More like a klingon with the worst hangover one can imagine.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
I think it's a shame that this is something you feel the need to filter a child's exposure to although I commend your level of dedication as a parent.
What we saw here was not really any different, standards-wise, from DS9 or Doctor Who and it seems to me that the bigger concern should be with someone getting impaled and vaporized.
Star Trek has had lesbians and bisexual characters before. This is just the first time they didn't kiss.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
If anything deserves a flamewar it's the atrocious horrible "KLING ON!!" pun in the war poster they added to the loading screens <-< that one is so bad it can cause you to bleed internally XD
ktamradio If you are looking for some nice music while playing clicky clicky click!
If anything deserves a flamewar it's the atrocious horrible "KLING ON!!" pun in the war poster they added to the loading screens <-< that one is so bad it can cause you to bleed internally XD
Well at least it wasn't so bad that your eyeballs popped out and spontaneously exploded.
Unless you were typing blind there in which case i owe you an apology.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
As someone who worked within the retail side of the gaming industry all I will say about exposing their under age child or anyone under age to this game or any game, film or music with an age rating is:
"If you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
So I have to admit that when I see people saying “oh now I have to vet my child playing this game, watching this film or hearing this music” then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that.
Like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason and you cannot ask the makers/designers of the media in question to alter the content to fit yours or anyone's needs. You also cannot blame the makers/designers of said media about content that now stops anyone under the correct age from playing as all/any content additions would have to meet certain and strict guidelines before being added.
All Media rating boards have strict guidelines on how and what material gets what rating, and although this rating is a “Guideline” and Law in regards to exposure of the media by retailers or companies who distribute or make it ultimately it is down to the respective person/parent on or if they allow anyone under the age on the box so to speak to play, watch or listen to it and if they allow anyone under the correct age range to be exposed then it’s their duty to either Vet it or then face the consequences of allowing them to do so.
to all the people who disapprove of the same-sex couple, i like playing this game to get away from all the red-neck reactionary close-minded hatefulness that certain parts of the world hold dear.
this game is set in a possible future where all that nonsense has been left behind.
you don't like it, then don't play it, we won't miss you.
So, red-necks have a lock on close-minded hatefulness? How close-minded and hateful of you. How is it that you are so much better than anyone-else, that you can be so more enlightened than another segment of people, that you claim have hatred, but yet you are allowed to speak hatred towards them and not be as bad as those you insult?
to all the people who disapprove of the same-sex couple, i like playing this game to get away from all the red-neck reactionary close-minded hatefulness that certain parts of the world hold dear.
this game is set in a possible future where all that nonsense has been left behind.
you don't like it, then don't play it, we won't miss you.
If this is not trolling or inflaming and don't know what it is. Kinda of a strange since for some this is a escape from the real world of innuendos and biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds. I'm sure it works both ways if you "really" try to escape reality.
As of now most of this discussion has remained civil except for some who called out the hate/bigot card if they questioned anything. If you like the red color and I like pink. Are you going to call someone hateful because of the difference in taste? At least we can agree to disagree but nobody is questioning a lifestyle at all. True understanding of diversity works for all not just some and civility should be a guide when expressing one's view rather than name calling.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
As someone who worked within the retail side of the gaming industry all I will say about exposing their under age child to this game or any game with an age rating is
"if you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
so when I see people saying oh now I have to vet my child playing this game then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that, like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason.
While I agree, I have no issue with a parent "vetting" the content that thier child is exposed to. Thats part of being a parent. The issue that Bluegeek is mentioning, I think, is that he considers the content has changed with this (probably for his younger child), not because he hates a group of people, but that he may now have to explain things to his child that he might wanted to have put off to a later time. After filtering, he may decide to restrict the younger children from the game if he feels that its past what he is ing to discuss with them at the moment. His decision either way.
Honestly, it amazes me how many parents let a child play a game and dont do research into the content.
You know what I don't like in STO? The "Execute for Incompetence" doff mission on the KDF side. I find it quite objectionable to kill somebody just because somebody did not live up to expectations (and now let's all think back to the grades we had at school).
But: it makes sense within the ST universe. This is the way the fictional society of the future is portrayed. I cannot be surprised that it happens. I do not use this doff mission (and its close relatives). I still use "forced labor camp", so maybe I am not really living up to my own standards.
The point is: this is a fictional universe. Things happen in this fictional universe that I may not agree with. They may even not be portrayed negatively despite me not agreeing with them. That is something that I have to keep in mind. If it riles me enough (it doesn't) I will stop engaging in this fictional universe.
As for the mates here: this is something that was bound to happen, or was at least very conceivable, within a ST environment. Anybody who spent enough time with ST should be aware that this IP has a history of being more progressive on such social issues. If you find yourself to be more on the conservative end of the scale, this is something that you should keep in mind.
