I'll be blunt, but sexual preferences should be kept out of the game.
What people do in RP or in their fleet is their choice, but things like this bit of trash (not because of a dislike towards LGBT but because of its place in the game) should be kept out of general content of the game.
This game is supposed to be for all ages and anything sexual should be not have made it into the game.
I played through the new FE to see what all the hulla baloo was all about and was quite frankly disgusted and saddened.
LGBT themes or there of have no place in games or anywhere else to be honest.
I fully expect to be belittled by so called tolerants, but it has to be said.
This was a bad move on the part of the writers and devs and they should be ashamed.
As I have said in a direct e-mail to the company, I will not spend a dime on this game over this nor will I ever support them or PWE unless they re-verse this move and leave such things out moving forward.
I don't recall the other times this theme has showed up in the other parts of the game to be honest, but the point still stands.
This is a game all ages play, shame......
Edit..........
To clarify theme... It soley is just for general speaking terms, don't take it too literal.
It's simply saying cases where the writers felt it necessary to include, mention, and etc.
An encompassing term to mean all the mentioned above examples.
I should of gotten that written from the get go, but what can ya do.
The overall point still stands as I have said in the above original statement.
I know that some might be in the minority view but why the innuendo within a virtual MMO? If I watch TV and there's something questionable I can always change the channel. What would you want some of us to do here? swallow it and pretend it's innocent innuendo...come on. This should not have ANY place in an MMO or at least put some ADULT references/disclaimer to it.
After all.. is this Second Life or Tera?
For one thing they won't let players wear bikinis/exotic outfits outside RISA...due to the morality policing. However, it is OK with these innuendos to play the diversity card. You can't have it both ways and still be politically correct.
Enough is enough and respectfully agree with Questerius on this one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there is some kind of representation of that, but not at the start of the mission. Maybe at the end, you beam back on board the Klingon ship and can explore all that stuff then when things have cooled off. And you can also question some of the other members of the House, so it blends in more of a 'Get to know these people' rather than "HEY LOOK! WE'RE PROGRESSIVE!"
EXACTLY!!! Homosexuality (or non-heterosexuality to be more accurate) is a very passionate topic and I can respect the writer wanting to address that topic.
But... they way it was done was just so bad. The overall storytelling has been pretty weak but this really makes me want to just stick to the queues or skip all the dialog, and the main reason I play this game is for the story!
Those characters had no meaning, I wasn't invested in them, they were supposed to be an elite group of covert Klingon operatives. Ignoring their orientation, how did that brief exchange where we learned of their relationship status have any impact on the plot of the story? It was completely extraneous to the story and there for... what? To cause drama with the players? Get people talking about homosexuality? Make me somehow become emotionally invested in them because they are TRIBBLE? And really, "covert" Klingons? That's just weird.. Klingons are anything but subtle and the weak justification for it didn't fly with me. This totally should have been a Romulan-centric mission.
Personally... I found the whole "grumpy TRIBBLE" character to be infuriatingly offensive. I'm sorry but the stereotype that TRIBBLE couples are comprised of one woman and one angry man-hating woman who wishes she was a man is worse than the opinions that "homosexuality is a sin". UGH!! I have no problem respecting a person's beliefs even when I disagree but I can't respect trying to perpetuate stereotypes.
On top of that, there's no way that Klingon Captain would not have executed that officer immediately for being rude and disrespectful to my character, who in his eyes was a decorated, honorable war hero that completely out ranked her. And really... what woman wants to be with someone who is that overbearing, and a Klingon woman no less! I'm guessing she certainly did not NEED that overbearing, i mean "over protective" grumpy woman saving her from some questions related to her area of expertise.
Please... focus more on character development... focus more on plots that don't make make our characters and NPC leaders appear to be incompetent losers... I don't know but above all please don't try to tackle any more "hot button" issues through story telling unless it somehow furthers the plot of the story. It's as great a fail as not blowing up the station, leaving the friggin Sword of Kahless with the Iconians and simply standing by watching Kahless get killed...
I havent read the whole thread (sorry for that), but i'm a bit surprised that the "same sex" couple is such a big deal for some people.
Star Trek always was about tangenting cultural issues (well at least a bit.), so i don't quite understand. What's the big deal about it?
People should expect things like that from Star Trek.
Sure some people just want to see war, killing, shooting and destroying worlds, but a same sex couple is what bothers them... :rolleyes:
I don't want to go into details, but Star Trek never was all about Starships fighting or fighting wars, it was a mirror to OUR society first and foremost.
Frankly, i'm really disappointed a bit by some reactions, and even more disappointed that this spirit has been forgotten by some "fans".
Because if there's anything to learn from Star Trek, then it is how to live with each other in peace without choking each others throat.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
the TRIBBLE thing went completely unnoticed by myself. maybe because, as an australian, 'mate' registers differently, or maybe i am just thick, or maybe i am more enlightened than i realise.
as a proud warrior of the kdf i didnt understand why it was assumed i had no cloaking ability of my own, or needed help to understand units measure.
as a dahar master i dont understand why i was so demure when confronted by an abrasive underling that actually called me a petaq!
and considering i literally went to hell and back for a shard of kahless, i find it pretty shocking that i so easily left the actual sword of kahless behind and beamed up like a coward.
today is a good day to- zomg hurry and beam me up!
geko was really talking up how this mission would be told from the kdf perspective, but (unsurprisingly) it felt very fedcentric. how is that even possible? cyrptic seem to do it pretty predictably.
HA, I thought the petaq comment was just because I was Fed. I'll have to replay as KDF.
Excuse me but am I playing the same episode as some people?
I get to interact with a grumpy, over-protective lady who probably doesn't like me because I'm in Starfleet and I want to change mission parameters that could endanger the whole team even more, with me just meeting them for the first time and already slightly bossing them around. And this lady just happens to be in a relationship with another lady.
