in the game, so he clearly has no problem with representing their very existence (and despite some fairly transparent bigotry, no one is asking him to remove them).  All that's really being asked for here is a more sensible way of formatting sexual orientation on the character sheet.  I don't really get why that's controversial.  Whether he thinks it's a good use of his time is of course up to him.

As for whether sexuality is a "trait" or not, of course it's a trait if we're speaking English.  That doesn't mean that it should be a capital-t Trait in the "Traits" section of the character sheet.  There's a difference between an English word and a game term, and anyone who wants to argue semantics needs to take that on board immediately, immediately, immediately.  Gender is a trait too, but it would be weird if all characters were female unless they had the special "Male" Trait.  See the difference?

Discovered last night: snakes are also OK with boxes.

There are other things that I think should be discussed, like How much privacy is healthy? Would you sacrifice your personal privacy for general safety? Another subject that I would love to discuss is... Freedom.

Great questions, I suggest new threads.  It would be nice to keep this one focused on the subject at hand.

[Super. Gross.]

In other news, Chibiabos, clean up your dining room, man.  People are puking all over in there, and is that blood?  Super.  Gross.

[beds]

The beds will fit any size animal - it's only "Sleeping Boxes" that are for smaller pets only.  We still don't know!!

[prove]

Well, there's no way to visually prove that full-growns can't sleep in a box, you can only disprove it by showing a full-grown sleeping in one.  But doesn't the sleeping box item description say right out that larger animals can't fit in it?