This holds especially when it comes to parenting decisions. In an ideal world, parents would indeed know all the content of stuff their kids interact with up to a certain age. But at the same time we all know that would be impractical to nearly impossible to really do. But if you do not think it an appropriate topic for teens, you as a parent should be aware that anything Star Trek is risky territory. And then either leave it be for kids or single check the content before allowing the young'uns in.
With that being said, I also disagree that this is mature content. As others have said, for starters there is the question of us killing gazillions of people. Somebody claimed that children react to that better than to sexual topics, but I would like to see proof - surely a death in its vicinity, especially a violent one, will harm a kid more than two people liking each other. And even if not, won't it set a worse precedent to "teach" children that killing others is okay (Necessary sometimes, maybe - I still disagree - but a standard course of action) than to let them know some people of the same gender like each other? And even if it inclined children to become TRIBBLE, which it doesn't, nobody would be hurt by that, while a kid which thinks that violence is a viable solution to any trouble may well hurt others. And yet the topic of death existing is not mature as such. It is a part of life. Children have to know about death. They don't have to know every gory detail, much less shown it. And children have to know about the existence of people of the same gender being attracted to each other. Not every detail has to be explained (and it isn't here), you may not agree with them existing, but they do.
Plus, homosexuality is not only about sex. When people talk about "shoved down their throats", I guess they see it as a similar TMI territory as knowing what kind of roleplay your neighbors are up to come the dark hours. But homosexuality is more than just wanting to bonk somebody of the same gender. It is also wanting to share a life with somebody of the same gender. Of going on vacations together, buying a home, going to the movies, shopping, going to parties, all that and more. If you are saying "I'm okay with people being TRIBBLE as long as they keep it within their own walls", you are basically depriving them of leading a normal life as we others do. They wouldn't be able to bring their spouse to a wedding, as we heterosexuals do, when we are shoving our orientation down other people's throats. They wouldn't be able to choose their furniture together, they can't go to the movies. Agreed, two men (or two women) slobbing their tongues inside each other in public is annoying and constitutes an annoyance, but so does a man and a woman doing the same. (And by the way, I am also annoyed by those supposedly sexy female Orions running around, barely clothed, maximized chest settings, using those perceivedly sexy, in my opinion quite silly, poses of "cute" or "seductive". I like the idea of seeing nice women with a lack of clothing as much as the next heterosexual guy, but I do not like TRIBBLE being shoved in my face every other corner in the Klingon academy - still, part of the ST universe, so I'll have to live with it).
Which brings me to my last point: the perceived backslash. Yes, voices are getting louder that equality has gone too far, that LGBT are nowadays oppressing other people (which they don't, nobody tells heterosexuals they should keep everything within their walls or shut up about having partners or suchlike). But I have the strong feeling that this is a result of a changing time. In the olden days, TRIBBLE people were considered an aberration, almost everybody agreed, no need to talk about it much longer. This has changed a lot - in the European Union more people agree than disagree that TRIBBLE people should have the same rights as straight couples. Which means that those who oppose feel the need to voice their opinion more loudly.
And I would bet this was known to Cryptic or PWE or whoever was responsible for greenlighting this episode. That today this topic is controversial and that including this fact of life will rile people. So I doubt it was a mistake, as some seem to think, that they forgot about it. I would venture the guess that they decided that portraying a future society that is open to LGBT made more sense than pleasing this part of the customer base. So I also guess that losing some players is a side effect that was accepted. It may be a financially bad decision. It may be an extension of liberal Hollywood Intelligenzija. But I am quite certain they knew what they were doing.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds.
The question remains, though, who is really trying to force the other side?
TRIBBLE people and their biased liberal supporters who want you to accept their way of life?
Or those who want TRIBBLE people to not exist or at least not be visible, thus forcing them to not lead a normal life with a household and similar stuff?
Both are forcing in a way, but the second intrusion into other people's lifes seems way more massive to me.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
I didnt say it had anything to do with TRIBBLE sex, its never been about TRIBBLE sex. Due to your situation, you were exposed to same sex relationships at a young age, so was I. If you didnt notcie the many times I have mntioned, I refer to younger children that probably havent had the sex talk (like the 7 year old of my friend). Having to explain same sex relationships can lead quickly to asking about sex itself, something a parent typiclally want to put off until they think they are ready to understand it.
I have also mentioned that parents of children that they allow to play a game that is more mature than they are should monitor and filter it, so to the very least they can be prepared to discuss things with thier child.