But according to others, the lady they saw is like an offensive homosexual stereotype who rubs her sexuality all over the place and the reason she's hostile is because of that.
What am I missing?
I know that some might be in the minority view but why the innuendo within a virtual MMO? If I watch TV and there's something questionable I can always change the channel. What would you want some of us to do here? swallow it and pretend it's innocent innuendo...come on. This should not have ANY place in an MMO or at least put some ADULT references/disclaimer to it.
How can portraying a couple who happens to be TRIBBLE even be considered an innuendo? That's not what an innuendo even is!
Personally... I found the whole "grumpy TRIBBLE" character to be infuriatingly offensive. I'm sorry but the stereotype that TRIBBLE couples are comprised of one woman and one angry man-hating woman who wishes she was a man is worse than the opinions that "homosexuality is a sin". UGH!! I have no problem respecting a person's beliefs even when I disagree but I can't respect trying to perpetuate stereotypes.
To that i have to agree, it was a bit too much of a stereotype.
On top of that, there's no way that Klingon Captain would not have executed that officer immediately for being rude and disrespectful to my character, who in his eyes was a decorated, honorable war hero that completely out ranked her.
Yeah i found her bahavior disrespectful too.
Maybe i have misread but did she say "petaQ" at the end?
Even the most peaceful Starfleet officer HAD to react, in order not to look like a fool to anyone else in the room!
It's the same thing as if the positions where reversed and a Starfleet officer would say "moron" to Kahless and no one would react...
Please... focus more on character development... focus more on plots that don't make make our characters and NPC leaders appear to be incompetent losers... I don't know but above all please don't try to tackle any more "hot button" issues through story telling unless it somehow furthers the plot of the story. It's as great a fail as not blowing up the station, leaving the friggin Sword of Kahless with the Iconians and simply standing by watching Kahless get killed...
agreed the mission was a utter failure.
What bothers me the most, is that we didn't get ANY choice whatsoever to influence the missions outcome.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
You took a great thread and turned it into a warring political discussion. I'm perfectly happy for political discussions, but not ones with the volatility and disrespect I'm seeing. Hell, I'm even going through posts about TRIBBLE Germany! And for what? A difference for opinion displayed in what is very, very unfortunately a horrendous way (on both accounts even).
There is political necessity and the values that we find in our civil liberties. When we defend them, we are defending ourselves. But too often do we flat out go on the attack. Don't like the fact that you thought the TRIBBLE couple was placed in awkwardly to you? Say that. Are you happy that you saw a progressive inclusion of marganilized groups? Say that!
But don't flame each other for it. If you're unhappy with someone or something and cannot constructively express it, then take some to cool down before you post. This applies to both sides of the parties.
Now listen up.
If you are unhappy about the lesbians then you should explain why in a constructive manner. Be civil and be respectful. It's in the ToS. It's really not hard to do. If you find people are getting upset and arguing with you a lot, re-examine your posts.
If you are unhappy about others being unhappy about the lesbians, you can disagree but be civil and respectful. I'm bisexual myself, and even I'm appalled at the manner people here are treating those who disagree with the episode and/or LGBT folks. Do you think calling someone a bigot is going to suddenly make them decide :
"You know what? I'm going to rethink my stance on this considering you just publically called me that!"
God no! It furthers a divide and shuts down the conversation by creating an even greater rift between you. It awards you no points other than venting at their expense. It doesn't help make progressive momentum. It creates an 'Us' vs 'Them'. The only way to bridge that divide is with some god damn compassion.
Seriously. I'm going to unleash the hammer if this doesn't knock off. Please. Impress me and show civility and kindness to each other.
from my end i got no problem with people who have a different sexual oreintation, ethnic issues or anything like that. people are allowed to be left alone to follow their own path. people are allowed to follow their own heart for love and the way i always see it; love is where you find it. however it is not my business to know what others choose, that is their choice and conseqnetly their responsibility how ever it goes. none the less i still wish them luck for their future.
for me i see scotland locked into the uk now, i am english, born and raised and i want to see scotland free. in the usa, the black rights movement gained huge strides for freedom for all black people, now they have it for almost the most part, and i am fully supportive of this process to see these ethnic issues solved and for there to be true equality. ireland has passed some political bill recently allowing TRIBBLE marriages and i welcome it, because people have that right to be happy and free to choose. women in the workplace, in motorsports and other things of high visibility, i have no problem with women becoming the big star that is usually male dominated either.
unfortunately trendy there are some issues that will become warzones from it and it will bring in religious discussions on the subject of bisexual discussions. that is where this will likely go next as its a fertile ground for the next point.
the world is not fully embraced the idea of bisexual outings, thats just a fact at this point regardless and on one hand this thread should be kept open regardless because star trek is always been about tough social and political changes, some of which has transformed the society of this this world and if cryptic can change society with a simple game and two characters.. wow, that would be something.
but on the other end it will probably get a lot worse.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Over all I liked the mission, though I found it funny when "he" said "An honorable warrior is always victorious" after we interfered with a 1 on 1 fight, doesn't seem very honorable to me :P
Sad that he's dead though. Also not sure why but I found the idea of a TRIBBLE Klingon couple amusing :P
I also find it funny how they tell us to stay tuned until next week to find out what the trait is going to be when anyone with a brain can look at this weeks and the name of next weeks and figure out what it does.
If you read the Romulan War novels (can't remember which one) you will find that this is not the first time that a Klingon same sex couple was mentioned. The infamous Admiral Krell was mated to his male doctor.
There's one really positive thing about that episode i want to mention.
Ramir is much less of an dislikeable A$$ as Franklin Drake.
In fact i found Ramir one of the more positve displayed Klingons in STO. He was professional and not a loudmouthed bragger like 95% of Klingons we encounter. (especially Capt. Koren :mad: :mad: :mad:) @devs: Please give us more characters like him!
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Excuse me but am I playing the same episode as some people?