As far as what I would do in the situation you gave? First, I hope that my child is at an age and wisdom that can understand what I have to discuss with them. Then I will be as honest as I can with them. But I really hope that that discussion wont happen until after I can discuss with them about where babies come from first. I dont want to have to do a double discussion on those topics all at once, which a relative of mine did have to do at the same time, stemming from tthe discussion kn same sex relationships.
The question remains, though, who is really trying to force the other side?
TRIBBLE people and their biased liberal supporters who want you to accept their way of life?
Or those who want TRIBBLE people to not exist or at least not be visible, thus forcing them to not lead a normal life with a household and similar stuff?
Both are forcing in a way, but the second intrusion into other people's lifes seems way more massive to me.
To be honest, both have factions that are trying to force things upon the other. As much as there are Westboro Baptists, there are Code Pink'ers that do the same thing, but on the other end of the spectrum.
While I agree, I have no issue with a parent "vetting" the content that thier child is exposed to. Thats part of being a parent. The issue that Bluegeek is mentionng, I think, is that he considers the content has changed with this (probably for his younger child), not because. He hates a group of people, but that he may now have to explain things to his child that he might wanted to have put off to a later time. After filtering, he may decide to restrict the younger children from the game if he feels that its past what he is ing to discuss with them at the moment. His decision either way.
Honestly, it amazes me how many parents let a child play a game and dont do research into the content.
How do you come to the conclusion that he hates a group of people? There is nothing in his post to suggest such a thing. I DO read concern about content and exposing his children to certain concepts before they are ready for it.
When i was doing some volunteers work on a children's camp a few years ago there was a TRIBBLE couple (male) who brought their child. One girl from about 10 years old was looking quite confused and when i asked her about it she said she didn't understand how a child could have two daddies because her parents told her that babies came from a mother's belly.
Had to scratch behind my ears as well while trying to think on how to explain it. Luckily one of the female volunteers overheard and managed to explain it.
Bottom line is that children at certain ages perceive the world completely different than we do and as a (foster) parent i can certainly understand that parents want to introduce things to their children at a pace THEY are comfortable with. Having certain (borderline mature) things come up in a game puts parents in a position where they have to answer questions where possibly neither they nor the child are ready for at that time.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
I didnt say it had anything to do with TRIBBLE sex, its never been about TRIBBLE sex. Due to your situation, you were exposed to same sex relationships at a young age, so was I. If you didnt notcie the many times I have mntioned, I refer to younger children that probably havent had the sex talk (like the 7 year old of my friend). Having to explain same sex relationships can lead quickly to asking about sex itself, something a parent typiclally want to put off until they think they are ready to understand it.
I have also mentioned that parents of children that they allow to play a game that is more mature than they are should monitor and filter it, so to the very least they can be prepared to discuss things with thier child.
As far as what I would do in the situation you gave? First, I hope that my child is at an age and wisdom that can understand what I have to discuss with them. Then I will be as honest as I can with them. But I really hope that that discussion wont happen until after I can discuss with them about where babies come from first. I dont want to have to do a double discussion on those topics all at once, which a relative of mine did have to do at the same time, stemming from tthe discussion kn same sex relationships.
What I was trying to say is there is no reason to have the sex talk when explaining homosexuality. If you keep it in kid terms, saying some people like boys and others like girls, it should be sufficient. I mean kids know about romance from a young age, they understand that grown ups love one another, but what sheltered kids don't know is that sometimes prince charming kisses another prince, rather than a princess.
The sex talk isn't necessary after a kid watches snow white or the little mermaid, why is it necessary when they see a boy kiss a boy? Or hear a girl refer to another girl as their mate/wife/girlfriend?
Well the common response to anyone that doesn't like something in the game applies: "Don't like it, don't play it." It's really as simple as that. To all those that are so offended, can I haz your stuffs? I think the Devs added a subtle and classy addition of IDIC in this episode.
Oh but the children, the CHILDREN!!! So 97% naked orions complete with a sexual trait, the summer orgy event, a male NPC watching a male NPC stripper, essentially having furries represented in game with Cataian/Faresians, Not to mention the mass slaughter of the Acamarians, Borg, Breen, Cardassian, Gorn, Federation species, Heralds, Kazon, Klingons, Malon, Nausicaans, Orions, Romulans, Remans, Tholians, and Vaaudwar just to name a few. My main toon has killed more people than every evil person that has ever existed during recorded history. All that is okay with some, but the briefest inclusion of a same sex couple sends you into Picard rage?
Lily Sloane: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your little quest. Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale!
Jean-Luc Picard: [offended] What?
Sloane: You do have books in the 24th-century?
Picard: This is not about homophobia!
Sloane: Liar!
Picard: [agitated] This is about saving the future of our precious children!
Sloane: Jean-Luc, they're just people in relationships!!!
Picard: NO! NOOOOOOOOO!!! [smashes a display case in anger; Both pause, shocked] I will not sacrifice the status quo. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our television, and we fall back. They start blogs and websites, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!
Sloane: [looking at the broken remains of the Enterprise-D model] You broke your little ship. [pause] See you around, Ahab.
Picard: [softly, to himself] "And he piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon he would have shot his heart upon it."
Sloane: What?
Picard: Moby ****.
Sloane: Actually, I never read it.
Picard: Ahab spent years hunting the white whale that crippled him; but in the end, it destroyed him and his ship.
Sloane: I guess he didn't know when to quit.
This is a discussion about a video game here, so maybe going all culture jihad over it is a bit uncalled for, guys. This is completely trivial and has a tiny effect on anything in anyone's actual life. Try to have some perspective, jeez.
The sex talk isn't necessary after a kid watches snow white or the little mermaid, why is it necessary when they see a boy kiss a boy? Or hear a girl refer to another girl as their mate/wife/girlfriend?
How do you come to the conclusion that he hates a group of people? There is nothing in his post to suggest such a thing. I DO read concern about content and exposing his children to certain concepts before they are ready for it.
When i was doing some volunteers work on a children's camp a few years ago there was a TRIBBLE couple (male) who brought their child. One girl from about 10 years old was looking quite confused and when i asked her about it she said she didn't understand how a child could have two daddies because her parents told her that babies came from a mother's belly.
Had to scratch behind my ears as well while trying to think on how to explain it. Luckily one of the female volunteers overheard and managed to explain it.
Bottom line is that children at certain ages perceive the world completely different than we do and as a (foster) parent i can certainly understand that parents want to introduce things to their children at a pace THEY are comfortable with. Having certain (borderline mature) things come up in a game puts parents in a position where they have to answer questions where possibly neither they nor the child are ready for at that time.
That was a typo, it was supposed to be "not because he hates a group of people". I edited it. stooooopid smartphone small buttons and autp correct.
Well at least it wasn't so bad that your eyeballs popped out and spontaneously exploded.
Unless you were typing blind there in which case i owe you an apology.
it's okay just a minor case of bleeding eyes from it, nothing a hypo can't fix :P
ktamradio If you are looking for some nice music while playing clicky clicky click!
What I was trying to say is there is no reason to have the sex talk when explaining homosexuality. If you keep it in kid terms, saying some people like boys and others like girls, it should be sufficient. I mean kids know about romance from a young age, they understand that grown ups love one another, but what sheltered kids don't know is that sometimes prince charming kisses another prince, rather than a princess.
The sex talk isn't necessary after a kid watches snow white or the little mermaid, why is it necessary when they see a boy kiss a boy? Or hear a girl refer to another girl as their mate/wife/girlfriend?
My cousin had a young daughter (6) that asked about same sex relationship and then wanted to have it rationalized on how two boys or two girls can be together and have children and it ended up devolving into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't ready for.
I played through the episode before I read any of the replies in this thread. My first thought upon seeing the first negative comment about the so called sexual preference issue...I heard "Dean Keaton" explaining, calmly at first, that there was no sex. If you know that scene then you know how emphatic he gets about their being NO F-ING SEX!!! I know I substituted sex for coke, but that really was what came to mind. Captains, it is this simple to me. I am about to go disagree with the mission "detailer" (because,Scripted) and am warned that the person I am about to speak to has an over-protective mate. Change mate to child, sibling, or anything else not sexual sounding and the scene still plays the same for me. Because I said "No, I am changing the plan". I admit that I was a little taken aback by the implication of jealousy when he said his line, but then the rest of the conversation happened and I realized that I just told a junior officer NO. Usually they push us Generals and Admirals around like we don't know which way up is. This time I said NO...Not your way...My way. It would not matter if it was her mate, mom, wife, husband, son, daughter or hairdresser. I said NO to someone she cared about. Regarding the rest of the episode, I thought it was great. The only complaint is one mentioned by another person...that Construct getting stuck in the wall ("Lurch" not happy, "Lurch" walks away shaking head, groans.). Thanks for the episode, the artwork, and the spec. point.
My cousin had a young daughter (6) that asked about same sex relationship and then wanted to have it rationalized on how two boys or two girls can be together and have children and it ended up devolving into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't ready for.
With so many same sex partners adopting now, this will become a pretty standard question soon anyway. Imho, the easiest way to answer would be to simply, and correctly, say adoption, and if they continue to ask for details you are not ready to give, tell them they'll understand when they get older. People already give that answer often enough when asked where babies come from.