I get to interact with a grumpy, over-protective lady who probably doesn't like me because I'm in Starfleet and I want to change mission parameters that could endanger the whole team even more, with me just meeting them for the first time and already slightly bossing them around. And this lady just happens to be in a relationship with another lady.
But according to others, the lady they saw is like an offensive homosexual stereotype who rubs her sexuality all over the place and the reason she's hostile is because of that.
What am I missing?
How can portraying a couple who happens to be TRIBBLE even be considered an innuendo? That's not what an innuendo even is!
what she didn't get is that by changing the mission parameters to reduce the chance of a cataclysmic reaction to zero the chance of her mate making it out alive and not be vaporized by omega exploding isn't exactly "endangering" her but rather improving her safety even if they get caught and have to fight their way out at least they have a CHANCE rather them FWOMP *gone*
ktamradio If you are looking for some nice music while playing clicky clicky click!
To that i have to agree, it was a bit too much of a stereotype.
I agree, a I have somewhere earlier in the thread. I don't know why so many people think there has to be a "dom" and a "sub" in a relationship. However:
Yeah i found her bahavior disrespectful too.
Maybe i have misread but did she say "petaQ" at the end?
Even the most peaceful Starfleet officer HAD to react, in order not to look like a fool to anyone else in the room!
It's the same thing as if the positions where reversed and a Starfleet officer would say "moron" to Kahless and no one would react...
Does this make sense?
I liked that bit. It was clear that she got upset because she saw her wife in danger and she is a Klingon with an attitude, after all. Standing inf or her wife in that way that she goes so far as openly disagreeing and even willing to pick a fight with a superior officer did, in fact, deeply impress my Klingon captain. That takes courage. And that is something a Klingon can respect just as well. It's not that she called you a petaQ in front of your assembled crew, it was amongst the Pegh crew which are warriors but seem to operate under a loose protocol. My Klingon at least would have given her a smirk and a nod - encouraging her to not do it again, but respecting her attitude in the given situation. He's not an emotionless robot wanting to kill because someone "insults his honor".
agreed the mission was a utter failure.
What bothers me the most, is that we didn't get ANY choice whatsoever to influence the missions outcome.
Here, however, I agree again. I just don't undertand what the point of the mission was, why Khaless had to be there - why why why? There are so many huge holes in that plot...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Fun fact: B'rel (or whatever her name is) has been on Ganalda Station for years and in one of her dialogues says something to the effect of "You sound just like my mate; she's always worrying about me..."
This isn't "shoving it in." It's been part of the character for five years.
that's different situation though, isn't it? that was on a space station, doing dull, menial tasks where some chatting and fraternizing may happen out of boredom.
a military briefing is a professional, matter-of-fact meeting where only important info related to the mission's goal is discussed, and people don't normally behave like jealous adolescent teenagers during those just because someone talked to another person.
there's time for that after the mission success/failure and after debriefing, possibly before a final beam out, when there's no more urgency.
Now clowns, that's another story. They scare the crap out of me.
We fight them too. Entire armies spilling out of Volkswagens.
We do our best to fight them off, but they keep sending them in.
I'm going to say that I am a little disappointed by the House Pegh storyline. I've only played it part way through so far, so I can't comment on everything. I may have more comments later.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!
What should have been a moving story about the sacrifice one man makes to stand against evil and save others was turned into a politically correct/incorrect sideshow. I do not support that or agree with it.
I mean, you have freaking Kahless himself being killed by the Iconians and the Sword of Kahless lost in an Iconian base. It's a tragedy! Very dramatic storytelling! But it ends up being about a TRIBBLE couple in the forums.
I can admire devotion and affection for another person, regardless of gender. It doesn't have to be about sex. It didn't have to be about sex here, and would have played just as well without using the word 'mate'. It's a word with a very specific meaning in a specific biological context.
I feel that in their attempt to be politically correct, Cryptic not only invited controversy they also distracted and detracted from the story they were trying to tell. The death of Kahless at the hands of the Iconians.
I feel they also showed a lack of respect for the fact that the game is played by children as well as adults (rated T!) and this was an inappropriate subject to casually toss in.
I will say that it was at least not extremely overt and many children will miss it (as some of the adults did). But I feel parents have the right to be aware when things like this are brought up in a game context and not be blindsided by them. I am previewing the episode and have a chance to be a responsible parent to my teenage sons who play STO and have a discussion about it. If Cryptic wants to set this as a precedent and abuse my trust in their discretion, then I either need to preview every single episode before my sons get a chance to play it or I need to prevent them from playing at all. Either way, Cryptic, do you really want people preventing their kids from logging in at convenient times?
There was one other thing that bothered me about the story and it had nothing to do with the subject of mates. The fact that a character gets away with calling a Dahar Master a petaQ and I don't get to knock them on their butts or threaten to kill them for it like a good Klingon would have done, that was very unsatisfying.
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
There's one really positive thing about that episode i want to mention.
Ramir is much less of an dislikeable A$$ as Franklin Drake.
In fact i found Ramir one of the more positve displayed Klingons in STO. He was professional and not a loudmouthed bragger like 95% of Klingons we encounter. (especially Capt. Koren :mad: :mad: :mad:) @devs: Please give us more characters like him!
Hey, I liked Drake. He's an TRIBBLE, yes but I like him. Did like Ramir as well.
what she didn't get is that by changing the mission parameters to reduce the chance of a cataclysmic reaction to zero the chance of her mate making it out alive and not be vaporized by omega exploding isn't exactly "endangering" her but rather improving her safety even if they get caught and have to fight their way out at least they have a CHANCE rather them FWOMP *gone*
Especially since how quickly Ramir NOPE'd us the hell outta here.
This should not have ANY place in an MMO or at least put some ADULT references/disclaimer to it.