Now, if you want an awkward question, heres one I've faced countless times. As I said my father is TRIBBLE (not bi, TRIBBLE), but he is also my biological father, and my parents were married. Explaining how I exist and why my parents were married is far more complicated than explaining how two guys or two girls have a kid. And no, my father was not in the closet when he met my mother, and she knew his last relationship had been with a guy.
I think it's a shame that this is something you feel the need to filter a child's exposure to although I commend your level of dedication as a parent.
Up until now, there were few things in STO I felt the need to filter. There is combat, but it's not gory and it is, after all, about a war. My acceptance of some aspects of STO does not oblige me to accept every other aspect and I do indeed limit what my kids play.
My biggest hope out of all this mess is that the Devs, writers and PWE do not back track on this groundbreaking addition to the game to do so would only pamper to the minority while excluding the group of people who for one praise this addition.
.
I support your right to your opinion. I do, however, take a little exception to the phrase "pander to the minority". That's not an opinion. That's a direct shot at trying to de-legitimize a segment of players whose opinions are somehow not worth being heard. It's also not a factual comment, unless perhaps Cryptic has polled their players to see how many players share that point of view?
To be clear, I am not asking them to take the characters out. I'm more realistic than that. They're already there and modifying the mission to take them out or change them is far more trouble than it's worth to them. Not going to happen, and I can accept that.
At any rate, one mission does not necessarily set an ongoing precedent.
I only want Cryptic to take note of the fact that the inclusion of these two characters is not universally supported. I want them to know that I'm disappointed that they did this, why I'm disappointed, and that it does affect my desire to keep playing the game and to let my kids keep playing the game.
I do not want to be insensitive or create a hostile environment for anyone here. We're all human beings and we share that identity in common. There are people here I like because I like them as people, not because they're in lockstep with everything I believe. I do not want anyone to feel as if they're going to be attacked or dismissed as not being worth listening to the second they post here. We all deserve to be treated with sensitivity as fellow human beings, because that's true no matter what we believe.
I only wish people would extend me the same courtesy.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such.
This is one of the problems with the issue. A lot of people, mainly on the political left, do not understand that children are not small adults. You can't "just explain it" to them. Especially not when the issue is complex enough that the actual adults are still arguing over it.
Again: the mere existence of this much controversy over the issue is sufficient to demonstrate its unsuitability for the venue. Either slap a mature rating on the game or monitor the content appropriately.
@Venture-1. @Venture from City of Heroes if you remember that. Yes, that Venture. Yes, I probably trashed your MA arc. You'll have to be specific; for me it was Tuesday.
Up until now, there were few things in STO I felt the need to filter. There is combat, but it's not gory and it is, after all, about a war. My acceptance of some aspects of STO does not oblige me to accept every other aspect and I do indeed limit what my kids play.
.
I support your right to your opinion. I do, however, take a little exception to the phrase "pander to the minority". That's not an opinion. That's a direct shot at trying to de-legitimize a segment of players whose opinions are somehow not worth being heard. It's also not a factual comment, unless perhaps Cryptic has polled their players to see how many players share that point of view?
To be clear, I am not asking them to take the characters out. I'm more realistic than that. They're already there and modifying the mission to take them out or change them is far more trouble than it's worth to them. Not going to happen, and I can accept that.
At any rate, one mission does not necessarily set an ongoing precedent.
I only want Cryptic to take note of the fact that the inclusion of these two characters is not universally supported. I want them to know that I'm disappointed that they did this, why I'm disappointed, and that it does affect my desire to keep playing the game and to let my kids keep playing the game.
I do not want to be insensitive or create a hostile environment for anyone here. We're all human beings and we share that identity in common. There are people here I like because I like them as people, not because they're in lockstep with everything I believe. I do not want anyone to feel as if they're going to be attacked or dismissed as not being worth listening to the second they post here. We all deserve to be treated with sensitivity as fellow human beings, because that's true no matter what we believe.
I only wish people would extend me the same courtesy.
I'd like to point out the game's rating. I know you want to filter what you're kids are playing but if you're letting them play something with this game's rating you got to be aware there will be thing that kids might not be ready for or that you aren't ready for discussing with them.
This is one of the problems with the issue. A lot of people, mainly on the political left, do not understand that children are not small adults. You can't "just explain it" to them. Especially not when the issue is complex enough that the actual adults are still arguing over it.
This very much depends on what you understand when you use the term "explain".
It is not at all a problem to explain that mostly boys like girls and vice versa, but sometimes boys like boys and girls like girls. This is not in the least difficult and can be understood by any kid who understands the concept of liking others. And there is no adult arguing about that fact, that this happens.
If, however, you want to include all the different moral/political stances, implications and suchlike, then of course it will completely overwhelm children. But you do not need to do that in the first talk. And if they ask questions, decide how much they can handle, use white lies, and block off the rest - as you regularily do as parents. Just as you don't with other aspects of life. Or are you explaining all the wars in this game with all the implications? Yes, the world and life will be simplified for children, less and less so as they grow older.