ESRB: Content Descriptors: Fantasy Violence, Mild Suggestive Themes
Ignoring that, a game where there's constant violence up to and including completely disintegrating people and killing up to thousands of people every time you blow up a space ship is fine and dandy but acknowledging that two people are a couple is not?
Now I know some of you are thinking, "But...but...the couple's the same sex!"
Ignoring that, a game where there's constant violence up to and including completely disintegrating people and killing up to thousands of people every time you blow up a space ship is fine and dandy but acknowledging that two people are a couple is not?
Now I know some of you are thinking, "But...but...the couple's the same sex!"
My rebuttal, "So?"
Funny that. Hack up thousands of people with a sword, vaporize thousands more, condemn tens of thousands to horrific death by asphyxiation? Including at points literally sucking people out an airlock?
Fine for the kids!
But two alien ladies are mentioned once to be a couple and nothing is really made of it. It's just part of their character. But then it's "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
I feel that in their attempt to be politically correct, Cryptic not only invited controversy they also distracted and detracted from the story they were trying to tell. The death of Kahless at the hands of the Iconians.
I feel they also showed a lack of respect for the fact that the game is played by children as well as adults (rated T!) and this was an inappropriate subject to casually toss in.
I will say that it was at least not extremely overt and many children will miss it (as some of the adults did). But I feel parents have the right to be aware when things like this are brought up in a game context and not be blindsided by them. I am previewing the episode and have a chance to be a responsible parent to my teenage sons who play STO and have a discussion about it. If Cryptic wants to set this as a precedent and abuse my trust in their discretion, then I either need to preview every single episode before my sons get a chance to play it or I need to prevent them from playing at all. Either way, Cryptic, do you really want people preventing their kids from logging in at convenient times?
So, someone being electrocuted, losing an arm while screaming in agony, having this butchered remaining of arm shown, having someone stabbed from behind and gruesomely disintegrated, dramatically dropping a precious artefact as he dies, etc... is OK to show to children...
But... a TRIBBLE couple who doesn't partake in any sexual innuendos or more, merely having one being grumpy is inappropriate for them?
Hey, I liked Drake. He's an TRIBBLE, yes but I like him. Did like Ramir as well.
Especially since how quickly Ramir NOPE'd us the hell outta here.
I seriously can't get over that, it's like the person that wrote her lines didn't think about the rammifications at all. I get that she's no engineer and doesn't know much about theoretical physics about transdimensional particles like omega originaly was before it was first discovered but seriously? a military officer like her should at least understand the basic concepts of "being found and having to fight versus instant death" :T instead of insulting you for making that decision.
ktamradio If you are looking for some nice music while playing clicky clicky click!
If you are unhappy about others being unhappy about the lesbians, you can disagree but be civil and respectful.
Please do not interpret the following as an attempt to disagree with a moderation decision. Your warnings and appeals to the ToS are not in question here, and I am not defending the flaming or outright Godwinning taking place in this thread. I would like to address the question of what is an appropriate response to bigotry.
There are two ways to deal with bigots, and which way is appropriate depends on whether or not they are reachable.
The first, most ideal way is to educate them. And for many, simple arguments based on appeals to decency and common ground will work. Often they just need to have the impact of their actions brought home in a personal way--they can't or won't see the problem until it affects them or their immediate family, which is why you see so many conservative politicians or public figures have a sudden change of heart when an issue affects their family.
But it is a fact that there are also many who cannot be reached. Regardless of how they say they feel about homosexuality, their actual behavior is informed by a deeply-entrenched animus that they may or may not admit exists. They do not accept that there is any problem with their behavior, and are not interested in accepting new information or evolving their attitudes on this subject.
This second sort can usually be identified pretty quickly by their sneering contempt towards "equality" or "social justice". People like this aren't ignorant of the fact that they're being offensive. They're proud of it, and view their resistance to civil rights as a brave stand against oppression that is somehow not bigotry because it involves TRIBBLE people and because reasons.
These people can and should be shamed. Not for all eternity; I'm not talking about making them wear a scarlet letter or any inane nonsense like that. But in direct response to specific behaviors. When they unapologetically behave in an offensive and bigoted way, the appropriate response--the only response that has ever worked for dealing with the unreachable holdouts of bigotry, in the long term--is social opprobrium.
In other words, the unified disapproval of society.
The purpose of this kind of response is not to educate--attempting to do so is a waste of everyone's time; they are not going to change their beliefs. The purpose is to reduce the bigot's overall harm to society by conditioning them to expect hostility and strong pushback whenever they behave offensively towards others and ought to know better. They need to be made to understand that actions have consequences, and that while they are free to believe whatever they like, they will be isolated and shunned if they cannot learn to refrain from behaving offensively in public.
That disapproval can be civil, in the sense that it need not include gratuitous insults. But by definition it is direct and devoid of respect, which can be misinterpreted as uncivil.
Fleet Admiral L'Yern - Screenshot and doffing addict
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
Especially since how quickly Ramir NOPE'd us the hell outta here.
I seriously can't get over that, it's like the person that wrote her lines didn't think about the rammifications at all. I get that she's no engineer and doesn't know much about theoretical physics about transdimensional particles like omega originaly was before it was first discovered but seriously? a military officer like her should at least understand the basic concepts of "being found and having to fight versus instant death" :T instead of insulting you for making that decision.
Actually it makes sense for her to think that way. She understand combat and knows that the longer the team is in the base, the combat-related risks go up. By that time she had already thought it over and decided that the overall risk was acceptable and planned for it only for your character to come in and decide to change the numbers. Being overprotective couple with it being a last-minute change, it may have increased her views of the personal casualty risk to become significantly higher than the 7% risk the particles offered.
These people can and should be shamed. Not for all eternity; I'm not talking about making them wear a scarlet letter or any inane nonsense like that. But in direct response to specific behaviors.
last i checked, shaming is against the tos in here. i suggest you don't encourage people to break these rules and risk getting banned.
your entire post reads as toxic, inflamatory flame bait, riling people up to continue being bigots to each other, no matter if they're progressives or conservatives.
Now clowns, that's another story. They scare the crap out of me.
We fight them too. Entire armies spilling out of Volkswagens.
We do our best to fight them off, but they keep sending them in.
I feel that in their attempt to be politically correct, Cryptic not only invited controversy they also distracted and detracted from the story they were trying to tell. The death of Kahless at the hands of the Iconians.
I personally feel the death of Khaless was pointless and clunkily written. The fact that the discussion completely ignores this plot point seem to proof I'm not alone with that notion. If anybody feels "distracted" by the TRIBBLE Klingons it's their personal problem - what's distracting in case of this episode is the overall writing.
I feel they also showed a lack of respect for the fact that the game is played by children as well as adults (rated T!) and this was an inappropriate subject to casually toss in.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But how is that scene "inappropriate for children" in a game which consists, up to that point, 98% of killing?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Ignoring that, a game where there's constant violence up to and including completely disintegrating people and killing up to thousands of people every time you blow up a space ship is fine and dandy but acknowledging that two people are a couple is not?
Yes. People, especially children, deal with violent themes differently from how they deal with sexual ones. It doesn't matter if that's cultural or biological or if you think it's fair. It's just true.
The fact that this discussion even exists is sufficient to prove the material is inappropriate for this venue. It's a mature theme that doesn't belong in material marketed for children. Again, it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or the way things should be; it's just true. We're not there yet.
@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.
your entire post reads as toxic, inflamatory flame bait, riling people up to continue being bigots to each other, no matter if they're progressives or conservatives.
If that is your interpretation, I can only suggest that you read it more carefully and refrain from manufacturing an intent or meaning that does not exist in what I wrote. I think there is value in examining the appropriate response to unapologetic bigotry.
Fleet Admiral L'Yern - Screenshot and doffing addict
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
It was a mistake to go along with the "shaming" language. It was lazy on my part to allow it and it really has nothing to do with what is going on. But a good semantic victory for some.
I recall a scene in Philadelphia where Tom Hanks character was considering coming out to his bosses when he overhears them telling a TRIBBLE joke in the locker room. To the men making this joke it is nothing, but to Hanks it was devastating and told him all he needed to know.
So when Cryptic puts this scenario in the game. How can they not foresee someone coming in with cries of deviancy, think of the children, etc etc etc. Now, to the majority these words are nothing. But to those who have lost everything in life because of them. Well, telling them to be happy with hearing it here in the forum - well it doesn't sit well with me. No. Not one bit.
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."
I feel they also showed a lack of respect for the fact that the game is played by children as well as adults (rated T!) and this was an inappropriate subject to casually toss in.
i would agree wholeheartedly but then i would be something of a hypocrite for failing to point out;
1. the lockbox system, that preys kids primarily who do not understand the risks of paying money into these things, yes there is the closed loop way of getting the end product but kids dont understand what money is and what patience and planning is about at their age.. and yet these are still common practice.
2. the risa event is a big one because of the amount of exposure of a virtual body on display its almost adult rated, almost pornographic. and then you got the orion females as well in their metal bikini. again kids play this despite the rating.
these are not the only issues either as examples, there are more and if i agreed to what you are getting at i would be ignoring all that. there are a lot of inappropriate topics and things thrown into this game that goes beyond the rating that is inappropriate.
but from the way i see it, if you expose children to certain inappropriate topics instead of hiding it and having to form their own opinions, good, bad or indifferent. you could help them understand as they grow up instead by showing them what is out there before they can fully form that opinion. i cant state if its a good choice or not, i dont have kids of my own but thats another example of a flawed opinion.
i dont agree with the hand holding culture or it reaching the game but yet even i disagree with a few things, one of them primary above others is the generalized casual greed the system is based on in value for virtual goods, but thats a dead issue so i dont bother with it and that includes the above, the lockbox system. i think people and kids should be told the dangers of using money on the game and that the in game system can also give you what you want without needing to spend anything just as well, it should be clearly defined as well as tips that could help you decide for or against spending money, while it could be seen as exposing kids to new ideas, however it could also be seen as a way of pad-walling the walls to keep things too safe and restricted.
so then we come back to the point of inappropriate, i would like to agree but i can not.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Yes. People, especially children, deal with violent themes differently from how they deal with sexual ones. It doesn't matter if that's cultural or biological or if you think it's fair. It's just true.
The fact that this discussion even exists is sufficient to prove the material is inappropriate for this venue. It's a mature theme that doesn't belong in material marketed for children. Again, it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or the way things should be; it's just true. We're not there yet.
It shouldn't be a mature theme. It's a person stating she loves another person. Gender is completely irrelevant there and there was no mention of them rutting the sheets.
You would need to ban nearly every cartoon out there if it's not allowed to show couples.
-
Join Starfleet,
Boldly go where no man has gone before,
Meet interesting new species, and Kill them!
(...)
So when Cryptic puts this scenario in the game. How can they not foresee someone coming in with cries of deviancy, think of the children, etc etc etc. Now, to the majority these words are nothing. But to those who have lost everything in life because of them. Well, telling them to be happy with hearing it here in the forum - well it doesn't sit well with me. No. Not one bit.
I am just... devestated, reading the reactions to that episode, considering we are still in a forum largely dedicated to Star Trek. And that, well... *points at signature*
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
There are two ways to deal with bigots, and which way is appropriate depends on whether or not they are reachable.
Who is the bigot here? Some for just questioning some intents of the DEVs in writing this episode or those who are trying to flame/troll? This is still very civil discussion until you interject the "bigot" comment just because some dare to question something that is out of place in an MMO.
There is still freedom of speech in some countries as long as its civil. Respect others as you like to be respected.
Yes. People, especially children, deal with violent themes differently from how they deal with sexual ones. It doesn't matter if that's cultural or biological or if you think it's fair. It's just true.