But don't underestimate children. They can understand the simple basic fact that sometimes men like men. Just like daddy likes mommy. And yes, they can also understand that people sometimes are different in some things.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
This is one of the problems with the issue. A lot of people, mainly on the political left, do not understand that children are not small adults. You can't "just explain it" to them. Especially not when the issue is complex enough that the actual adults are still arguing over it.
It's actually quite easy to explain to children that not all families are the same, if you try explaining it without disapproval.
I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them remove the content. Even if they do I'll still be very proud of the team that made it and got it in the game. For me it was by far the best moment in 4 years of STO. Well, I also enjoyed playing every mission with my mate this past month as delta recruits.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Comments
More like a klingon with the worst hangover one can imagine.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
Well at least it wasn't so bad that your eyeballs popped out and spontaneously exploded.
Unless you were typing blind there in which case i owe you an apology.
"If you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
So I have to admit that when I see people saying “oh now I have to vet my child playing this game, watching this film or hearing this music” then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that.
Like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason and you cannot ask the makers/designers of the media in question to alter the content to fit yours or anyone's needs. You also cannot blame the makers/designers of said media about content that now stops anyone under the correct age from playing as all/any content additions would have to meet certain and strict guidelines before being added.
All Media rating boards have strict guidelines on how and what material gets what rating, and although this rating is a “Guideline” and Law in regards to exposure of the media by retailers or companies who distribute or make it ultimately it is down to the respective person/parent on or if they allow anyone under the age on the box so to speak to play, watch or listen to it and if they allow anyone under the correct age range to be exposed then it’s their duty to either Vet it or then face the consequences of allowing them to do so.
So, red-necks have a lock on close-minded hatefulness? How close-minded and hateful of you. How is it that you are so much better than anyone-else, that you can be so more enlightened than another segment of people, that you claim have hatred, but yet you are allowed to speak hatred towards them and not be as bad as those you insult?
If this is not trolling or inflaming and don't know what it is. Kinda of a strange since for some this is a escape from the real world of innuendos and biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds. I'm sure it works both ways if you "really" try to escape reality.
As of now most of this discussion has remained civil except for some who called out the hate/bigot card if they questioned anything. If you like the red color and I like pink. Are you going to call someone hateful because of the difference in taste? At least we can agree to disagree but nobody is questioning a lifestyle at all. True understanding of diversity works for all not just some and civility should be a guide when expressing one's view rather than name calling.
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
While I agree, I have no issue with a parent "vetting" the content that thier child is exposed to. Thats part of being a parent. The issue that Bluegeek is mentioning, I think, is that he considers the content has changed with this (probably for his younger child), not because he hates a group of people, but that he may now have to explain things to his child that he might wanted to have put off to a later time. After filtering, he may decide to restrict the younger children from the game if he feels that its past what he is ing to discuss with them at the moment. His decision either way.
Honestly, it amazes me how many parents let a child play a game and dont do research into the content.
But: it makes sense within the ST universe. This is the way the fictional society of the future is portrayed. I cannot be surprised that it happens. I do not use this doff mission (and its close relatives). I still use "forced labor camp", so maybe I am not really living up to my own standards.
The point is: this is a fictional universe. Things happen in this fictional universe that I may not agree with. They may even not be portrayed negatively despite me not agreeing with them. That is something that I have to keep in mind. If it riles me enough (it doesn't) I will stop engaging in this fictional universe.
As for the mates here: this is something that was bound to happen, or was at least very conceivable, within a ST environment. Anybody who spent enough time with ST should be aware that this IP has a history of being more progressive on such social issues. If you find yourself to be more on the conservative end of the scale, this is something that you should keep in mind.
This holds especially when it comes to parenting decisions. In an ideal world, parents would indeed know all the content of stuff their kids interact with up to a certain age. But at the same time we all know that would be impractical to nearly impossible to really do. But if you do not think it an appropriate topic for teens, you as a parent should be aware that anything Star Trek is risky territory. And then either leave it be for kids or single check the content before allowing the young'uns in.
With that being said, I also disagree that this is mature content. As others have said, for starters there is the question of us killing gazillions of people. Somebody claimed that children react to that better than to sexual topics, but I would like to see proof - surely a death in its vicinity, especially a violent one, will harm a kid more than two people liking each other. And even if not, won't it set a worse precedent to "teach" children that killing others is okay (Necessary sometimes, maybe - I still disagree - but a standard course of action) than to let them know some people of the same gender like each other? And even if it inclined children to become TRIBBLE, which it doesn't, nobody would be hurt by that, while a kid which thinks that violence is a viable solution to any trouble may well hurt others. And yet the topic of death existing is not mature as such. It is a part of life. Children have to know about death. They don't have to know every gory detail, much less shown it. And children have to know about the existence of people of the same gender being attracted to each other. Not every detail has to be explained (and it isn't here), you may not agree with them existing, but they do.