The fact that this discussion even exists is sufficient to prove the material is inappropriate for this venue. It's a mature theme that doesn't belong in material marketed for children. Again, it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or the way things should be; it's just true. We're not there yet.
I won't argue the topic of who's ready and who's not, but I still fail to see how this is a mature theme. They said they were a TRIBBLE couple, they did NOT give an in depth explanation of what happens in their quarters at night.
It was no different than a heterosexual woman referring to a man as their husband, and should not have set off the explosive reaction it has.
Comments
I know that some might be in the minority view but why the innuendo within a virtual MMO? If I watch TV and there's something questionable I can always change the channel. What would you want some of us to do here? swallow it and pretend it's innocent innuendo...come on. This should not have ANY place in an MMO or at least put some ADULT references/disclaimer to it.
After all.. is this Second Life or Tera?
For one thing they won't let players wear bikinis/exotic outfits outside RISA...due to the morality policing. However, it is OK with these innuendos to play the diversity card. You can't have it both ways and still be politically correct.
Enough is enough and respectfully agree with Questerius on this one.
EXACTLY!!! Homosexuality (or non-heterosexuality to be more accurate) is a very passionate topic and I can respect the writer wanting to address that topic.
But... they way it was done was just so bad. The overall storytelling has been pretty weak but this really makes me want to just stick to the queues or skip all the dialog, and the main reason I play this game is for the story!
Those characters had no meaning, I wasn't invested in them, they were supposed to be an elite group of covert Klingon operatives. Ignoring their orientation, how did that brief exchange where we learned of their relationship status have any impact on the plot of the story? It was completely extraneous to the story and there for... what? To cause drama with the players? Get people talking about homosexuality? Make me somehow become emotionally invested in them because they are TRIBBLE? And really, "covert" Klingons? That's just weird.. Klingons are anything but subtle and the weak justification for it didn't fly with me. This totally should have been a Romulan-centric mission.
Personally... I found the whole "grumpy TRIBBLE" character to be infuriatingly offensive. I'm sorry but the stereotype that TRIBBLE couples are comprised of one woman and one angry man-hating woman who wishes she was a man is worse than the opinions that "homosexuality is a sin". UGH!! I have no problem respecting a person's beliefs even when I disagree but I can't respect trying to perpetuate stereotypes.
On top of that, there's no way that Klingon Captain would not have executed that officer immediately for being rude and disrespectful to my character, who in his eyes was a decorated, honorable war hero that completely out ranked her. And really... what woman wants to be with someone who is that overbearing, and a Klingon woman no less! I'm guessing she certainly did not NEED that overbearing, i mean "over protective" grumpy woman saving her from some questions related to her area of expertise.
Please... focus more on character development... focus more on plots that don't make make our characters and NPC leaders appear to be incompetent losers... I don't know but above all please don't try to tackle any more "hot button" issues through story telling unless it somehow furthers the plot of the story. It's as great a fail as not blowing up the station, leaving the friggin Sword of Kahless with the Iconians and simply standing by watching Kahless get killed...
Captain Ariel Trueheart Department of Temporal Investigations
U.S.S. Valkyrie - NCC 991701
=/\= ================================= =/\=
Star Trek always was about tangenting cultural issues (well at least a bit.), so i don't quite understand. What's the big deal about it?
People should expect things like that from Star Trek.
Sure some people just want to see war, killing, shooting and destroying worlds, but a same sex couple is what bothers them... :rolleyes:
I don't want to go into details, but Star Trek never was all about Starships fighting or fighting wars, it was a mirror to OUR society first and foremost.
Frankly, i'm really disappointed a bit by some reactions, and even more disappointed that this spirit has been forgotten by some "fans".
Because if there's anything to learn from Star Trek, then it is how to live with each other in peace without choking each others throat.
LLAP @all
HA, I thought the petaq comment was just because I was Fed. I'll have to replay as KDF.
I get to interact with a grumpy, over-protective lady who probably doesn't like me because I'm in Starfleet and I want to change mission parameters that could endanger the whole team even more, with me just meeting them for the first time and already slightly bossing them around. And this lady just happens to be in a relationship with another lady.
But according to others, the lady they saw is like an offensive homosexual stereotype who rubs her sexuality all over the place and the reason she's hostile is because of that.
What am I missing?
How can portraying a couple who happens to be TRIBBLE even be considered an innuendo? That's not what an innuendo even is!
Yeah i found her bahavior disrespectful too.
Maybe i have misread but did she say "petaQ" at the end?
Even the most peaceful Starfleet officer HAD to react, in order not to look like a fool to anyone else in the room!
It's the same thing as if the positions where reversed and a Starfleet officer would say "moron" to Kahless and no one would react...
Does this make sense?
agreed the mission was a utter failure.
What bothers me the most, is that we didn't get ANY choice whatsoever to influence the missions outcome.
from my end i got no problem with people who have a different sexual oreintation, ethnic issues or anything like that. people are allowed to be left alone to follow their own path. people are allowed to follow their own heart for love and the way i always see it; love is where you find it. however it is not my business to know what others choose, that is their choice and conseqnetly their responsibility how ever it goes. none the less i still wish them luck for their future.
for me i see scotland locked into the uk now, i am english, born and raised and i want to see scotland free. in the usa, the black rights movement gained huge strides for freedom for all black people, now they have it for almost the most part, and i am fully supportive of this process to see these ethnic issues solved and for there to be true equality. ireland has passed some political bill recently allowing TRIBBLE marriages and i welcome it, because people have that right to be happy and free to choose. women in the workplace, in motorsports and other things of high visibility, i have no problem with women becoming the big star that is usually male dominated either.
unfortunately trendy there are some issues that will become warzones from it and it will bring in religious discussions on the subject of bisexual discussions. that is where this will likely go next as its a fertile ground for the next point.
the world is not fully embraced the idea of bisexual outings, thats just a fact at this point regardless and on one hand this thread should be kept open regardless because star trek is always been about tough social and political changes, some of which has transformed the society of this this world and if cryptic can change society with a simple game and two characters.. wow, that would be something.
but on the other end it will probably get a lot worse.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
If you read the Romulan War novels (can't remember which one) you will find that this is not the first time that a Klingon same sex couple was mentioned. The infamous Admiral Krell was mated to his male doctor.
Ramir is much less of an dislikeable A$$ as Franklin Drake.
In fact i found Ramir one of the more positve displayed Klingons in STO. He was professional and not a loudmouthed bragger like 95% of Klingons we encounter. (especially Capt. Koren :mad: :mad: :mad:)
@devs: Please give us more characters like him!
what she didn't get is that by changing the mission parameters to reduce the chance of a cataclysmic reaction to zero the chance of her mate making it out alive and not be vaporized by omega exploding isn't exactly "endangering" her but rather improving her safety even if they get caught and have to fight their way out at least they have a CHANCE rather them FWOMP *gone*
I agree, a I have somewhere earlier in the thread. I don't know why so many people think there has to be a "dom" and a "sub" in a relationship. However:
I liked that bit. It was clear that she got upset because she saw her wife in danger and she is a Klingon with an attitude, after all. Standing inf or her wife in that way that she goes so far as openly disagreeing and even willing to pick a fight with a superior officer did, in fact, deeply impress my Klingon captain. That takes courage. And that is something a Klingon can respect just as well. It's not that she called you a petaQ in front of your assembled crew, it was amongst the Pegh crew which are warriors but seem to operate under a loose protocol. My Klingon at least would have given her a smirk and a nod - encouraging her to not do it again, but respecting her attitude in the given situation. He's not an emotionless robot wanting to kill because someone "insults his honor".
Here, however, I agree again. I just don't undertand what the point of the mission was, why Khaless had to be there - why why why? There are so many huge holes in that plot...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
a military briefing is a professional, matter-of-fact meeting where only important info related to the mission's goal is discussed, and people don't normally behave like jealous adolescent teenagers during those just because someone talked to another person.
there's time for that after the mission success/failure and after debriefing, possibly before a final beam out, when there's no more urgency.
We fight them too. Entire armies spilling out of Volkswagens.
We do our best to fight them off, but they keep sending them in.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!
What should have been a moving story about the sacrifice one man makes to stand against evil and save others was turned into a politically correct/incorrect sideshow. I do not support that or agree with it.
I mean, you have freaking Kahless himself being killed by the Iconians and the Sword of Kahless lost in an Iconian base. It's a tragedy! Very dramatic storytelling! But it ends up being about a TRIBBLE couple in the forums.
I can admire devotion and affection for another person, regardless of gender. It doesn't have to be about sex. It didn't have to be about sex here, and would have played just as well without using the word 'mate'. It's a word with a very specific meaning in a specific biological context.
I feel that in their attempt to be politically correct, Cryptic not only invited controversy they also distracted and detracted from the story they were trying to tell. The death of Kahless at the hands of the Iconians.
I feel they also showed a lack of respect for the fact that the game is played by children as well as adults (rated T!) and this was an inappropriate subject to casually toss in.
I will say that it was at least not extremely overt and many children will miss it (as some of the adults did). But I feel parents have the right to be aware when things like this are brought up in a game context and not be blindsided by them. I am previewing the episode and have a chance to be a responsible parent to my teenage sons who play STO and have a discussion about it. If Cryptic wants to set this as a precedent and abuse my trust in their discretion, then I either need to preview every single episode before my sons get a chance to play it or I need to prevent them from playing at all. Either way, Cryptic, do you really want people preventing their kids from logging in at convenient times?
There was one other thing that bothered me about the story and it had nothing to do with the subject of mates. The fact that a character gets away with calling a Dahar Master a petaQ and I don't get to knock them on their butts or threaten to kill them for it like a good Klingon would have done, that was very unsatisfying.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
The dude's Kahless, if he wants to charge an Iconian all by his lonesome, well, Qa'pla!
As for the other matter, it's basically a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Don't mention it, and you're ignoring <group> and a bigot. Mention it and it's SJW bait.
Hey, I liked Drake. He's an TRIBBLE, yes but I like him. Did like Ramir as well.
Especially since how quickly Ramir NOPE'd us the hell outta here.
ESRB: Content Descriptors: Fantasy Violence, Mild Suggestive Themes
Ignoring that, a game where there's constant violence up to and including completely disintegrating people and killing up to thousands of people every time you blow up a space ship is fine and dandy but acknowledging that two people are a couple is not?
Now I know some of you are thinking, "But...but...the couple's the same sex!"
My rebuttal, "So?"
Funny that. Hack up thousands of people with a sword, vaporize thousands more, condemn tens of thousands to horrific death by asphyxiation? Including at points literally sucking people out an airlock?
Fine for the kids!
But two alien ladies are mentioned once to be a couple and nothing is really made of it. It's just part of their character. But then it's "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
Seriously? TRIBBLE people exist. Get used to it.
So, someone being electrocuted, losing an arm while screaming in agony, having this butchered remaining of arm shown, having someone stabbed from behind and gruesomely disintegrated, dramatically dropping a precious artefact as he dies, etc... is OK to show to children...
But... a TRIBBLE couple who doesn't partake in any sexual innuendos or more, merely having one being grumpy is inappropriate for them?
I... I don't even...
There are two ways to deal with bigots, and which way is appropriate depends on whether or not they are reachable.
The first, most ideal way is to educate them. And for many, simple arguments based on appeals to decency and common ground will work. Often they just need to have the impact of their actions brought home in a personal way--they can't or won't see the problem until it affects them or their immediate family, which is why you see so many conservative politicians or public figures have a sudden change of heart when an issue affects their family.