Plus, homosexuality is not only about sex. When people talk about "shoved down their throats", I guess they see it as a similar TMI territory as knowing what kind of roleplay your neighbors are up to come the dark hours. But homosexuality is more than just wanting to bonk somebody of the same gender. It is also wanting to share a life with somebody of the same gender. Of going on vacations together, buying a home, going to the movies, shopping, going to parties, all that and more. If you are saying "I'm okay with people being TRIBBLE as long as they keep it within their own walls", you are basically depriving them of leading a normal life as we others do. They wouldn't be able to bring their spouse to a wedding, as we heterosexuals do, when we are shoving our orientation down other people's throats. They wouldn't be able to choose their furniture together, they can't go to the movies. Agreed, two men (or two women) slobbing their tongues inside each other in public is annoying and constitutes an annoyance, but so does a man and a woman doing the same. (And by the way, I am also annoyed by those supposedly sexy female Orions running around, barely clothed, maximized chest settings, using those perceivedly sexy, in my opinion quite silly, poses of "cute" or "seductive". I like the idea of seeing nice women with a lack of clothing as much as the next heterosexual guy, but I do not like TRIBBLE being shoved in my face every other corner in the Klingon academy - still, part of the ST universe, so I'll have to live with it).
Which brings me to my last point: the perceived backslash. Yes, voices are getting louder that equality has gone too far, that LGBT are nowadays oppressing other people (which they don't, nobody tells heterosexuals they should keep everything within their walls or shut up about having partners or suchlike). But I have the strong feeling that this is a result of a changing time. In the olden days, TRIBBLE people were considered an aberration, almost everybody agreed, no need to talk about it much longer. This has changed a lot - in the European Union more people agree than disagree that TRIBBLE people should have the same rights as straight couples. Which means that those who oppose feel the need to voice their opinion more loudly.
And I would bet this was known to Cryptic or PWE or whoever was responsible for greenlighting this episode. That today this topic is controversial and that including this fact of life will rile people. So I doubt it was a mistake, as some seem to think, that they forgot about it. I would venture the guess that they decided that portraying a future society that is open to LGBT made more sense than pleasing this part of the customer base. So I also guess that losing some players is a side effect that was accepted. It may be a financially bad decision. It may be an extension of liberal Hollywood Intelligenzija. But I am quite certain they knew what they were doing.
The question remains, though, who is really trying to force the other side?
TRIBBLE people and their biased liberal supporters who want you to accept their way of life?
Or those who want TRIBBLE people to not exist or at least not be visible, thus forcing them to not lead a normal life with a household and similar stuff?
Both are forcing in a way, but the second intrusion into other people's lifes seems way more massive to me.
I didnt say it had anything to do with TRIBBLE sex, its never been about TRIBBLE sex. Due to your situation, you were exposed to same sex relationships at a young age, so was I. If you didnt notcie the many times I have mntioned, I refer to younger children that probably havent had the sex talk (like the 7 year old of my friend). Having to explain same sex relationships can lead quickly to asking about sex itself, something a parent typiclally want to put off until they think they are ready to understand it.
I have also mentioned that parents of children that they allow to play a game that is more mature than they are should monitor and filter it, so to the very least they can be prepared to discuss things with thier child.
As far as what I would do in the situation you gave? First, I hope that my child is at an age and wisdom that can understand what I have to discuss with them. Then I will be as honest as I can with them. But I really hope that that discussion wont happen until after I can discuss with them about where babies come from first. I dont want to have to do a double discussion on those topics all at once, which a relative of mine did have to do at the same time, stemming from tthe discussion kn same sex relationships.
To be honest, both have factions that are trying to force things upon the other. As much as there are Westboro Baptists, there are Code Pink'ers that do the same thing, but on the other end of the spectrum.
How do you come to the conclusion that he hates a group of people? There is nothing in his post to suggest such a thing. I DO read concern about content and exposing his children to certain concepts before they are ready for it.
When i was doing some volunteers work on a children's camp a few years ago there was a TRIBBLE couple (male) who brought their child. One girl from about 10 years old was looking quite confused and when i asked her about it she said she didn't understand how a child could have two daddies because her parents told her that babies came from a mother's belly.
Had to scratch behind my ears as well while trying to think on how to explain it. Luckily one of the female volunteers overheard and managed to explain it.