But it is a fact that there are also many who cannot be reached. Regardless of how they say they feel about homosexuality, their actual behavior is informed by a deeply-entrenched animus that they may or may not admit exists. They do not accept that there is any problem with their behavior, and are not interested in accepting new information or evolving their attitudes on this subject.
This second sort can usually be identified pretty quickly by their sneering contempt towards "equality" or "social justice". People like this aren't ignorant of the fact that they're being offensive. They're proud of it, and view their resistance to civil rights as a brave stand against oppression that is somehow not bigotry because it involves TRIBBLE people and because reasons.
These people can and should be shamed. Not for all eternity; I'm not talking about making them wear a scarlet letter or any inane nonsense like that. But in direct response to specific behaviors. When they unapologetically behave in an offensive and bigoted way, the appropriate response--the only response that has ever worked for dealing with the unreachable holdouts of bigotry, in the long term--is social opprobrium.
In other words, the unified disapproval of society.
The purpose of this kind of response is not to educate--attempting to do so is a waste of everyone's time; they are not going to change their beliefs. The purpose is to reduce the bigot's overall harm to society by conditioning them to expect hostility and strong pushback whenever they behave offensively towards others and ought to know better. They need to be made to understand that actions have consequences, and that while they are free to believe whatever they like, they will be isolated and shunned if they cannot learn to refrain from behaving offensively in public.
That disapproval can be civil, in the sense that it need not include gratuitous insults. But by definition it is direct and devoid of respect, which can be misinterpreted as uncivil.
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
Actually it makes sense for her to think that way. She understand combat and knows that the longer the team is in the base, the combat-related risks go up. By that time she had already thought it over and decided that the overall risk was acceptable and planned for it only for your character to come in and decide to change the numbers. Being overprotective couple with it being a last-minute change, it may have increased her views of the personal casualty risk to become significantly higher than the 7% risk the particles offered.
your entire post reads as toxic, inflamatory flame bait, riling people up to continue being bigots to each other, no matter if they're progressives or conservatives.
We fight them too. Entire armies spilling out of Volkswagens.
We do our best to fight them off, but they keep sending them in.
I personally feel the death of Khaless was pointless and clunkily written. The fact that the discussion completely ignores this plot point seem to proof I'm not alone with that notion. If anybody feels "distracted" by the TRIBBLE Klingons it's their personal problem - what's distracting in case of this episode is the overall writing.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But how is that scene "inappropriate for children" in a game which consists, up to that point, 98% of killing?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yes. People, especially children, deal with violent themes differently from how they deal with sexual ones. It doesn't matter if that's cultural or biological or if you think it's fair. It's just true.
The fact that this discussion even exists is sufficient to prove the material is inappropriate for this venue. It's a mature theme that doesn't belong in material marketed for children. Again, it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or the way things should be; it's just true. We're not there yet.
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
I recall a scene in Philadelphia where Tom Hanks character was considering coming out to his bosses when he overhears them telling a TRIBBLE joke in the locker room. To the men making this joke it is nothing, but to Hanks it was devastating and told him all he needed to know.
So when Cryptic puts this scenario in the game. How can they not foresee someone coming in with cries of deviancy, think of the children, etc etc etc. Now, to the majority these words are nothing. But to those who have lost everything in life because of them. Well, telling them to be happy with hearing it here in the forum - well it doesn't sit well with me. No. Not one bit.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
i would agree wholeheartedly but then i would be something of a hypocrite for failing to point out;
1. the lockbox system, that preys kids primarily who do not understand the risks of paying money into these things, yes there is the closed loop way of getting the end product but kids dont understand what money is and what patience and planning is about at their age.. and yet these are still common practice.
2. the risa event is a big one because of the amount of exposure of a virtual body on display its almost adult rated, almost pornographic. and then you got the orion females as well in their metal bikini. again kids play this despite the rating.
these are not the only issues either as examples, there are more and if i agreed to what you are getting at i would be ignoring all that. there are a lot of inappropriate topics and things thrown into this game that goes beyond the rating that is inappropriate.
but from the way i see it, if you expose children to certain inappropriate topics instead of hiding it and having to form their own opinions, good, bad or indifferent. you could help them understand as they grow up instead by showing them what is out there before they can fully form that opinion. i cant state if its a good choice or not, i dont have kids of my own but thats another example of a flawed opinion.
i dont agree with the hand holding culture or it reaching the game but yet even i disagree with a few things, one of them primary above others is the generalized casual greed the system is based on in value for virtual goods, but thats a dead issue so i dont bother with it and that includes the above, the lockbox system. i think people and kids should be told the dangers of using money on the game and that the in game system can also give you what you want without needing to spend anything just as well, it should be clearly defined as well as tips that could help you decide for or against spending money, while it could be seen as exposing kids to new ideas, however it could also be seen as a way of pad-walling the walls to keep things too safe and restricted.
so then we come back to the point of inappropriate, i would like to agree but i can not.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
It shouldn't be a mature theme. It's a person stating she loves another person. Gender is completely irrelevant there and there was no mention of them rutting the sheets.
You would need to ban nearly every cartoon out there if it's not allowed to show couples.
Join Starfleet,
Boldly go where no man has gone before,
Meet interesting new species, and Kill them!
I am just... devestated, reading the reactions to that episode, considering we are still in a forum largely dedicated to Star Trek. And that, well... *points at signature*
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Who is the bigot here? Some for just questioning some intents of the DEVs in writing this episode or those who are trying to flame/troll? This is still very civil discussion until you interject the "bigot" comment just because some dare to question something that is out of place in an MMO.
There is still freedom of speech in some countries as long as its civil. Respect others as you like to be respected.
I won't argue the topic of who's ready and who's not, but I still fail to see how this is a mature theme. They said they were a TRIBBLE couple, they did NOT give an in depth explanation of what happens in their quarters at night.
It was no different than a heterosexual woman referring to a man as their husband, and should not have set off the explosive reaction it has.