Bottom line is that children at certain ages perceive the world completely different than we do and as a (foster) parent i can certainly understand that parents want to introduce things to their children at a pace THEY are comfortable with. Having certain (borderline mature) things come up in a game puts parents in a position where they have to answer questions where possibly neither they nor the child are ready for at that time.
What I was trying to say is there is no reason to have the sex talk when explaining homosexuality. If you keep it in kid terms, saying some people like boys and others like girls, it should be sufficient. I mean kids know about romance from a young age, they understand that grown ups love one another, but what sheltered kids don't know is that sometimes prince charming kisses another prince, rather than a princess.
The sex talk isn't necessary after a kid watches snow white or the little mermaid, why is it necessary when they see a boy kiss a boy? Or hear a girl refer to another girl as their mate/wife/girlfriend?
Perfect. Just perfect, kudos! /golf clap /cap doff
Yeah this.
That was a typo, it was supposed to be "not because he hates a group of people". I edited it. stooooopid smartphone small buttons and autp correct.
it's okay just a minor case of bleeding eyes from it, nothing a hypo can't fix :P
My cousin had a young daughter (6) that asked about same sex relationship and then wanted to have it rationalized on how two boys or two girls can be together and have children and it ended up devolving into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't ready for.
With so many same sex partners adopting now, this will become a pretty standard question soon anyway. Imho, the easiest way to answer would be to simply, and correctly, say adoption, and if they continue to ask for details you are not ready to give, tell them they'll understand when they get older. People already give that answer often enough when asked where babies come from.
Now, if you want an awkward question, heres one I've faced countless times. As I said my father is TRIBBLE (not bi, TRIBBLE), but he is also my biological father, and my parents were married. Explaining how I exist and why my parents were married is far more complicated than explaining how two guys or two girls have a kid. And no, my father was not in the closet when he met my mother, and she knew his last relationship had been with a guy.
Up until now, there were few things in STO I felt the need to filter. There is combat, but it's not gory and it is, after all, about a war. My acceptance of some aspects of STO does not oblige me to accept every other aspect and I do indeed limit what my kids play.
.
I support your right to your opinion. I do, however, take a little exception to the phrase "pander to the minority". That's not an opinion. That's a direct shot at trying to de-legitimize a segment of players whose opinions are somehow not worth being heard. It's also not a factual comment, unless perhaps Cryptic has polled their players to see how many players share that point of view?
To be clear, I am not asking them to take the characters out. I'm more realistic than that. They're already there and modifying the mission to take them out or change them is far more trouble than it's worth to them. Not going to happen, and I can accept that.
At any rate, one mission does not necessarily set an ongoing precedent.
I only want Cryptic to take note of the fact that the inclusion of these two characters is not universally supported. I want them to know that I'm disappointed that they did this, why I'm disappointed, and that it does affect my desire to keep playing the game and to let my kids keep playing the game.
I do not want to be insensitive or create a hostile environment for anyone here. We're all human beings and we share that identity in common. There are people here I like because I like them as people, not because they're in lockstep with everything I believe. I do not want anyone to feel as if they're going to be attacked or dismissed as not being worth listening to the second they post here. We all deserve to be treated with sensitivity as fellow human beings, because that's true no matter what we believe.
I only wish people would extend me the same courtesy.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
This is one of the problems with the issue. A lot of people, mainly on the political left, do not understand that children are not small adults. You can't "just explain it" to them. Especially not when the issue is complex enough that the actual adults are still arguing over it.
Again: the mere existence of this much controversy over the issue is sufficient to demonstrate its unsuitability for the venue. Either slap a mature rating on the game or monitor the content appropriately.
I'd like to point out the game's rating. I know you want to filter what you're kids are playing but if you're letting them play something with this game's rating you got to be aware there will be thing that kids might not be ready for or that you aren't ready for discussing with them.
This very much depends on what you understand when you use the term "explain".
It is not at all a problem to explain that mostly boys like girls and vice versa, but sometimes boys like boys and girls like girls. This is not in the least difficult and can be understood by any kid who understands the concept of liking others. And there is no adult arguing about that fact, that this happens.
If, however, you want to include all the different moral/political stances, implications and suchlike, then of course it will completely overwhelm children. But you do not need to do that in the first talk. And if they ask questions, decide how much they can handle, use white lies, and block off the rest - as you regularily do as parents. Just as you don't with other aspects of life. Or are you explaining all the wars in this game with all the implications? Yes, the world and life will be simplified for children, less and less so as they grow older.
But don't underestimate children. They can understand the simple basic fact that sometimes men like men. Just like daddy likes mommy. And yes, they can also understand that people sometimes are different in some things.
It's actually quite easy to explain to children that not all families are the same, if you try explaining it without disapproval.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
guys.
How about that mission?